Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible/Archive

message: Vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moses so as too get Moses into a featured article Java7837 23:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: vote for Moses to become a featured article vote

message: I have noted that this project does not yet engage in assessment. I am a member of WikiProject Religion, which does engage in assessments. I was wondering if this project would have any objections to the Religion project setting up its banner in a way similar to WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Military history, and others, which have the "parent" banner on top with the assessment criteria and a section below indicating which particular projects have specific interest in the article. I could set up the Religion banner in a way to accomplish this. However, given the complexity involved, I would not want to do so and have things changed back later. Please inform me if this arrangement would be to your satisfaction or not, so I can know how to proceed. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: User:MonkeeSage/Bible templates lists an alternate way to make Bible references. Ideally, there would be one template to the most versatile and preferably non-commercial (until someone comes up with something better, its the usyd.edu.au site). The alternate MS-made templates boast some added functionality, but does this start the trend of using a particular commercial source, and more importantly, using different templates that promote particular versions, etc? Raising the issue here rather than del-listing the templates. -Ste|vertigo 23:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible source templates 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion]] 

message: I recently found that our article on Jesus is the first page that appears when anyone does a Google search of the subject. It is currently, regrettably, only at GA status. On that basis, I would request any individuals who might be interested in helping to bring this article up to FA status to indicate their support for the article being chosen as the AID article at Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Jesus. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jesus]] nominated for [[WP:AID|Article Improvement Drive]] 

message: Moreh, Mosaic Covenant, Shemhamphorasch and Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an have been tagged as requiring expert attention. Any such assistance in improving these articles would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles tagged as needing expert attention 

message: An RFC has been filed to determine whether or not the position of the Jesus Seminar should be included in Lazarus and Dives. Your comments would be most welcome. --Joopercoopers 23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lazarus and Dives RFC

message: So, uh.. I went to Catholic school for 8 years, and I have no idea what this page is talking about: Son of Iniquity. It sounds a bit made-up to me, but is there any redeemable material there? --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 07:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: There is currently a discussion about whether or not to rename/move Paul of Tarsus. -- Pastordavid 01:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Your Attention 

message: There is a fierce controversy raging between mostly myself, and about three other editors, at Talk:Book of Daniel over how much representation should be given to the view that it was actually written by the prophet Daniel.  I don't know about other Churches, but my church definitively states it was written by Daniel, (at least in its original form).  The other three editors are basically insisting that this is not a very significant viewpoint, and so the article should side with scholarly theories and conjectures on the authorship, and has no obligation to stay neutral to all viewpoints.  They are at the point now where they are threatening to have me banned from editing the article, because so far I am practically alone in standing in their way of a one-sided hack job. Note that I am not trying to omit a full discussion of their view from the article, but I only think it is fair that they likewise allow some space to other sources on what is canonical even though they may disagree with them. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy on Daniel 

message: This article was a list of three figures from the Jewish Bible when it was put up for deletion. The subject deserves an article, and I'm trying to flesh it out with examples from Christianity (where the concept is obviously important) as well as examples from Islam and other religions. Please help now and we can help a lot of readers with a useful encyclopedia article. As a side benefit, it would be useful to demonstrate (politely) that the subject is serious enough not to deserve the scorn that is part of the deletion discussion now. The discussion is here:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who went to heaven alive
Noroton 18:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Up for deletion: the badly named "[[List of people who went to heaven alive]]"

message: There is a problem with a dispute at Noah's Ark with several editors who want to endorse the POV that the Ark is a "fictional ship" by putting it into a category "fictional ships", I said this is a POV but they are now adding the category "mythological ships" which is also obviously a POV-pushing category, and they say all those who do not agree with them are "insignificant" and so discount all opposition. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the anonymous user who is pushing this topic does seem to be very much out of line, I think that it should be noted that :Category:Mythological ships contains this disclaimer: "Ships that figure in traditional stories or legends. See Category:Mythology for the correct meaning of "mythological" in this context." This seems reasonable to me. The USS Constitution is in there as well. Alekjds talk 00:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not any more.  I notice its getting rv'd out of that article and all the other historical ships Csernica added it to, because people take mythological ships to mean fictional ships.  He's proving my point. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labelling [[Noah's Ark]] as "Mythological" 

message: There are many article that reference a Bible verse or passage.  Is there any on going effort or planned effort to try to search through articles and convert references to links to the passage on Bible Gateway or wikisource?   I think that'd be a good task (probably for a bot). Akubhai 12:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking References 

message: As I am new to this project (and Wikipedia actually) please forgive me if this is a silly question or one that has already been addressed. I was reading over this project's goals and according to #2 we are to unify the presentation of the individual books of the bible. My question is, is there a certain structure that we are suppose to use (and if so is there an example of it already in place)? Thanks. Seraphim84 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unified Presentation? 

