Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Christianity
Get Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Christianity essential facts below. View Videos or join the Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Christianity discussion. Add Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Christianity to your topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Christianity

WikiProject Christianity (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


Baphomet warning!

"Interdenominational" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Interdenominational. The discussion will occur at Resource: Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 9#Interdenominational until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Articles for improvement star.svg

Please note that Christmas ham, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by -- MusikBot talk 00:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[]

Rename discussion in progress

The article formerly at Christian Church has been moved to Christian Church (Protestant ecclesiology), and there is an open WP:RM discussion regarding the situation. It would be helpful if WikiProject members familiar with the concepts could comment at Talk:Christian Church (Protestant ecclesiology) on this topic. User:? (power~enwiki, ?, ?) 23:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: the RM has ended, but I would really appreciate if some could come and discuss what the future of the page should be here. Veverve (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Name for lists of R. Catholic saints, servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people

I have tried to harmonise the titles of articles containing a list of Catholic saints. I was met with reverts and a refusal; please see Talk:List_of_American_saints_and_beatified_people#Requested_move_23_May_2021 for the list of pages I am referring to, as well as the arguments leading to the refusal.
I still believe those articles must be renamed, and that this renaming is important, in part to avoid confusion among the readers of said articles. Thus, I came here to start a discussion.
I feel there is three problems to the current names:

  1. The titles are not standardised.
  2. The titles are "List of X saints" or "List of saints from Y", but also concern people the Catholic Church has deemed servants of God, or blessed, or venerable or beatified.
  3. The articles are lists containing only people approved by the Catholic Church being titled List of Mexican saints, List of saints of Poland, or List of Scandinavian saints. Not all saints from those regions are Catholic, for example Sigfrid of Växjö is a Scandinavian E. Orthodox saint, and there is even a category for Polish saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Even if all the saints from a region were to be Catholic, I feel that for the sake of long-term maintainability and standardisation, the articles should still be renamed.

My proposal for a standard name for those articles is: "List of Roman Catholic saints, servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people from X". I also propose that the "List of X saints" and "List of saints from Y" redirects be deleted.
The first argument given against my renaming in the RM was that there would be no way to differenciate "saint who was a Catholic" and "person held to be a saint by Catholics". However, in mainstream Catholicism - i.e. not in traditional Catholicism -, saints, servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people are considered as all having been Catholics. The second argument was that such a title could create a confusion, i.e. does "Polish Catholic saints" equal "Catholic saints who are Polish" or "saints of Polish Catholicism"? The adjective "Roman" I added compared to my previous renamings will hopefully dissipate this confusion. Pinging @Srnec: and @Nyttend:/@Nyttend backup: as they were the two users who opposed the renaming, and @Compassionate727: who started the RM. Veverve (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]

My point was that labelling, say, Jerome a "Catholic" is POV. He is a "Catholic saint" to both traditional and mainstream Catholics and, indeed, to everybody in the "person held to be a saint by Catholics" sense. It is not NPOV, however, to label Jerome himself a Catholic. That is the concern I have with adding "Catholic" to the titles. If "Scandinavian saints" means "saints from Scandinavia", I don't see why we can't just put all the Scandinavian saints in one article. Srnec (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Um, see Catholic (term)#Jerome. If you scroll up, you'll also see that the term was used, in an obviously including-the-writer sense, as early as AD 107, and by an eastern writer no less. And as Johnbod notes, it's simply ridiculous to see anyone from the Latin Church in the first half of the 11th century as anything but Catholic. Yes, it predates the East-West Schism by a little bit, but that doesn't somehow make him Orthodox, let alone Anglican. Nyttend backup (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Don't we have a cut-off date for when popes & others become "Catholic"? There has been lots of discussion of this & similar points, much of it at at WP:CFD I think; looking at the bottom of pages might be productive. I'd support a combined "Scandinavian saints", but I think the denominations of post-Reformation ones (or earlier Orthodox ones) should be clear. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Btw, Veverve is very wrong to think Sigfrid of Växjö, aka Sigfrid of Sweden, was not a Catholic, even if he is recognised by the EOC (and the Anglicans). Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]
@Srnec: do you have a better idea of title, then?
@Srnec: @Johnbod: I feel the expression "Roman Catholic saint" or "Eastern Orthodox saint" already conveys the idea of "according to the Roman Catholic Church" or "according to the Eastern Orthodox Church". Also, if you create an article with all saints, what will the titles of the sections be if not "Catholic Church", "Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church", etc.? It is instinctively the way to state it which comes to mind. Besides, I believe it is important to state the denomination which considers those people as saints, servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people as early in the title as possible.
Also, if we make an article with all saints from a region according to every church - I guess you implicitly want to drop the servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people -, the article will be too long, and we will have to discuss the names of acticles for every denomiation anyway.
@Johnbod: I am not aware of any consensus you are talking about. As a sidenote, the real religion of those people is off topic. Veverve (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]
You said "Not all saints from those regions are Catholic, for example Sigfrid of Växjö is a Scandinavian E. Orthodox saint, and there is even a category for Polish saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Even if all the saints from a region were to be Catholic, I feel that for the sake of long-term maintainability and standardisation, the articles should still be renamed." I absolutely don't think we should have different lists for each denomination that recognises a set of saints - that way madness lies. That you are "not aware of any consensus" is not the strongest evidence that it doesn't exist. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC) .[]
@Johnbod: are you suggesting to turn all those articles into a list of all saints, servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people from those regions for all denominations? If we put all saints etc. into a same list, the article will be too long. You do not seem to be aware of any consensus either, so we are even. Veverve (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]

