Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Christianity

Articles Categories Deletion Guide Newsletter Portal Projects




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.
 


Featured Article Save Award for Josquin des Prez[edit]

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Josquin des Prez/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SSPX-affiliated religious orders: are they "Benedictine" etc., or an imitation?[edit]

I have had a disagreement on whether the SSPX-affiliated religious orders can be called "Dominican", "Benedictine", etc. My opinion is that they are not, since they are not part of the Dominican order, Benedictine order, etc. since the SSPX is outside of the Catholic Church.

@BohumilzBiliny: has stated that They are Benedictines, because they live under the Rule.

What do you say? Veverve (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most religious orders adhere to some version of an ancient Rule. If this person says that SSPX lives by the Benedictine rule then they probably do. They live by whatever Rule was chartered for them originally when Rome approved their erection. SSPX is not "Benedictine" because they have a separate charism and do not live as a Benedictine family, but they live daily life according to that tradition. SSPX is not monastic, do not typically live in communities large enough to be considered monastic, and so they would necessarily need to modify that monastic Benedictine rule to their unique circumstances. Elizium23 (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And just because an order is outside the Catholic Church does not mean they cease to be such-and-such. I know of plenty of Dominicans who are outside the Church because of LGBT issues, women's ordination, etc. They live as Dominicans and self-identify as such; they are every bit as Dominican as the Catholic ones except without communion. Elizium23 (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To amplify what Elizium said: there's a long history of referring to orders by their spiritual tradition/rule regardless of whether or not they are part of the church said tradition or rule originated in. For example, the Church of England has maintained a revived Benedictine order for some time and there's a history of Benedictine monasticism in Eastern Orthodoxy. As such, any SSPX-affiliated body identified as "Benedictine" in reliable sources is for our purposes Benedictine. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but best to link it to Rule of Saint Benedict, not Benedictine, which says it is about the Catholic order, though with a long hatnote on others. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Johnbod. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pbritti: any SSPX-affiliated body identified as "Benedictine" in reliable sources is for our purposes Benedictine: the problem is that all the sources used in this article are primary sources from the SSPX itself. Veverve (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are also variations among the Anglicans and other branches of Christianity, see, for example: Order of St Benedict (Anglican). Dcheney (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion moved to article talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:CHOPSY as Anti-Christian conspiracy[edit]

A long-standing editor stated at WP:ANI that WP:CHOPSY is an Anti-Christian WP:CABAL.

I get attacked by both sides, rather vigorously, and my personal view of it is that I'm not actually against Christianity at all, I'm against certain forms of fundamentalism and, and, so virtually everything I say in my book are things that Christian scholars of the New Testament readily agree with, it's just that they are not hard-core evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible then I suppose I'd be the enemy, but there are lot of Christian forms of belief that have nothing to do with inerrancy.

— Bart Ehrman, Bart Ehrman vs Tim McGrew - Round 1 at YouTube

Is CHOPSY anti-inerrancy? Definitely. Is CHOPSY anti-fundamentalism? Definitely. Is CHOPSY Anti-Christian? Well, if you believe in biblical inerrancy, it is, otherwise the claim is risible. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure it's productive to put CHOPSY on trial here, per se, but perhaps more so to posit whether tgeorgescu holds to the Sola CHOPSY heresy that no other forms of Biblical scholarship should be accepted on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nonsense, I don't support Sola CHOPSY. As it is written large upon my talk page, The recipe for getting past my "theological" objections is quite simple: don't challenge WP:RS/AC (if there happens to be one) and use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for evangelical/traditionalist positions. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philippine Independent Church - a debate on unsourced and FICTREFed content[edit]

From what I understand, there has been a debate at Talk:Philippine Independent Church#Violating WP:BURDEN, adding FICTREFs, OR, as to whether or not the unsourced content and FICTREFs present in the article should be kept. Feel free to come and give your opinion. Veverve (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging the regulars: @Pbritti, Dcheney, Johnbod, and Elizium23:. Veverve (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested new articles (how to?)[edit]

Just went round and round searching for the article on Status confessionis here and not finding it. But something so important *must* have an article? After googling a bit and reading various linked pages, up pops Status confessionis, but at German wikipedia. But note: no links to English wikipedia from there, it is found only at de/da/it. Isn't this rather rare, not having an article here that exists elsewhere? Shenme (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shenme: I think Reformed confessions of faith us meant to encompass this topic; feel free to update and expand that article so that we can connect it with the German and Italian articles. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links to disambiguation page Apostolic Church[edit]