message: http://users.pandora.be/kenneshugo/index.html is a website containing translations of representative topics out of the 10 books in Dutch of Prof. Thijs , Engeneering , Belgian University and High School of Hasselt. This books describe the pyramids sacred geometry as full compatible with the laws of our positive sciences.
He gives a mathematical and astronomical explanation of the pyramidal model.
He mainly  decodes the explicit number metaphors in the Bible Ancient and New Testament, reflecting exactly the maths and geometry of the  Great Pyramid model , and also astronomical and astrological realities.
I suggested to put in your linktopics a link to my translations website above for :
sacred geometry (talk page)
pyramid (talk page)
Perhaps Your religion team like to see other references in articles or links in other wikepedia articles?
84.196.90.174 18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. That seems to be a self-published source. It doesn't look too notable either. Perhaps the people in the pseudohistory wikiproject (if there is one) might be interested? --User talk:FDuffy 20:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible-Sacred Geometry-Cheops Pyramid-Ark of Covenant -Astronomy 

message: First, we should have a newsletter. Second, we should put the NIV on here or Wikisource. I'll ask over there. Please respond to this on my talk page. Laleenatalk to me contributions to Wikipedia 12:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change suggestions 

message: There has been a recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psalm 83:18 about what "sections" of the Bible are sufficiently notable in and of themselves to have separate articles. My personal belief is that any major "tale" of the Bible should qualify as its own article, and that the Psalms in particular each probably deserve at least an individual section apiece. I frankly have no clue about how to handle the Proverbs. By "tale" above I am referring to the major coherent stories, such as Joshua at Jericho, Adam and Eve (which might itself get some subarticles), Jesus in the Garden at Gethsemane, and so on. I would welcome any discussion of this matter. Thank you. John Carter 13:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They would all have to conform to Wikipedia standards, most notably in this case having 3rd party reliable sources that point to it's cultural importance. By that I don't mean sermons or teachings based on them, but critical analyses of their specific impact on society. 24.4.253.249 19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question then becomes (1) how to we define their "specific impact on society" and (2) does having a large number of published works, such as sermons or teachings, in and of itself qualify as having a specific impact on society? I hope it is understood that I am not trying to lead the discussion toward a desired conclusion here, but am personally clearly not sure how to define this. I am assuming, however, based on the above, that if there are a number of artistic works (paintings, sculptures, dramas, what have you) relating to a given "story" that it would qualify as significant enough for it's own article, which is a start, but at this point only a start. John Carter 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good questions. Some stories, like the creation myth and the Flood, show their significance in that they are stories that transcend the Biblical accounts and have had many scholarly works written about them. Artistic works are another good indicator and would cover a lot of the Gospel stories. Another good example would be the Good Samaritan, because of the way it has impacted societal expressions of assistance towards strangers (although the article iteself needs to clarify this more). Sodom and Gammorah, obviously, have had an impact on language and attitudes towards gays. Any major archeology expedition could be used to show relevance of stories about specific sites, such as Jericho. And that's just off the top of my head - I'm sure that many other avenues exist to show their notability. 24.4.253.249 19:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So at least a rough beginning standards for qualifying for a separate article would be having a number of works, including artistic and scientific, which would relate to the specific "story", provided that the story significantly deals with that subject. In this case, I think merely mentioning an old known city whose existence has been proven wouldn't be enough. Also, presumably, a lot of the specific stories relative to the Gospels and Acts would qualify, given the plethora of movies, paintings, and whatnot about them. Provided, of course, that they are specifically relevant to the artwork in question. And, regarding the Hebrew Bible, those stories which have either significantly impacted the public consciousness, like Adam and Eve, David and Goliath, etc., would presumably merit articles as well. I'm also assuming that texts which have been subject of heated discussion between various Jewish or Christian groups regarding translation or interpretation might qualify, particularly if they were involved in some "real-world" activity, like maybe wars and the like. In the other cases, and here I'm thinking of things like Proverbs, any further articles beyond the parent one would probably only be created if the existing article gets too large. This is at least a good start for selecting what to create articles on. John Carter 20:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should have separate articles? 

