Theopedia:Village pump

From Theopedia

Post a comment

Contents 1 Bibliographies 2 What articles should be in Theopedia? What differentiates Theopedia and Wikipedia? 3 Reformanda vs. Reformata 4 Names of God in articles 5 Whassup with Recent changes? 6 Commentary opinions? 7 Can a non-Calvinist be involved 8 pages likely to be covered well by wikipedia 9 I buried Paul 10 Chapter articles 11 New change to Theopedia 12 Copied wikipedia articles need to be redone 13 How original is original? 14 editing problems 15 Project versus talk page 16 Focus 17 Biblical versus systematic 18 A "History of Christianity" Project 19 Recent changes Monster 20 Log-in page 21 Problems with templates 22 Suggestion 23 Main page needs a change 24 JETS articles need to be removed 25 Good refernces to link to 26 All editors with accounts, you'll want to see this:

[edit] Bibliographies

Mad thought: is there some way of databasing bibliographical information so that you can just refer to an item in the database, and then Theopedia pulls out the full reference? I guess not, but if it could be done, it would solve the alphabetising and referencing standards issues in a stroke. It's probably a stupidly large job, for the benefit derivable. Unless someone sells the code.  :D Wooster (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - I don't know how MediaWiki works exactly, especially for this site, but I know that Wikipedia has a lot of wiki tags (written as {{<something>}}); maybe you could create a huge number of wiki tags for bibliographical information? --Whiteknox 15:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me this could be done using API through a source like isbndb.com. Does anyone know more about programming that could help see if this works. I started an ISBN template but I'm not sure where to go next with it... HokieRNB 19:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Need Tom around, he knows this sort of stuff. I know where to look, but it's all gobbledegook to me. And I can programme SQL, which is saying something for my databasing-gobbledegook threshold. Wooster (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What articles should be in Theopedia? What differentiates Theopedia and Wikipedia?

What exactly is the difference between Theopedia and Wikipedia? As far as I can see, the primary difference is a more focused point of view. Wikipedia can't even decide that pornography is evil; on the other hand, this -pedia seems to have a much more decent readership and community.

Specifically, how do you determine which articles should be included in this pedia? (To tell you the truth, I kind of dislike the whole idea of notability; I think that any information which is decent and which people may want to know should be accessible somehow; there's nothing more frustrating than searching for something on Wikipedia and finding out that the article was deleted because it wasn't deemed notable)--Whiteknox 20:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How is "decent" defined? Were it only possible to know between both communities (Wiki- & Theo-) as to their proportions of pornography viewers! Why do I find it hard to believe it would not be so different were such a survey to be answered honestly.

Anyhow, as to your question in general, what makes a Dictionary of Theology different than a Dictionary? I believe the answer to both our questions is the same.Chrismon 21:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, I got completely lost between the last two comments. I'm not sure how pornography enters into this discussion, but from what I can gather, Whiteknox is not trying to suggest anything about the personal habits of Theopedia contributors, but rather about the general nature of the work here. Is that correct? Further, he is trying to ascertain if the civil tenor that ought to pervade the edits and the dialogue around them is the only difference, and I think the answer to that is fairly well laid out in the guiding documentation of why and for whom Theopedia exists. - R HokieRNB 15:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Chrismon's answer. Let us know if you're still seeking further clarification. Thanks. JordanBarrett (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

JordanBarrett, do you mean that you agree with HokieRNB's answer? It looks like that's what you mean.

Very sorry. ChrisMon steered my comment in a way that I entirely did not expect or intend. I guess I wasn't entirely clear; moreover I shouldn't have mentioned pornography. The entire point of my comment was to try to shed some light on what exactly the difference is between Wikipedia and Theopedia. Is it merely the POV?

To explain what I said in my comment, I still feel burned about Wikipedia (not Theopedia) because a few weeks ago WIKIPEDIA (certainly, certainly, certainly not Theopedia) featured an article on their main page which was pornographic. If you read my comment, I was trying to suggest that a main difference between Wikipedia and Theopedia is that the readership and community are much, much different. I'm so sorry I wasn't clear.

Thus my question is which kinds of articles does Theopedia encompass. The writing guide in particular doesn't seem to be very clear on which articles are within the pale of Theopedia. Is this just something that you settle on an individual basis? Now that I think about it, I guess the writing guide is clear enough. Again, sorry, I didn't mean to cause trouble. Gotta run. --Whiteknox 22:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

first: I believe JordanBarrett meant what he said when he agreed with my answering WhiteNox's original question with yet another question (the difference between a Dictionary of Theology and a [regular] Dictionary).