The problem can be illustrated by List of saints from Africa. A move to List of Catholic saints from Africa (or the longer proposed title) introduces an ambiguity. Is the reader to take Macarius of Egypt and Moses the Black to have been Catholics? They may be recognized by the Catholic church, but they are equally Orthodox, Coptic and Anglican saints in that sense. It would make more sense to me to have such a broad list encompass all the different Christian traditions. Other countries/regions may be handled differently. Srnec (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[]

@Srnec: pleasep ping me next time you reply to me.
What would a pan-denominational page look like? The first section would be "Saints according to the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Anglican [+ maybe other denominations]", the others would be numerous combinations (e.g. "Saints according to the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox", then "Catholic Church and the Anglican communion", "Servant of gods according to...", etc.) and single denominations for saints etc. only considered so by one denomination. It will not be confortable for the reader to end up with such a quantity of information. Moreover, it will be much easier to make the current title fit the content of the article than filling the entire article with every single saint etc. from every single Christian denominations.
Besides, there is already List of Catholic saints and List of Eastern Orthodox saints; do those title mean that the WP contributors consider that those Christians, for the former believed in the filioque and papal supremacy, and for the latter were Palamists and believed in autocephaly for churches? No, the adjectives are widely understood as "according to X". However, if you prefer, I can settle for the title "List of saints, servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people according to the Roman Catholic Church". I feel saying according to whom those people are saints, etc. as the last words is quite counterintuitive, but I can agree on using this title. Veverve (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Please help evaluate Draft:Servants of Christ the King

My particular concern is whether any of the cited sources are actually independent of the subject, but any opinions by someone more knowledgeable about the topic will be appreciated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Is WikiProject Anglicanism dead?

It's been more than a year since anyone has replied to a post on the project talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[]

It could be. If there's a membership page, you could see if they have been active recently. If they have been, you could ask them to respond directly on their talk pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Notice of Featured Article Review

I have nominated Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 03:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Swinburne's Is There a God?

Dear all, Could i request a reassessment of my recently expanded article, formerly Stub-class, Low importance, etcetera? Swinburne's argument is popular at Dutch protestant institutions for higher education. Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Religion is one of my undergraduate majors, I write on it a lot here, and I have done articles on books, so I will take a look if you agree.Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The things listed should be fixed before reassessment. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Claim to Fairly Represent All Christian Denominations is False

Even the start about naming conventions is radically biased against the largest branches (above denominations) of Christianity! "For people: John Calvin, unless others by that name exist, in which case the activity for which the individual is best known should be bracketed, e.g., John Calvin (reformer) (not John Calvin (scholar), John Calvin (theologian), etc.) "

  1. But to the Catholics, Orthodox and other old world branches of Christianity Jean Calvin was NOT a reformer, but a heretic. So should we put John Calvin (heretic) to reflect your pretense to be fair toward all parts of Christianity?
  2. What about spelling? His name is literally "Jean Calvin", not "John Calvin". He was French, after all, and "Jean" is a name used in English as well. You will find his name transliterated often, especially in older materials in English.