message: Please discuss proposed page move at Talk:Circumcision in the Bible#Proposed move to Circumcision and religion.  --Coppertwig 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move of Circumcision in the Bible to Circumcision and religion 

message: I had an idea of creating 1189 pages of summary/commentary/issues of every chapter of the Bible.  I actually started setting up the framework and got challenged two or three minutes in.  Do you think that this would be a good project?  My vision is for every chapter to be represented eventually.  Say for example you want to know more about the third chapter of Ruth.  That would be a page.  Every page would have verifiable sources.  Would this be a good idea for a project?  If so, what would the index page be?  Would this be a category page?  Fusek71 22:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to oppose it, simply on the basis that the chapter delineations are somewhat arbitrary. We have discussed above creating separate articles for each major "story" within the Bible, regardless of number of chapters, and I think that that approach, which allows for the discussion of the entire "storyline" or subplot, regardless of chapter markers, would probably be the best way to go. John Carter 23:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an ongoing  discussion on whether individual chapters of the bible are in general notable and should have individual WP articles at :Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Corinthians 14 (2nd nomination). DGG (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Currently, I am also opposed to creating 1189 articles just for the sake of having them. As John point out, at times the chapter creation was rather arbitrary, and there may be a more contextual way to break up the biblical books. For the synoptic gospels, there is a lot of repeated content, and I believe it is much better to discuss each story as one, and add what the different gospels say regarding each episode, instead of having possibly 3 different articles on the exact same episode. And on the other hand, we may have a chapter such as Luke 22, that covers multiple episodes, such as Judas' plot, the Last Supper, Arrest of Jesus, Peter's denial, and the Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus. I think what we have now in the "content" outlines in the gospels articles is sufficient. We don't need another article on Luke 22 to summarize the half a dozen spinout articles that already cover that content (not to mention the same episodes are retold in Mark 14, Matthew 26, and partially John 13 and 18). Finally, I do not believe that most of the articles on the other books of the bible are at the point where they are too long and would require spinning out. We should finish the individual book articles before starting individual chapter articles. Perhaps we should focus our energies for the time being in improving (and maybe even reaching FA status) on individual books.-Andrew c [talk] 14:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am opposed to creating the articles just for the sake of them. Although most of the Bible is notable, I do not believe that the chapters are notable as distinct units, particularly since they aren't original. We have articles discussing the subject matter in many biblical chapters, so any article about the chapters themselves would be a fork of these articles. It is also a very bad way to lay out an encyclopedia - articles should be about subjects, not arbitrary divisions of the text. For example, the sermon on the mount covers several chapters, and Christ the Logos covers just a few verses at the beginning of John. The only thing that covers things on chapter-by-chapter principles is a commentary; but this is an encyclopedia - it should be about subjects, topics, etc. Imagine if the Harry Potter articles had been arranged on a Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, page 1, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, page 2, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, page 3 basis. Clinkophonist (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible summary of every chapter 

message: For a good while, User:Rktect has been making significant modifications to various biblical articles — for example, compare his/her changes to Stations list here.  S/he has been blocked four times, twice in the last three months, after long insertions of original research.  Please compare the current version of Elim (Bible) with the way it was before Rktect began editing it in July.  I'd appreciate it if some of you in this wikiproject would watch a bunch of these articles, lest this OR be restored.  Nyttend 23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical original research 

message: A proposal has been made on Talk:Bible to split the current Bible article into two separate articles, Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible, with Bible becoming a redirect to Bible (disambiguation). Best, --Shirahadasha 05:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bible]] article 

message: I trust that every opponent of the Bible being capitalized is working overtime to ensure that the Qur'an be spelled qur'an, the Book of Mormon the book of mormon, the Five Classics the five classics, the Bagavadgita the bagavidgita, the Tipitaka tipitaka, Upanishads be upanishads, the Torah, torah, and repeat this for all of the hundreds of  Religious texts that Wikipedia includes within it (Please check out Religious Texts if you doubt me).
The effort to use the lower case 'b' is laudable in that Wikipedia doesn't seek to promote a particular religion. But be mindful of the fact that this effort is only applied to Christianity normally, and is in effect giving Christianity special treatment, never mind the fact that this treatment is negative.
So long as it is considered normative to title books with upper case letters, it will be proper to title the Bible (and it's companion adjective "Biblical") with an upper case letter. Any other choice is inconsistent if not universally applied to all the , which itself would be a gross violation of the naming conventions of English literature.
If you're going to do this, be consistent. 
Respectfully submitted by Signaj90 (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it should be noted that the question is not about capitalizing "Bible", but about capitalizing the word "biblical". In those cases in which the word Bible is used to refer to those books which are included in one or more of the books included in either the Jewish or Christian Bible, I am unaware of any efforts to remove the capitalization. The specific subject of the discussion below is the adjectival "biblical". And, yes, the capitalization of other adjectival forms of the names of religious texts has been considered in the discussion. John Carter (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting caught up fast - Anyways, in the decade to come, "Bushisms" will continue to be a word bounced around. Are you going to charge that this word should be lowercase? The popular press will continue to use the capitalization regardless of your preference. Signaj90 (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "Qur'anic" is a word not used infrequently. I would submit it for parallel consideration. I'm more interested in consistency than upon the 'right' decision.Signaj90 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bible is captialized. Why wouldn't biblical? Every other religous text is. Not capitalizing it wouldn't be NPOV.
RJRocket53 (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Support for Biblical (capital B)

