Talk:Christianity/Archive 35

message: I think the recent addition to criticism is more than just vandalism.
Firstly we should know that its a criticism on the world's largest followed 
religion.
Secondly it gives related sources.
Thirdly it states a renowned scholar.
Even if the author is not registered the comments made is not just POV but something which is under thorough research.
Don't be hurt.Faith should never fail though stories may!
I think its a valuable piece of information.
The more criticism we face the more truth we explore.
Some facts I know:
Christianity is still considered cruel in many parts of Asia and Africa where it is expanded by some fake missionaries for money - this is infact vandalism.
The book by Acharya S explores history very well .Please have a look-This is my POV. 
Overall all the major world wars are fought by Christians,Jews or Islamic followers who have common connection of religious stories.
Bible never provides nor does any artefacts of the 1st century CE that life of Christ was a truth.
In general almost all the religions fail to provide strict facts as its a matter of faith!
Hence I feel let it remain in criticism section and accept the truth.No Roman empire now and also Keep the faith.
Philosopher1 12:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism or helathy Criticism? 

message: The science section probably needs some cleanup. It sounds POV to me (in my POV). The whole section states little in facts and mainly presents POV.
The sub-parts on the "Galileo affair" and Darwin's evolution concept are particularly in violation of Wikipedia policy. They do nothing to present the facts of the case, the fallout or link to any authoritative page which talks about them. It merely attempts to explain the "discrepancy" away. 
Please state facts with citations or attributing POV's to original authors. --BD
:I don't remember all those redlinks in that section, has it been changed recently? It's possible the version you're seeing now was recently changed alot and nobody noticed. Homestarmy 19:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section should not deteriorate to another pro-con section but give, in broad strokes, the general, secular trends in relation to Christianity's contribution to science (and I considered "progress" to be a bit POV, so I left it out). Str1977 (smile back) 09:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Development of Modern Science" POV?? 

message: Isn't this like one of those topics where you simply can't help but have a long article lest you leave out some major topic? Homestarmy 01:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Kill the "Too Long" tag. standonbibleTalk! 01:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 105 kb is way too big. We can easily spin off sections. Jonathan Tweet 03:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which sections in particular? Tom Harrison Talk 16:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a history of Christianity page, so that can be replaced by a summary and maybe a timeline. The Beliefs section is also substantial enough to be its own page if there isn't one like it already. At that point, you'd want to spin off most of the sections, following summary format. See WP:SUMMARY. Then there's all the material at the end. Is there any way to make that bibliography stand on its own? Let me tell you that there's a huge advantage in cutting an article like this one way down. Currently, it's so long that everyone wants to be sure to get their piece in. If it's summarized, then there's clearly no room for every idea, and that sort of elaboration gets pushed off to spinoff pages. Jonathan Tweet 16:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the article already in summary style? The sections which are summarizing other articles aren't exactly as long as the articles their summarizing after all, and much of this background is rather important. Homestarmy 16:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Why is the legnth a problem?  Just because a banner says so?  What's the real problem we are trying to solve?  People with dial-up will have to wait another 15 seconds or something? Lostcaesar 17:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Some people seem to get annoyed when they come across articles longer than about 32 kilobytes is the thing :/. Homestarmy 17:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Long, how are we supposed to shorten it? :/

message: I hope this article is written in a NPOV way. The truth is there's no proof that there's a God and it is assumed because of a book which attacks different groups such as homosexuals. That SHOULD NOT be added into the Bible. Lonelyboy 14:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, the opposition to Homosexuality already is in the Bible, why do you think Christians oppose it so much, we didn't just invent the opposition up one day out of midair. And while there is proof of God's existance, this article doesn't deal with the issue. (And of the articles that do, their fairly low quality)Homestarmy 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DFTT. Str1977 (smile back) 15:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please remember, talk pages are meant solely to discuss the article and ways to improve it.  —Aiden 10:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aww, but I wanna talk to this person! :( Homestarmy 13:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 