Could you help to fix the links to the disambiguation page Apostolic Church? This list shows 85 articles with links to Apostolic Church which should probably be linked to more specific articles, but I am not expert enough to know which.— Rod talk 11:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, all the incoming links are to Apostolic Church (denomination), which was recently moved to Apostolic Church (1911 denomination), so most of the disambiguation should be to that. StAnselm (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other issue is the new name of the page: it says Apostolic Church (1911 denomination) but it was really founded in 1916. StAnselm (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for info & thanks to all those who have already dealt with some of these.— Rod talk 17:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FAR for Joseph W. Tkach[edit]

User:Buidhe has nominated Joseph W. Tkach for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information.svg

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism#Requested move 24 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information.svg

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Requested move 18 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information.svg

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism#Requested move 24 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –Zfish118talk 18:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merger discussion for West Syriac liturgical rites[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg An article that you have been involved in editing—West Syriac liturgical rites—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pbritti (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Catholic News Service is dead; no redirect[edit]

@Pbritti, Elizium23, Zfish118, Dcheney, Johnbod, and Ad Orientem: The website Catholic News Service is dead since yesterday, due do a decision of the USCCB taken months priors. The website also covered news related to Christianity in general, as long as it was in connection with the Catholic Church. All the links to CNS articles currently link to 404 errors. A new website, OSV News, currently has Catholic News Service's former URL. See this statement.

In a few days, once the situation is clearer, and if the 404 errors remain, I think all Catholic News Service links added prior to 30 December 2022 should be marked as dead and archive URLs be added. A bot request should be made for it to be done. What do you say? Veverve (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah pretty clear a bot request is appropriate if you can get that to work. A shame, but fortunately a ton was archived pre-404ing. A shame the USCCB has retired so many of its services in the last two years. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the above (send in the bots) - sad they killed off the old content so quickly. Dcheney (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
agree Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Veverve (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A very interesting video[edit]

I stumbled upon this video from Ready to Harvest which I found interesting. It mentions numerous Wikipedia information and provides some valid criticism on how Wikipedia presents denominations, so I think it can be helpful to post it here. Feel free to share your thoughts on it! Veverve (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it uses WP as a source (I've not watched the video fully), then that would be WP:CIRCULAR so bears no meaning here as a reference. Perhaps WP:YOUTUBE might also be helpful here. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does not use it as a source, it criticises some aspects of it. It is not to be used as a reference, but rather as a food for thoughts for us users. Veverve (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would support a campaign to remove all "denominational flowcharts" from Wikipedia articles, they're just more misleading than helpful to laypeople. At most, it should be restricted to those churches which maintain ecclesiologies of apostolic succession. Garnet Moss (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's certainly fascinating, but fundamentally there's little that can be done in the infoboxes. A favorite example that comes to my mind is the United Methodists, which is essentially just a continuation of the Methodist Episcopal Church with Southern Methodist Episcopal and some others tossed in. Even though we trace the history back to the origin of these earlier groups, the infobox somewhat necessarily lists the more recent unification date. Infoboxes, while useful, aren't perfect. ~ 17:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbritti (talkcontribs) 17:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angels in Christianity - SOS[edit]

I've just proposed a move of Christian angelology to Angels in Christianity. This would conform with the pattern set by Angels in Judaism and Angels in Islam, and would also in general better meet Wikipedia's criteria for naming articles. Please feel free to contribute to this discussion, though I can't imagine this would be a controversial move.

But on a larger level, this article is quite bad. It was originally titled "Christian angelic hierarchy", and concerned itself solely with the Pseudo-Dionysian hierarchy popular in Medieval Latin Christianity, and that is mostly what the article still is, despite the name change. More information about the theology, doctrines, and spirituality surrounding angels in Christianity would be much appreciated, especially information not relating to Pseudo-Dionysius.

If you think you can contribute at all to this article, please do so, it's in a pretty atrocious state at the moment. Garnet Moss (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Garnet Moss: I have made some changes to make the article more general, but I have not added any information. Veverve (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's better than what was there, but with all due respect I still think this structure places way too much emphasis on the Pseudo-Dionysian hierarchy, which is completely irrelevant to all Protestants and (imo) not taken seriously by most modern Catholics/Orthodox. I think the whole Pseudo-Dionysian hierarchy should be under a single primary heading, and room allotted for other understandings of angels in Christianity. User Yeshua's proposed structure on the talk page would be a good basis, and I'm happy to implement it if there's no objections. In the meanwhile I guess I'll do some reading about Protestant views of angels. Garnet Moss (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible proposed deletion of article about evangelical christian family in Ireland[edit]