message: Was a former Featured Article, but poorly referenced. Badly in need of in-line citations and a broader base of references. Anyone willing to tackle the article, maybe as a One featured article per quarter project? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Authorized King James Version]]

message: Hi. Please see Talk:Bible errata#Wife Beater's Bible for a query concerning conflicting/proper sourcing, on this unusual topic. Thanks. --Quiddity (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible errata 

message: Discussion on Talk:Tanakh. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge [[Development of the Jewish Bible canon]] ==> [[Tanakh]] 

message: I am nominating the newly created article Jewish-Christian Gospels: Patristic Citations for deletion, as I don't think it meets the criteria for wikipedia articles. I would however welcome input from any interests parties in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish-Christian Gospels: Patristic Citations. Thank you. John Carter 00:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion 

message: Samson has been nominated for Good Article Review reviews are welcomed--Java7837 (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Samson

message: I found a lonely little article called Jabesh-Gilead on WP:CLEANUP. I had a stab at tidying it up, but thought I'd send it over here as it seems to belong in the domain of WP:BIBLE. Alert me on my talk page if you disagree. Manning (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jabesh Gilead

message: I just undid a cut-and-paste move from the first to the second title. However, looking at the Bible Gateway site, all of the English translations they have uses the second spelling. Does anyone see any reason not to move it back to the second spelling, but properly?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jephtha]]/[[Jephthah]] 

message: There are two proposals to merge Holy anointing oil, one to merge it with Shemen Afarsimon and one to merge it with Chrism. Please see Holy anointing oil for discussion locations. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Holy anointing oil]] merger proposals 

message: Gospel of Mark could use some help tracking down missing citations to get ready for peer review.  Thanks in advance. Ovadyah (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toward Peer Review 

message: See it here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/non-notable bible-division articles
Noroton (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Are members of this project aware of the deletion debate on vast numbers of Bible chapters?

message: What is the exact scope of this project? My question is prompted by having recently seen articles relating to such books as 3 Maccabees and the like. Would articles relating to these books, whose status as "biblical" is disputed by some, be included or not? I am operating on the assumption that 1 Enoch, which is considered canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, is included, but would those books which are no longer considered necessarily canonical by any Abrahamic religion, but are still, at least nominally, "Biblical", like the apocryphal book 3 Maccabees, be considered as within the scope of this project or not? John Carter (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Project Scope? 

message: Thanks for placing the article Binding of Isaac within the scope of your WikiProject. About 3 weeks ago, I proposed to change the name of the article to "Sacrifice of Isaac" at Talk:Binding of Isaac#Name of this article, but so far haven't seen any response. I plan to go ahead and rename the article on March 20, 2008 unless there are objections. I invite you to visit the article and submit any comments you have on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Five editors have responded to the proposal described above. Four oppose and one is neutral. The consensus is opposed to the name change. I'll therfore leave the article as currently named ("Binding of Isaac") and consider the matter closed. Thanks to all who participated! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Binding of Isaac'' article name change 

message: ... in Wikipedia.  I would especially like to link to that specific bible passage.  Is there a standard way to do this?  Thanks.  Maikel (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here looking for the same thing.  Any guidance would be appreciated.  I notice that there's nothing at WP:CIT that's specific to the bible(s). Noca2plus (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Found something.  See User:MonkeeSage/Bible templates. Noca2plus (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How do I properly quote the bible?

