Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

WikiProject Christianity Articles Categories Deletion Guide Newsletter Portal Projects Main page Showcase Assessment Plan Members Noticeboard Peer review Requests

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Christianity This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. 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

WikiProject Christianity was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 9 March 2009.

WikiProject Christianity was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 8 April 2015.

Welcome to the noticeboard for Christianity-related topics Here you can find discussions, notices, and requests for articles that in some way deal with Christianity. If you would like to discuss, place a notice about, or if you have a request about, an article about Christianity, please do include it here.

Shortcuts WT:XNBWT:XNB WT:XWT:X

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

---

Over the past 3 months, there have been many hundreds of edits to and restructuring of this article, almost entirely by one editor; introducing multiple potential issues (e.g., with sources, readability, editor synthesis and possible POV, length). There have been controversies concerning this church in the past, spilling over into edit sparring between current, former, and unaffiliated members editing here, but the article has remained relatively stable for years, and since then there are few active editors. Although the article is on my watch list, I only today have had even a little time to take more than a quick glance at what it has become. Due to the bulk of changes, I'm going to revert and request more eyes on this one. • Astynax ^talk 20:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this too, and the rabbit hole of edit wars on this article is truly maddening. Some of the edits do not even make grammatical or structural sense, to the point of blurring the line between bad faith editting and vandalism... I added it to my watchlist. I'm new, so I don't know how to get even further eyes on this, but seconding more editors please! ✝ barbieapologist (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Churches of Rome#Proposal: Split “Churches of Rome” into a list and a narrative article that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#List of churches in ... about what should be included in "List of churches in ..." (buildings vs congregations, roughly). Members of this project might like to contribute. PamD 11:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anabaptist settler colonialism#Requested move 3 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article primarily focuses on the institutional, social, and economic aspects of one of the most prominent religious movements of the Middle Ages, while also addressing its theological and theoretical background. I therefore believe that comments from members of this WikiProject could make a valuable contribution to improving the article before its FAC. Thank you in advance for your time and feedback. The peer review can be found here. Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Greeks has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Bogazicili (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Burning of convents in Spain has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced for 13 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. As a disambiguation page it fails, because only two of the incidents are notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A YouTube channel that I follow has raised, IMO credibly, concerns about the accuracy of membership numbers in several Historically Black Protestant denomination. Obviously YT is not a reliable source. But the video goes into considerable depth and the author cites a large number of sources. I'm honestly not even sure how to proceed with this, but if true our pages are presenting inaccurate figures. FWIW here is a link to the video. The three denominations are...

• National Baptist Convention, USA
• National Baptist Convention of America International
• National Missionary Baptist Convention of America

Disclaimer: Aside from subscribing, I have no connection to the YouTube channel or its owner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, I don't think there is any official agency that tracks church membership numbers. As far as I know, all such numbers are self-reported, so it comes down to how "honest" the particular church body is. I've read that the LDS Church never removes people from its rolls unless there is a formal request, and many others are, for various reasons, reluctant to remove anyone. Some polls have asked people for their religious affiliation, but sometimes, surprisingly, more people will claim to be members than the denominations themselves report. Gallup has reported significantly more Lutherans, for instance, than the various Lutheran church bodies in the U.S. report. So there only thing we can do is use the reported numbers by the particular denominations, but in more general articles about Christianity, Protestantism, Lutheranism, etc., it might be good to state that the numbers are self-reported and, if available, any independent statistics included. Indyguy (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting here without having watched the video (I will when I find a spare moment). If we believe that the self-reported numbers are so impaired as to be unreliable despite lacking an RS to support that conclusion, we are absolutely within policy to remove them from prominent places like the infobox and leave a hidden text explaining why. It's probably still best to include the self-reported numbers with the aforementioned attribution in-text attribution. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The youtube video raises the opposite problem. It doubts the data from the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, reproduced on the Association of Religion Data Archives, ARDA and then cited on Wikipedia. I don't disagree with your stance on self-reported numbers. Rolluik (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the ARDA numbers just a recapitulation of the churches' self-reported numbers? Indyguy (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, churches normally claim higher membership numbers. ASARB brings these numbers together and revises them mostly downward. ARDA then cites ASARB.

This whole process gives in my opinion still too much weight to the self-reported numbers. I prefer the surveys and polls (pew, gallup...) that ask people directly and not the denominations. It remains a valid way to research membership though and it is better than the self-reported numbers. I'm in favour of attributing to the ASARB.

Also not a fan that they call it a census, this seems to suggest government involvement and asking every person. Rolluik (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I buy the argument from the video (an understandable mixup of similarly named baptist denominations). A denomination that claims "more than 400.000 members", actually having 2,428,820 members by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies (ASARB) is not likely.

solutions:

1) removal of the 2020 data from the ASARB (and the ARDA which cites the data)

or

2) describing the "controversy", citing the Ready to Harvest youtube video

My preference is to delete the info, and link this discussion in the edit summary (and maybe the talk page). Whether Ready to Harvest counts as a WP:RS is a difficult discussion. The youtuber is likely an expert in Christian denominations, has likely a relevant degree (going off only on the content they put out on youtube) and adheres to WP:NPOV but I don't know their real name (nor do I think we are supposed to find this out). I don't see Ready to Harvest used by others. I think our editorial discretion leans more in the direction of keeping doubtful stuff out, while keeping material in needs to meet a higher bar. Rolluik (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I largely concur, and favor option 1. Based solely on my own observations and opinions over several years, I believe the channel owner/author would reasonably qualify as an expert on the subject of Christian denominations. IMO their videos are unusually accurate and they are careful to identify their sources for almost all claims of fact. And their content is NPOV (at times almost to a fault). That said, the community has decided that YouTube is usually not a reliable source. In general, I agree with that decision and the reasons why. See WP:RSP. Is this an exception in terms of reliability? I think so. But honestly, arguing for an IAR citation to the video is likely to draw all kinds of controversy. It's easier to just delete the controversial data pending correction with a note explaining why. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have an additional idea: change the data to the 2010 religion "census". It is the last known reliable data. [1] —Korakys (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems the best idea, changing the 2020 data to the 2010 data. Ofcourse only for these 3 denominations. Rolluik (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the concern is valid and should be acted upon. Not exactly how, but the 2.4 million number should be discarded or st least marked as controversial or disputed. TR (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has been handled by TR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've rescoped a page that previously duplicated a minor component of the history of Acre to instead focus on the specific titular see that emerged in relation to its Hellenized and then Romanized name. The page is still in rough and ready shape, however, and any expert support from this project would be appreciated. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some of you may remember me as Rachel Helps (BYU). For a class assignment, I've been at work expanding Biblical Paraphrase. I really liked the background on paraphrase vs. sola scriptura in this Master's thesis by Susan Wise Bauer. However, I know that a thesis is not usually considered a reliable source. I'd like to add information about why Biblical paraphrase could be controversial. What other sources could I use instead of the Bauer thesis? Rwelean (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical criticism has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]