I have a concern about an article created in August 2022 about a evangelical Christian family in Ireland that i believe (from what i read of it) was created to doxx and intimidate members of the family due to their religious views and which its creation date coincided with the beginning date of a court case that is still curently ongoing. The article in question is Burke family (Castlebar) . I believe, but I am not too sure, that the article violates a number of wiki policies but particularly Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in the sections of WP:BLPGOSSIP , WP:AVOIDVICTIM , WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE , WP:BLP1E , and WP:BLPNAME (for some of the family named in the article). I believe this article is suitable for deletion according to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people but I am not sure how to go about this. I would be grateful if someone can review the article and also review its talk page where a dispute arose about the inclusion of a source from a newspaper article that has since been retracted and removed from the internet by the media agency but which an archival copy appears from internet archive. 79.154.24.42 (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A preliminary check suggests the article's existence is ok, but I'll look into the concerns about any policy violations. This is the correct place to ask for input, but if you haven't already, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography is another good place to ask for input. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I guess one of the other things I believe this article is designed to intimidate and therefore violating wiki policies is that it names all the family members, even those that have have not been involved in actions listed in media reports. I don't see any justification for this. Surely if the article is about various protests by various members of the family, then why involve and list family members that have not been involved. Surely the article should just list those that their sources list and make reference to the actions as listed in their said sources. All the same thank you for responding and agreeing to look into concerns about plolicy violations. 79.154.24.42 (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed some names from the lede as they appear to not have any major involvement in most of the notable events associated with the family. While the article is atypical in structure, it seems to be in alignment with both WP:BLP and WP:RS standards. The policies and guidelines mentioned in the above comments seem to not apply, but I welcome the IP editor to raise concerns with specific passages and sources here, on the article's talk page, and at WP:TEAHOUSE. If they want the best response, the IP editor is encouraged to use direct quotes from the article with details of what changes might be made. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would suggest that's bad advice, and if the editor has problems with specific passages and sources, they discuss them on the article's talk page rather than WP:FORUMSHOPPING. (The original post in this section has been added to no less than seven different noticeboards!) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is a BLP violation, an obscure talkpage may not get any attention. Notifying other boards of that there are specific concerns raised on the talkpage would be appropriate. –Zfish118talk 16:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RM in progress for Greek Orthodox Church[edit]

Hello! There is currently a RM at Talk:Greek Orthodox Church (disambiguation)#Requested move 20 January 2023 about whether to turn Greek Orthodox Church into a DAB or not. Feel free to come and give your opinion. Veverve (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary[edit]

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed
Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62)
Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject[edit]

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Asser
  2. Cardinal-nephew
  3. Ganesha
  4. Henry (bishop of Finland)
  5. Jocelin of Glasgow
  6. John Knox
  7. The Age of Reason

Hello. I have just created an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Material heresy (2nd nomination). Feel free to come and give your opinion! Veverve (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello!

I have opened a new AfD. Please feel free to come and give your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomistic sacramental theology. Veverve (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In need of feedback for Heresy in the Catholic Church[edit]

Hello. Over the past few days, I have worked on Heresy in the Catholic Church. Could you give me their feedback on the article in its current state? Also, feel free to contribute if you feel like it.

Pinging the regulars: @Zfish118, Johnbod, StAnselm, Dcheney, and Ad Orientem:. Veverve (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliability of Catholic Culture[edit]

Editor @Horse Eye's Back: has stated that the website Catholic Culture along with everything hosted on it (be it electronic hosting of material already published somewhere else, or publications by Catholic Culture) are to be removed from Wikipedia, as the user claims this website is not a reliable source. The user has already begun removing the sources from the website (from 22:43, 26 January 2023 to 22:57, 26 January 2023).

I oppose such a jugement on Catholic Culture (CC). From experience, yes they are reliable; and they host electronic versions of previously published documents (journal papers, dictionary entries) which cannot be found anywhere else. The reproduction on CC appears to be faithful (e.g. compare this entry with its original paper publication p. 104).

Pinging the regulars: @Zfish118, Johnbod, StAnselm, Dcheney, Ad Orientem, Pbritti, and Ltwin: Veverve (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not the place to have the discussion. That would be the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for notifying me of this. Debate moved to: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of the Catholic Culture website. Veverve (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge Proposal - Invincible ignorance[edit]

I created a merge proposal at Talk:Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology), proposing to merge in Invincible error. It is suffering from a lack of participation, so would be grateful if anyone interested could take a look. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]