message: We are currently holding elections for coordinators to help ensure that directly project related activity, such as peer review, assessment, portal maintainance, and the like, are done for all the projects relating to Christianity. For what it's worth, as the "instigator" of the proposed coordinators, the purpose of having them is not to try to impose any sort of "discipline" on the various projects relating to Christianity, but just to ensure that things like assessment, peer review, portal maintainance, and other similar directly project-related functions get peformed for all the various projects relating to Christianity. If there are any individuals with this project who are already doing such activities for the project, and who want to take on the role more formally, I think nominations are being held open until the end of the elections themselves. And, for the purposes of this election, any member in good standing of any of the Christianity projects can either be nominated or express their votes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity project coordinators election 

message: Please could someone take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Judah and Special:WhatLinksHere/Tamar and help fix links to disambiguation pages? I've tried, but don't know enough about the characters involved to do any more. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: I have proposed a move from Lazarus and Dives to Rich man and Lazarus. At the moment, there are only two participants in the discussion, so it would be helpful if some folk here could have a look at this, and join the discussion, so a consensus can be reached. StAnselm (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move: [[Lazarus and Dives]]

message: I have created a new version of the project banner at User:John Carter/Bible. It can be found with all the drop-downs displayed at User talk:John Carter/Bible. I think that, if it were to be used, the talk pages of the various articles relevant to this project might be made substantially less cluttered. It is I hope understood that the simple fact of having variant options does not mean that they will necessarily all be used each time, however. Anyway, I would welcome input on whether we should perhaps alter the banner to include the additional specifications or not. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project banner 

message: Shouldn't Template:WikiProject Biblical Criticism be merged with Template:WikiProject Bible? Does the workgroup really need a separate banner? Richard001 (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: The article Dating the Bible seems embarassingly inadequate. 
For example, 
* the discussion of the Ketuvim discusses only the book of Daniel and nothing else; 
* the discussion of the Neviim discusses just the book of Kings and the book of Isaiah -- no mention, eg, of the book of Amos, considered by many scholars to be the earliest of the prophetic books, and according to many scholars likely to be earlier than any of the books of the Torah as we now have them; nor any of the other prophets.
In comparison, consider this series of articles from from The Straight Dope, despite its name quite a responsible and solidly researched column from a Chicago newspaper.  Even at quite an informal and cursory level, the treatment still runs to five articles:
:# Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the first five books of the Bible, called the Torah or Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses?
:# Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the various histories in the Old Testament (such as Judges, Kings, etc.)?
:# Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the various prophetic books (Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) and the wisdom literature (Psalms, Proverbs, etc.) in the Old Testament?
:# Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the various New Testament Books?
:# Who decided which books should be included and which excluded from the Bible(s)? Why are there differences in the Bibles for Catholics, Protestants, and Jews?
It seems to me that, at a minimum, Wikipedia should be aspiring to give at least the level of detail of these articles.   Our current coverage, especially for the Hebrew Bible, falls very far short.
Can I suggest that the present Dating the Bible needs to be massively expanded?  And that, better, each of the five questions above deserves its own separate article; with Dating the Bible changed to summary-style, to act as a central starting point and distributor to the other articles?  Jheald (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dating the Bible]] -- seriously inadequate 

message: I'm looking for an article to describe this document which is mentioned in Deu 29:21. Trying to look up the term on Wikipedia only yields a Thelemic and a Mormon text which aren't it. __meco (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the translations on this page and my own previous acquaintance with the subject, I've always gotten the impression "this Book of the Law" is supposed to refer to Deuteronomy itself. However, there is at least one academic source here which seems to indicate that at least a few people think it refers to something else. I've always favored the first option above myself though. I however am a Chrsitian and it might be useful to contact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and ask the members there if there are different ideas within the Jewish community. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your answer and I have also asked at the Judaism WikiProject. __meco (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Book of the Law" 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

message: I'd appreciate some more eyeballs at Torah, (which is also where Pentateuch and Five Books of Moses redirect).
 has been re-writing the article , on the basis apparently that it should be "essentially an article in the Jewish religion subject area". 
I think this is unacceptable.  Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, covering all angles in an informational scholarly way.  In particular, as is clear from the redirects, this is supposed to be the article on the first five books of the Bible for all perspectives, not just Judaism.
Particularly unacceptable, IMO, are 
* removing any mention of "Pentateuch" and "Five Books of Moses" from the Lead, when there are extensive links to the article under those titles;  and 
* rewriting the section "Torah and Islam", which is meant at least to kick off with a discussion on the Islamic perspective on the Torah, changing it into in effect a discussion of a Jewish perspective of an Islamic perspective on Torah.
I don't know whether you would all agree with that take, but some more views would be very welcome.  Jheald (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Torah]] 

