Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Saint of the day

A proposal has been made on the talk page of the Portal:Saints for a possible daily update to at least some of the content of the portal. I think that this is a fine idea, but also think that I would want input from others as to which content to feature on which date. I have therefore set up a page for such discussion at Portal:Saints/Saint of the day for interested parties to nominate content related to individual saints they would like to see featured on the portal, and one which particular day, if one is preferred. I am here thinking particularly about possibly including individuals on the days of their feasts, if they have one. Any member of this project is more than welcome to make any nominations they see fit. Please feel free to make any specific suggestions there. John Carter 20:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

New project proposal

There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sign of the Cross

The article Sign of the cross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) underwent a complete rewrite over the last few weeks that left it quite heavily biased. I have tried to merge older material back into it, but it now needs to be put back together. If anyone on this project has the time, could they, please, take a look at the article and improve it. — Gareth Hughes 15:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming of Patriarch pages

I note that there is no uniformity in the titles of the pages dealing with the various people who have held the post of Patriarch of Alexandria. I would personally favor use of the word Patriarch over the word Pope, as it seems to me to be the least confusing and most easily understood by the widest possible audience. Opinions? John Carter 18:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What "stories" of the Bible merit separate articles?

There has recently been some discussion regarding which "stories" or portions of the Bible merit having their own articles. For the purposes of centralized discussion, please make any comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#What should have separate articles?. Thank you. John Carter 13:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

POV question on Athanasius of Alexandria

I have some serious concerns regarding the neutrality of the article above. Please see my comments justifying that statement at Talk:Athanasius of Alexandria#POV, and contribute any comments you think appropriate. Thank you. John Carter 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Saint Maurice#Request for Comment:Image in Infobox about which image of the subject should be used in the infobox. Any comments are welcome. John Carter 22:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Oriental Orthodoxy

I've been working on a template based on Template:Orthodoxy for the Oriental Orthodox Churches (the link for it hasn't been made yet). This is what it would supposedly look like:

*

...thoughts, opinions??? Is it good the way it is (in order of precedence/honor), or are there any mistakes at all? I will be looking for an answer, so if I get a positive response (I'm thinking I will), I will go ahead with creating this template and putting it in the respective links (the articles for all of the Oriental Orthodox —miaphysite— communion). Make sure to tell me what you think.

Yours faithfully,

• ~ Troy 01:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is very good the way it stands , very good idea--Ghaly 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd try to make the "Antioch" section of the "Autonomous churches" section a line of itself, but otherwise I see no problems. John Carter 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

By that you mean this?

*

...I'm not so sure. ~ Troy 19:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That was what I was thinking, yes. Good work! John Carter 19:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then. I'm going ahead with creating it and putting it in the respective links. Thanks for the tip. ~ Troy 19:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for allowing me to participate. (Mike Morgan 23:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

No problem, Mike Morgan. As Wikipedia is based on consensus', it's my duty to bring anything major or new to the attention of others. ~ Troy 18:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

nofri Troy! Sorry I've been away for a while. I like the template a lot, but I suggest you arrange the names of the churches alphabetically to avoid getting into sensitive issues. Great work! --Lanternix 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Lanternix. I'm just letting everyone here know that I have re-arranged it to alphabetical order. You can always see the current version here. Later, ~ Troy 16:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

At the moment the template adds all articles using it to Category:Oriental Orthodoxy, which is not needed - all are already in the category, mostly via the churches sub-cat etc. Can this be changed? Johnbod 20:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it can. I think it works now. John Carter 20:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, it does - and super-quick! Thanks. Johnbod 20:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Kind of Late for me to comment but nice template. Good work --Lijujacobk (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Za'afiel

Hi, the article Za'afiel is currently tagged as non-notable. As an angel mentioned in 3 Enoch I would think there should be an article about "it" (should that be it, him, her or what?). I'm here because I'm looking at articles tagged non-notable, not because I know anything about Angels. TIA, Garrie 03:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing on canonical texts

I urgently need help with another editor, User:Leadwind, who has been pushing a Roman Catholic POV, particularly with regard to what texts are to be considered canonical. I have pointed out many times that Wikipedia cannot assume the role of the Council of Nicea and simply declare a certain text to be uncanonical or "pseudepigrapha" (false writing) that is accepted by another church as canonical. But he remains impervious to the NPOV policy requiring him to attribute disputed POVs, and insists on writing that the Book of Jubilees (canonical in the EOTC) simply "is Pseudepigrapha written from a Pharisee perspective" - instead of telling the truth and writing that it is only considered so by non-Oriental Churches. The most bizarre thing is, he has chosen as his platform to edit war this point, the article Tower of Babel, which merely contains a quote from Jubilees - making a discussion about its canonicity rather off-topic anyway. I have pointed out that this is equivalent to writing a note in the section that quotes the Book of Mormon, that it is "a forgery written by Joseph Smith" - no matter who might consider it so, it would not be neutral to take sides, and hardly germane to the article anyway. Please come to Talk:Tower of Babel and help me restore NPOV. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible Oriental Orthodox saint collaboration

For the purposes of centralized discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints#Multiple saints collaborations?. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)