Even today the British Museum spells his name "Jean Calvin". Historian09041965 (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]

@Historian09041965: First off, I'll note that our article is titled John Calvin, as the namesake of Calvinism is in fact the most notable person by that name by a large margin, so we don't need a parenthetical disambiguator. If we did however, adding "(heretic)" is much more less neutral than "(reformer)", even if you believe that his views were heretical. "(reformer)" can be understood as "acting in the context of the Protestant Reformation", and therefore not making a moral judgment; "(heretic)" is unambiguously judgemental. There's not a single biography on resource that uses "(heretic)" as the disambiguator, even for views that are universally or near-universally held to be heresies today.
As for why it's "John Calvin" and not "Jean Calvin": because contemporary English-language sources overwhelmingly spell it "John". The British Museum is somewhat of an outlier; if you look at the bibliography of our current article, every single book title that gives his first name spells it John. Most readers are going to be looking for someone named John, so we give priority to the common name. Vahurzpu (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm having a hard time understanding the problem Historian09041965 is raising, but COMMONNAME is applied, and unless a disambiguator is required, none should be used.
In short, his name in English is almost always John Calvin. I know of no theology books I own that use the French spelling of his name. and I could go on. The article itself demonstrates the French spelling.
In short, there is no judgmentalism or bias on our part. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]

RFC on notability of Bishops

Hi, there is an ongoing RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide on the notability of catholic bishops, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Suggestions for the improvement of resource articles on early Christianity

At the suggestion of Geoffrey Lane I am addressing Wikipidia editors of early Christianity:

English version:

The scholarship, writing and editing of a large number of articles I read is outdated, and below the standards required for undergraduate teaching in the subject. Most of the texts reflect early 20th century and /or traditional-religious scholarship and seldom include current non-religious scholarship. The sections and structure of many of the articles is beyond repair. Many themes have a religious (not academic) orientation and most of the issues and themes engaged by current scholarship are not included. It is regrettable that such an important area of interest is in such disarray.

Spanish version:

Articles are much better edited, have a coherent structure and the scholarship sustaining them is more updated. Here the current incremental system seems to be working well, due to a later and better baseline.

I am aware of the resource philosophy of collaborative editing and contributions. My suggestions are aimed at salvaging articles so that the work of collaborative-incremental encyclopedia development can resume and proceed from a new and improved base line.


I would be willing to participate in an effort to upgrade and salvage the quality of those articles that require repair - provided resource is willing to consider the following suggestions:

1- I can create a team of 2-3 individuals of high academic standing to identify and prioritize the articles that require improvement and to write/edit the material - using the worthwhile parts of existing articles. These new-improved articles would be a solid base on which the work of regular resource contributors can proceed with their work. 2 - resource will assign a senior editor that will work with us and insert the upgraded articles. Current and ongoing commitments do not allow leading writters to become editors of wikipedia. However, a senior editor that would work with us and integrate the edited/improved texts may be a feasible cooperation.

I am a writer on the New Testament. My "Jewish-Christian relations - The First Centuries." is a study that articulates a new thesis on the evolution of Christianity and on the Jewish-Christian relationship in the New Testament. TOP 1% - 10000 views in (English and Spanish versions) - Endorsed by 16 leading academics.

Free download of my book:

Abel M Bibliowicz -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:C700:3AE0:ADFF:E9A4:6C8E:7F60 (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Dr. Bibliowicz, we always welcome expert input here! Be aware of WP:EXPERT though, and keep in mind that everything you add needs to be sourced to wp:RS and ideally follow the majority opinion (even if you think it's wrong). I would suggest that you and any collaborators register accounts.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm afraid your mistake is in assuming there are "Wikipidia (sic) editors of early Christianity" in a regular way - really there aren't. Much of our material is probably still from EB 1911 or the Catholic Encyclopedia of similar date. But your approach is the correct one, and perhaps this will encourage some to take part. We don't have any "senior editor"s as such, or that's the theory, nor is "Wikipedia will assign a senior editor" really how we work. If you create a team I suggest creating a sub-page here, or somewhere, to coordinate the effort. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Abel M Bibliowicz - do you have a registered account and a screen name? I cannot ping you otherwise to answer and say, we do know this, and we do care, and we are working on it! I have been working as hard and fast as I can to update as many articles as I can cope with! (You are welcome to visit my user page and see what I personally have done so far.) I am not a PhD, but I do have a double undergraduate, one in religion and one in philosophy, and masters level work in religion (ethics) that provides me with a passion for the topic and not much else of use here. I still spend hours and hours researching single paragraphs, and all my background contributes is a familiarity with that level of effort. But you cannot reference your own book on WP, Mr.Bibliowicz, in anything you write here. It is self-published original work and neither of those things are allowed on WP. We only reference secondary sources published by quality, reliable, peer reviewed sources. This is an encyclopedia, and we welcome any and all who have a sincere desire to contribute quality work here. We often work together, and do what's possible to help each other out. If you are willing to do the necessary work for free, put up with squabbles and disagreements with a little grace, and don't require glory or recognition - and if you have a passion for the idea of a free quality encyclopedia - then this is the hobby for you. If not, you might be happier writing another book instead. Good luck! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Dear Wikipedians Thank you for your comments. I am trying to assess the viability of my involvement. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to become fully engaged. However, If a senior editor would be interested in acting as an interface - liaison with the academic world, I would be interested to reconsider. BTW, the book I suggested is my second book, indeed a self-published version. The academic version was published by Palgrave in 2013 "Jews and Gentiles in the Early Jesus Movement:" My second book is an enhanced, updated and expanded version that is more accessible to non-academic readers. Congratulations on your dedication and enthusiasm. An amazing project. Abel M Bibliowicz -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:A280:81F0:5420:E7D:50A5:E28B (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Angels and gender

It is my understanding that angels are neither male nor female, that they have no gender. And yet the article Michael (archangel) uses male pronouns throughout. I propose that angels should be treated as non-binary and they/them pronouns should be used throughout resource for them. Skyerise (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

That would run counter to established usage. While it may be true that someone somewhere has said that angels don't have gender (certainly not the bible), they are customarily male.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Skyerise, some articles have said that angels have "gendered forms", the angels in art page, cites a source (p. 10, "Catholic Questions, Wise Answers", Ed. Michael J. Daley, St. Anthony Messenger Press, 2001, ISBN 0867163984, 9780867163988) which says "Because angels are purely spiritual creatures without bodies, there is no sexual difference between them. There are no male or female angels; they are not distinguished by gender," while linking to which states "Angels are pure intellects that do not have physical forms and do not reproduce sexually. Indeed, angels do not reproduce at all; God created each of them out of nothing at the dawn of creation. They are numerous, immaterial, and