message: There is discussion on the talk page of the above article regarding how much weight should be given to traditional dating of Biblical works relative to modern academic conclusions at Talk:Dating the Bible#"but according to medieval sources...". All input is welcome. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dating the Bible]] 

message: Because this issue comes up often and can be a source of contention, I am proposing adding a paragraph to the existing WP:NPOV/FAQ#religion with a more careful and clearer explanation of language to use and how to present the subject to implement WP:NPOV in articles involving disputes between religious views and historians/scientists etc. Doubtless the proposal can be improved. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WT:NPOV#Religion section - Disputes between historians or scientists and religious views]] 

message: Currently, 834 articles are assigned to this project, of which 270, or 32.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of .) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page. 
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles flagged for cleanup 

message: I have proposed this template for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 30. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:BibleAsFact]] 

message: Hi! A request for comments has been made for this proposed guideline. Please comment at WT:Naming conventions (Hebrew)#Community RFC on proposed guideline. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RFC|Request for comments]] on [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew)]] 

message: Several editors hold the POV that the Bible is "mythology" and dispute that any other opinion could be valid.  History clearly shows that this term has been used in an antagonistic and polemic sense to attack the believers in the Bible.  I contend that it is not neutral for wikipedia to declare the Bible, or any part of it, as "mythology", simply because those who resent this rhetoric are significant in number, and that a more neutral compromise wording should be found to express what they are trying to say.  The problem is that such a neutral compromise would defeat their purpose which is to have a POV article that is inflammatory to the millions who choose to believe the Bible is factual; therefore they have declared that the concerns of all those editors who disagree with them is invalid, and only their own POV counts.  Even the Pope has written a book asking people to stop referring to the Bible as "mythology", so the disagreement and the existence of other POVs can easily be sourced. I am overwhelmed and fatigued trying to explain at Talk:Noah's Ark why it is inflammatory not neutral to declare any part of the Bible as "mythology" and would appreciate some fresh voices. Once they succeed at declaring one Biblical article "mythology", they will use exactly the same arguments to declare all other Biblical topics "mythology" no matter how one-sided this POV is.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that attaching the tag 'mythology' to the whole Bible is non-neutral. But attaching the tag 'factual' to whole Bible would also be non-neutral.  (Example 1: Can the sweep of the psalms be described as either 'mythology' or 'factual'?  Example 2: Can Revelation (loosely, a vision of future, not yet occurred, events) be considered 'factual'?) I would suggest that both terms could be considered biased (non-neutral).  And that both terms are far too broad and "clunky" for detailed discussion and understanding.  Countering someone else's blanket, scatter-gun 'mythology' with our(?) own, similarly blanket scatter-gun, 'factual' would seem to be unproductive. Most Biblical scholars today (leaving aside the small "Jesus seminar") would recognise significant historicity in (say) the Gospels; but they would equally recognise significant, probably majority, mythological aspects in (say) the early chapters of Genesis (including Noah and Babel). Hope that helps. Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mythical in Biblical studies does not mean non-factual. It relates to the way the narrative is important to the self-understanding of a community, or it's understanding of the cosmos. As confusing as it may be to the non-scholar, something may be mythical and factual simultaneously.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In response to this, I have created a user sub-page showing that there is extensive debate with many points of view and that reliable sources are not quite so unanimous about whether or not the Bible is "myth", or whether it s proper to deliberately redefine "myth" so broadly just to be able to include the Bible. Please see  User:Til_Eulenspiegel/Religious_narratives_as_sacred_canon.  However those editors who are of the opinion that the Bible is a "myth", wish to present this as an indisputable, "fact" as if there were no disagreement or debate, are do not seem to be willing to face any of these reliable sources.  This has come up on several pages.  I also added a neutrality dispute tag to Creation according to Genesis because the article is totally one-sided, but it was removed by an admin who curtly informed me that I lack the standing to dispute an article, because "there is no dispute" that the Bible is a myth. Several editors besides have complained about this refusal to present all sides of view, but those who insist on declaring the Bible a myth, no question, will not listen to any reason.  I am asking for admin help as I fear this serious neutrality violation can only be  solved by an arb com decision.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it neutral to describe the Bible as "mythology"? 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Bible 

message: Is the Koran a bible? Is the Book of Morman a part of a bible? How do you define the word bible within the scope of this project?  Phil Burnstein (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a Bible? 