message: After a quoted passage, y'all left the remainder of the article in the small font. 66.57.225.77 14:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm, looks like it happened with the Nicene Creed argument, but I can't find the unclosed italic marks.... Homestarmy 14:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I fixed it. Str1977 (smile back) 18:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text size revert 

message: I hate having to bring this back up, but I think this article should be blocked. I brought this up before, but it was archived away (to Archive 32) before anything was done. Christianity is a topic that will always be a target for vandalism by disrespecting non-users. If this article gets blocked, users will still be able to edit - and we're usually the only ones who add real information anyway. --Christknight 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that there should be semiprotection. Str1977 (smile back) 23:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone could request page protection, but we try to lock pages only as a last resort. The page is closely watched, and we seem to be reverting quickly. If it starts to interfere with editing, it can be protected for a day or so. Tom Harrison Talk 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be permanently S protected, much like the mainpage is, because it sufferes 3-4 acts of vandalism every day, sometimes more.  Its just a farse to leave it unprotected. Lostcaesar 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Lostcaesar.  The article should maintain a S-protect permanently.  What do we lose by maintaining a permanent block?  Storm Rider (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrections from anonymous editors, who often spot mistakes that editors don't, and contributions of references from any scholarly type people who might read the article but don't want to sign up for wikipedia. I'm sure there's more too, but articles are pretty much never S-protected permanently, i'm fairly certainly that's very frowned upon, its a principle of open source communities sort of thing. Homestarmy 18:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then at what point do we say "enough is enough"? It's great that Wikipedia is open to everyone, but I see so many more anons adding vandalism than helpful edits. Even though vandalism is always fixed, thousands of people read Wikipedia every minute - so think about how many people might come to this article looking for info, and find (often offensive) vandalism. You have a good point, Homestarmy, but I still agree that this article should be S-protected. --Christknight 20:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Those last edits explain my point. This article should be protected. --Christknight 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You can certainly ask for page protection. See WP:RFPP. Tom Harrison Talk 23:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested S-protection for this article. --Christknight 00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean that it should never be S-protected, especially because I myself had to just fix something the vandalbot accidently covered up, but that it shouldn't be permanently S-protected :/. Homestarmy 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't mention "permanently" in my request. So I guess that's up to Steel359 and the other admins. --Christknight 01:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still too much vandalism 

message: Is this section necessary? I think it adds a lot of bloat to this article, and although much of the books mentioned may be excellent reading material, I don't feel this section is crucial for an understanding of Christianity. Tidaress 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be sad to get rid of that section, but it does make nearly 1/4 of the article. It might be a good idea sinse the article got that "very long" warning. But I agree that the section is unneeded to get an understanding of Christianity. --Christknight 01:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not create a new article for it? SparrowsWing 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that new article would turn into some sort of indiscriminate collection of information unfortunately. Tidaress 01:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, the Bibliography is supposed to represent works that are actually used to support some part of the article, its not like a "Further Reading" section, if you remove it, we may just have to re-cite it all over again. True, there are times when people add things into it mistakenly, but that needs to be worked out by moving said books or other kind of works into a "Further reading" section, not just deleting the whole bibliography :/. Homestarmy 01:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of this article seems to be general knowledge. Most of the specific details are further supported by the nearly 80 citations in the article. Regardless of whether or not the Bibliography section is a "Further Reading" section, it seems to have turned into one judging by its content and length. Tidaress 01:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunently, you might be surprised how much of this "general knowladge" has been the topic of heated disputes :/. For one thing, several of those references are intended to help reference the very first cite, namely, the idea that Christianity is monotheistic, as opposed to "considered monotheistic by its adherants, but not by some critics and Muslims". While it is extensive, removing it will probably create a whole lot of arguments down the line about what is verified and what isn't. Homestarmy 01:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Well I'm absolutely sure there has to be a more efficient way to do this. The current bibliography section takes up 16KB, and this is detrimental to the rest of the article because editors are being forced to cut down on information presented in other sections. Tidaress 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography Section