immortal, so they don't need to reproduce...since he designed angels not to reproduce, he didn't design them to be male or female. Angels may appear to have gender in visions or in artwork, but that is just symbolism that makes it easier for us to think about them. If we were being strictly literal they couldn't be seen in visions or depicted in artwork because, according to their immaterial nature, they have no visible or physical forms at all." The same is said on, islamqa, The Guardian, Jewish Telegraph Agency, Rijks Museum, The Cut, and HuffPost. So, I think that's pretty definitive at this point, that they are genderless, from those sources. If someone can provide other sources countering this, I'd love to see that, but there does seem to be evidence in favor of the fact that angels are genderless. Otherwise, I would say they/them pronouns should be used if it has been indicated that the angel is non-binary. For instance, Aziraphale in Good Omens was confirmed by the book's author, Neil Gaiman as sexless and genderless. Historyday01 (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Those are not really RS for the gender of angels, and I found no mention of the issue at the Rijksmuseum at all. You need some scholarly work on the matter, not the Guardian or opinion pieces on Victoria's Secret. Angels have historically been given male pronouns, just as God has. Moreover, as mythical beings, they can't express any preference on the matter, so who exactly are we helping by calling them they?--Ermenrich (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You can say that, but the first sources were and are used on the angels in art page. I would say that most of them are RS (like those used on the angels in art page, The Guardian, Jewish Telegraph Agency, Rijks Museum, The Cut, and HuffPost). Rijks Museum says when describing angels, "the names of these genderless, supernatural beings." I'm willing to say that we shouldn't jump to saying they should be referred to with they/them pronouns (unless otherwise indicated), but I also think we can still call them genderless. If you find any scholarly work on the matter, feel free to share it. I only added what I could find in a internet search yesterday. Historyday01 (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: It's been a "New Age" thing for quite some time to often re-gender or unisex-gender various angels whose official names can accommodate that (Gabriel -> Gabrielle, etc.). But (A) we don't use New Age sources on Wikipedia; (B) Michael is clearly a male name, even if the very very very occasional human female receives that name; (C) we only use WP:RS on Wikipedia; (D) even the New Agers don't regender or unisex-gender Archangel Michael. Softlavender (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • For heaven's sake, Ermenrich, just get a Catholic catechism. I agree on the pronouns though. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Johnbod Do the catholic have a monopoly on angels? I'm not catholic and neither are angels. Where in the Bible does it say angels have no gender? The best we could say is some theologians say angels have no gender or the Catholic Church teaches so. Considering the stories of angels mating with human women in the Book of Enoch it's fairly clear that angels were not conceived of as sexless in antiquity.--Ermenrich (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Protestant theology has not advanced Catholic teaching on the matter, & is generally less interested. Effectively all theologians say angels have no gender and all mainstream churches teach so. Find anyone saying anything else, if you can. I think Thomas Aquinas covers the matter in some detail, as do others. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The premise is entirely incorrect. Christian theology does not claim that "angels are neither male nor female". The only thing that we have to rely on is one statement attributed to Jesus "For in the resurrection {people} neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." The term there does not say people are neither male nor female, only that there is no marriage. And we have Gabriel as well. I cannot recall any mention of gender other than the names of the messengers. See also Christian angelology. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Are any of you responding women? I don't think so. As for what the Bible, other holy books, and their translations say, that's irrelevant as they are primary sources. Material written by theologians isn't really any better. We'd need to deal with sex, gender, and the Christian faith with the academic rigor and perspectives of various disciplines. We'd need to look at sources like the following:

  • Classen, C. (1998). The Color of Angels: Cosmology, Gender, and the Aesthetic Imagination. United Kingdom: Routledge.
  • Dunning, B. H. (2019). The Oxford Handbook of New Testament, Gender, and Sexuality. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
  • Bordo, S. (1989). Gender/body/knowledge: Feminist Reconstructions of Being and Knowing. United Kingdom: Rutgers University Press.
  • Levison, J. R. (2012). Sex, Gender, and Christianity. United States: Cascade Books.
  • Religion, Transformation and Gender. (2017). (n.p.): V&R unipress GmbH.
  • Gender and Masculinities: Histories, Texts and Practices in India and Sri Lanka. (2017). (n.p.): Taylor & Francis.
  • Beyond Gender: An Advanced Introduction to Futures of Feminist and Sexuality Studies. (2018). United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.
  • Gilchrist, R. (2012). Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.

I mean, information about the gender of angels should come from the relevant academic field, not from religious adherents, right? Skyerise (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Being a woman isn't a qualification to discuss the gender of angels (and a somewhat bizarre statement when you're arguing that angels are non-binary anyway). You've failed to say what any of these sources say on the matter or how they say it: as far as scholarship is concerned angels don't actually exist, so they can only be described as they are believed to exist. At any rate, using they/them to refer to them is certainly OR.
The first book you cite, "The Color of Angels" is about "the gender politics behind our attitude to the senses". Not about angels being genderless. The citation of the Oxford Handbook also appears mum on the subject, if the preview can be believed [1], as does the book by Levison [2]. I have no idea what the relevance of the book by Bord or a book about Sri Lanka, but my suspicion is that you've basically just listed random titles that tell us nothing about the matter.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I bring up being a woman, because it is women who are harmed by referring to all angels as if they were male, even though angels are neither male nor female. Strangely enough, Abrahamic religions have no problem making demons female. I'd also be fine with referring to angels (and demons) as 'it,' but I thought they/them would be more respectful. Skyerise (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Skyrise, no women are harmed by referring to Archangel Michael with masculine pronouns. If you can find a WP:RS that specifically does otherwise for Archangel Michael, you are free to present it for consideration, with the understanding that what you personally define as or believe is an RS may not hold water here or at WP:RSN. On the subject of "Are any of you responding women?", I suggest you check people's userpages. Softlavender (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I agree with Crossroads. It's totally circuitous to dig through a bunch of specialized sources to try to determine the gender of angels and then use that determination to decide what pronouns to use, when instead we could just... see what pronouns RS use and follow that. Colin M (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Colin M, I can agree with that. I think there is some indications from the above discussion that angels may be genderless, but... none of that automatically means that the angels would use they/them pronouns. Authors who do have their angels with they/them pronouns usually say as much, so RS is usually available in those cases. Historyday01 (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I sort of agree, but if it were not the case that angels are genderless, and the gender they had was male or female, that would affect the question of what terms to use. But various editors above, while disputing that angels are genderless, don't say what gender or genders they have, let alone produce RS for this. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Johnbod, you don't seem to have offered any RS for your claims "Protestant theology has not advanced Catholic teaching on the matter, & is generally less interested. Effectively all theologians say angels have no gender and all mainstream churches teach so." Even Catholics refer to Archangel Michael as "he/him": [3], and even Thomas Aquinas refers to angels as "he" (e.g., "It would seem that the angel guardian sometimes forsakes the man whom he is appointed to guard. ... Although an angel may forsake a man sometimes locally, he does not for that reason forsake him as to the effect of his guardianship: for even when he is in heaven he knows what is happening to man; nor does he need time for his local motion, for he can be with man in an instant. ... But the loss of the man whom he has guarded is against the guardian angel's will. ... And the same also applies to the inferior orders: for a lower angel is enlightened in some respects by one of the highest, and in other respects by the one immediately above him. Thus it is possible that some one angel enlightens a man immediately, and yet has other angels beneath him whom he enlightens."): [4]. The article Michael (archangel) has 146 citations; I don't believe any of them refer to Michael as genderless or female. Lastly, neither Archangel Michael nor angels in general are the purview solely of Catholics or Catholicism or even Christianity; the Michael (archangel) article includes the viewpoints of nearly a dozen religions and sects. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I am a woman responding to this amusing discussion. First, Softlavender says Skyrise, no women are harmed by referring to Archangel Michael with masculine pronouns. True, practical and to the point. I love that. Second, Skyerise in the primary texts, angels are spirits, so gender is a pointless discussion, but they are depicted as spirit beings using masculine terminology. They are always shown as appearing as human males wearing male attire. No angel ever appears in the biblical texts (or the apocrypha) dressed as a female. The Greek word for "angel" in the New Testament, angelos, is in the masculine form; a feminine form of angelos does not exist. Angels are never referred to in any gender other than masculine. In the many appearances of angels in the Bible, never is an angel referred to as "she" or "it." This convention is continued in all the quality secondary sources. I suggest doing likewise and moving on. Happy editing! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Logically angels ought to be genderless. I concede that point. It's clear from Enochian literature, however, that they were originally conceived of as male: And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' (1 Enoch 5:1-2). This is not surprising: God was originally conceived of as male as well, even though logically a unique spiritual being should not have gender. There certainly are secondary sources somewhere that discuss this, but that is an entirely different question than whether we have to start using gender-neutral pronouns to refer to angels.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
With regard to specific angels: in the absence of a clear statement of pronoun preference from the angel in question?, and given that they're all mythological/fictional, I think it's best to generally go with whatever pronouns sources generally use. (Even if we were talking about real people, it would be necessary to point out that "is non-binary" does not always mean "uses they/them pronouns".) With regard to writing about angels in general, I suppose the same tips could be used as when writing about e.g. students in general, like casting sentences in the plural where possible to sidestep having to pick he vs she vs singular they. -sche (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I plan to reassess the GA Marcel Lefebvre

Hello! <be>I plan to reassess Marcel Lefebvre. To me, it does not meet the the GA criteria of using RS every time, as 80% of the refs are either primary sources (e.g. semons from Lefebvre), come from the SSPX (the organisation created by Lefebvre) and its media, or from people affiliated with the SSPX (e.g. Davies' Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre). Also, the part of the lede "In 1975, after a flare of tensions with the Holy See, Lefebvre was ordered to disband the society, but ignored the decision" does not seem to be in the article, not in the primary sources given at the end of the lede. As per Resource: Good article reassessment, I warn this Wikiproject in case someone wants to fix the article before I reassess it. Veverve (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

List of Christian apologetic works

Hello, WikiProject Christianity,

I'd appreciate it if you all would occasionally review this page and remove any works that aren't considerable notable. I don't want to just remove the titles where there is no resource article on the book because the authors might be considered notable. I'm hoping you have a better sense of works that have had an impact, whether or not they are considered mainstream apologetics. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



Music Scenes