message: I just stumbled upon Synoptic Gospels, and I was shocked at the quality of the article. I was embarrassed. I completely cut away the last "paragraph" of the article because the author didn't use any punctuation, and I couldn't figure out what they were trying to say. Much of the rest of the stub is in bad shape, lacking references, poor phraseology, poor grammar, etc. I tried to fix a few run on sentences, but I finally decided to call in the experts in the field for a major overhaul. So I come to you, WikiProject Bible, and present to you an article in your area in great need of some help. Gentgeen (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Synoptic Gospels]] needs much love and attention 

message: Please review the discussion here
:Wikipedia_talk:Bible_citation#Requested_move
and comment on whether the page should be moved back to article space. Thanks. -Ac44ck (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for participation in discussion 

message: Members of this project may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Roman numerals in Bible citation.
:-- Wavelength (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman numerals in Bible citation 

message: I've made this page, a sourced analysis of Mt 10:16-23, and believe it to be under the scope of this wikiproject. If members agree, please be so kind as to add it to your wikiproject. Thanks! Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New page for your Wikiproject

message: I was thinking of creating lists of individuals and groups (tribes, nations, etc.) mentioned in each book of the Bible.  I would start with Genesis and move through the rest of the Bible over time (unless other people decided to complete lists for other books of the Bible, in which case I could skip them), at least for the books this makes sense for.  I know there is already a list of Biblical names but I think creating a list for each book of the Bible is a good idea because some people may find a list for each book more useful that the vast alphabetically-organized list that already exists.  Each book of the Bible can be considered a unique literary work so a list for each book makes sense.  The list of Biblical names can be regarded as a comprehensive 'master list' while each new list can be considered a more manageable 'sub-list.'  The list of Biblical names is also more general than the lists I am thinking of making because it covers every noun listed in the Bible (i.e. names of persons, places, things, etc.).  A person may instead want a more manageable and specific list such as 'tribes mentioned in Exodus' or 'individuals mentioned in Joshua' instead and this is where the shorter and more specific lists come in.  I would also include more information on each name than the big list provides (i.e. relation to other persons, tribal or national affiliation, chapters and verses they appear in, etc.), although I would be aiming for brevity rather than completeness (which is what an article is for).  I would make each list as comprehensive as possible.  I was also thinking of making lists of places named in each book as well.  Does anyone have any thoughts on this idea? --Schnurrbart (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that this would take time and do not plan to complete it anytime soon (unless other people joined in, possibly). I was thinking of taking a particular version of the Bible written in English (i.e. King James, New Revised Standard, etc.) and compiling the lists from that. Scholarly controversies like the ones you mentioned could be addressed in individual articles.-Schnurrbart (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of individuals and groups mentioned in each book of the Bible 

message: I've been looking around for some manual of style for Bible quotations and articles about Bible verses.  I've found the following:
:Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style
:Wikipedia:Organisation of Bible articles
:Wikipedia:Bible verses (notability poll)
:User:MonkeeSage/Bible_templates
:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religious texts#Bible version to quote?
:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Unified Presentation?
:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#How do I properly quote the bible?
One of the main aspects that I would like standardised is which translation should be preferred for quotations.  Obviously if there is a reason to quote a specific translation, different translations should be used.  However we should have a project page which clearly indicates which is preferred for various situations, even if it means we need to define our differences in a WP:ENGVAR-like fashion.  i.e. Topics about Judaism may be better served by using a preferred translation like JPS1917, and Christian topics may be better served by using a preferred translation like KJV or ASV.
One important issue that is not religious in nature is the use of quotations from copyrighted translations, which should be minimised, and specifically the UK copyright of the KJV.
With regards to articles about bible verses, I am a big fan of removing Wikipedia content which is within scope of Wikisource unless it is critically discussed on the Wikipedia article (i.e. removing the full text of long poems).  In that vein, most Wikipedia articles about bible verses contain a section with many different translations.  Wikisource has been slowly growing a complete interlinear bible (e.g. s:Bible/Obadiah/1/1) and I believe it would be beneficial to use this Wikisource resource rather than having many translations on the Wikipedia article. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  style standardisation 

message: Hi!  I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate.  This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group.  If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators' working group 

message: Any comments regarding the structure and function of Christianity related material are welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum#Project organization. Be prepared for some rather lengthy comments, though. There is a lot of material to cover there. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion regarding Christianity project organization 

message: nominated Noah's Ark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Vassyana (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noah's Ark FAR 

message: This is an open call for anyone interesting in building up the collection of individual Psalms articles. There's a lot of work to be done but I think every one is notable for their own article. See template here if you're interested. - Epson291 (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open call for individual Psalms articles 

message: Is the Tree of Life Acacia, specifically the Shittah-tree, or Acacia seyal? The Spiritual use of cannabis states "Elders of the modern religious movement known as the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church consider cannabis to be the eucharist,[28] claiming it as an oral tradition from Ethiopia dating back to the time of Christ.[29]
Like the Rastafari, some modern Gnostic Christian sects have asserted that cannabis is the Tree of Life.[30]" After reading the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church webpage that links as reference number 28, I don't think I will change from my current form of Christianity, but have become etomologicaly (I'll officially take credit for that word if it doesn't already exist) confused. Since I don't speak read and write all of the languages in question, and there would be serious doubts of anyone speaking all of the languages (with knowledge of idioms and so forth), this forum seems to be a great way to pool that knowledge. Tree of Life (Judeo-Christian) is a great article on the subject, but modern Christianity is multifaceted. It would be nice to be able to reference all the various points of view on this topic. Could this be an aspect of the descendants of Japheth?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knosisophile (talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tree of Life 

message: I want everyone to note that we weren't trying to step on anyone's toes here. Some of the people at the WikiProject Christianity, including me, have come to the conclusion that it might make things a bit easier for us, with our roughly 30,000 articles, to have navigation boxes to link some of the articles which most directly link to the topics which are of highest importance to our project. This includes some biblical material. I want everyone to know that we are not seeking to lay some sort of "claim" on the material. All the templates, including the Biblical ones, that currently exist can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Templates. Anyone who would wish to make any comments or suggestions on any of them is free to do so there. And, yes, most of the ones I've recently created aren't real pretty yet. I figured I'd wait till we knew what all was in them before I tried to make them more appealing. John Carter (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all in favour of rationalising. Many thanks for taking on this challenge! Can I offer a suggestion? Many of our articles have fully -expanded navigation side-boxes occupying masses of screen "real estate" from the top downwards, almost as if they were adverts. Can I suggest that we consider avoiding such side-boxes and instead try to use simple footer templates? (See the good examples at the bottom of Christian music.)  Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All the ones I've recently created are of the kind you suggested. It might be a bit of a problem to try to change the existing ones, though. John Carter (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new navigation boxes for Biblical material 

message: Just to say I've created an article called The Children's Bible Story Book which I did a while ago, and it has not been rated by the WikiProject. I think it should be. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 20:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article to be rated 

message: I have created the article Textual variants in the New Testament. If someone wants to help, please edit. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textual variants 

message: I am attempting to help make it easier for all the various portals which relate to Christian subjects do not disproportionately use certain articles relevant to their subject and in the process find other good articles relevant to the subject not being used as often as they could. Toward that purpose, I have started the page User:John Carter/Christianity portals. I realize that this portal listed above is not exclusively related to Christianity, and acknowledge that. However, because the subject material is related to a fairly large extent, it makes sense to have it included anyway. If anyone here is involved in the upkeep of the above portal, please feel free to look at the page above and offer any input you see fit. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Bible]] 

message: I want to inform the community that I have done a GA Reassessment of Isaac and found the article lacking.  Not very much will need to be done but enough that I could not keep it GA without some effort.  I am notifying all interested projects that I have held this article for one week pending editing.  The review can be found here.  If you have any questions please feel free to contact my talk page.  H1nkles (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps notice of possible demotion of [[Isaac]] 

message: Just to point out, the Children's Bible Story Book article needs ratings from this wikiproject. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi, 

message: This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps invitation

message: I have done the GA Reassessment of Ishmael as part of the GA Sweeps project.  I have found a few items that concern me about the article.  My review can be found here.  I have held the article for a week and I am notifying all the interested projects in the hope that work can be done to keep it at GA.  Please contact me at my talk page if you have any questions.  H1nkles (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Reassessment of [[Ishmael]] 

message: Thanks Arlen22 (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I enter my name in the list of participants? 

message: There's a flag saying it needs an expert edit. I have good claim to be an expert on the subject, so i did a pretty complete edit, added a bunch of references, etc. What else should be done (if anything) in order to remove the flag, and hopefully get the article recategorized as past "Start" level?
Thanks!
Sderose (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[hapax legomenon]] edited 

message: Wikipedians at Talk:Roman Catholic Church are discussing the merits of changing the article name as such.
Roman Catholic Church → Catholic Church. Please share your opinions there. --Carlaude talk 12:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Mediation on Naming Convention|Consultation on renaming article: Roman Catholic Church --> Catholic Church]]