second: If only you could hear my uncontrollable laughter, "ChrisMon steered my comment in a way that I entirely did not expect or intend"! Tears of laughter! I'm not laughing at you, but perhaps near you :) I was having fun with your righteous indignation - after all, what else can we expect of the World and its Powers and its Principalities, like Wikipedia, other than to act like fallen people? I was merely trying to say that we shouldn't be so quick to distinguish ourselves from those evil purveyors of pornography at Wikipedia (and especially not the viewers!) since we are certainly not so far removed from our humble, sinful beginnings. After all, it is for good reason that the Lord's prayer teaches us how to find forgiveness. At any rate, if you want to stop pornography, show the world what it means to love your enemies. Chrismon 23:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Whitenox, I would say what separates Theopedia from Wikipedia is definitely that we reject a NPOV. We believe a NPOV is first, impossible, and second, necessary if you're truly going to say anything. Thus, Theopedia is conservative and Reformed in its theology, and prefers articles that fall within that realm. This also means that its articles will have a Reformed feel to them, as this is the focus we want them to have. We welcome sections that provide criticism of such views, but ask that they remain in a positive light towards Reformed theology. To be honest, though, Theopedia may be over 2 years old, but it is still working out plenty of issues. For one, we are still trying to figure out the scope. For example, should we include such articles as a Christian view of mathematics? Or should it be limited to history, philosophy, theology, etc. as it relates to what Scripture says. These things need to be worked out, and so yes, right now new articles are born on an individual basis as the community of Christian believers agrees on whether it would benefit the readers. Hope that helps. JordanBarrett (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Which leads to more unfortunate distinction. Does being "Reformed" mean "semper reformanda" or "semper reformata"? And then, what exactly is "conservative"? I'm not asking this to be coy, but seriously wonder.Chrismon 07:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. To some extent, I don't want to get so technical that Theopedia loses its original vision: to primarily be a simple educational tool to the layperson and secondarily to other interested people who will more than likely be more educated (this is a brief and huge over-generalization btw). But, for those who need the clarification, I still believe it's necessary. The issue between "reformanda" (i.e. reformed) and "reformata" (i.e. always reforming) has not been worked out yet. Thus, maybe we can start a new discussion here and I'll try and get some of the other admins involved. JordanBarrett (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reformanda vs. Reformata

To start off, and clarify, I was under the impression that "reformanda" was the future passive "to be reformed", therefore "semper reformanda" is "always to be reformed". Not that the church always in the state of having been acted upon, but will perpetually be acted upon, perpetual reformation. This has always led me to find any inkling towards a static Reformed theology to be either based on a poor choice of Latin phraseology or the intention was that the Church should always be re-examining itself. After all, was this not one of the major complaints against our Roman brothers, that they had not only stagnated but that such stagnation had actually produced corruption? For the other side of this coin, I was under the impression that the Scottish Church, for as tightly as Calvinists clench onto his legacy, should have been a bit more honest in declaring "semper reformata!" since "reformata" is the (past) perfect. That is "Always reformed[, once and for all!]". Of course this would seem to play right into that old complaint against our Roman bretheren. So we've got to decide that either the evolution of our understanding of theology died with Calvin and only is alive insofar as we live in Calvin's theology in our discipleship, or that folks like Karl Barth and N. T. Wright (half-Reformed theologically by way of his Anglicanism) are not off their theological rockers. If we do not grow we die, but this does not mean we grow in any which way... and I'll leave that for a beginning. — unsigned comment by Chrismon (talk • contribs)

Well, certainly let's remember not to be carried about by every wind of doctrine, and to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. There is a strong emphasis in the Bible on following the God of your fathers, when that is the True God, yet we need to be careful that only the Holy Spirit speaking through the Scriptures leads us in our doctrine. This is just an observation, doesn't necessarily impact Theopedia. Gotta run. --Whiteknox 16:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Chrismon, I agree with your translations, and so excuse my quick generalizations. I think you explained it much better than I did, but I at least wanted to give other readers an idea of what was being discussed (i.e. for those who couldn't translate). I also agree that the church must continue growing and not remain stagnate, as if we've discovered Reformed theology, we're done doing theology, and we just need to sit back and defend it. However, with guys like Barth and Wright, I think it is healthy and necessary to read them and glean what we can from them. But for example, I'd never (and don't) adopt their views of Scripture. They still have good things to say, but I (and Theopedia) still affirm inerrancy. Yet, I completely adopt Barth's trinitarian emphasis. This was a much needed thing in theology, and many are indebted to him for the current renewal in trinitarian theology. These are just a few examples among many. Perhaps this is what you mean in that we don't grow in any which way (i.e. adopting some but not all views), but I'll simply allow you to clarify that. I'm also wondering if this conversation should move to the forum, but we'll see where it leads. JordanBarrett (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names of God in articles

So we have at least three ways of referring to God: God, Lord, Yahweh (equally, LORD). Does anyone have any direction on when might be appropriate to use each? For instance, I tend to use Yahweh if I'm emphasising the fact that we are talking about Israel's covenant god; I wouldn't use the name Yahweh in a section dealing chiefly with New Testament theology—there, I'd be more inclined to use God or Lord. But any ideas what those names convey? Are there any other useful names I've missed? Wooster (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great question. My answer right now would be that I think it's ok to use any of them. Yet, in case others may be unfamiliar with the use of different names, we should be quick to provide links so that others can figure out what it means and why we're using it. JordanBarrett (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A name is an important thing. And most importantly it conveys relationship and history. (Imagine the person who says your name on the street and you do not recognize them, but an implicit trust is formed as you assume you must know them and instinctively search your mind for their name). "Yahweh" speaks not so much specifically to the ancient Hebrews but to the relationship of the Almighty to his People, be it under the name of "Israel" or "Church" in a fairly specific way. This name refers to relationship with the God who longs to be near his people and that they become a reflection of his justice - this Almighty God who doesn't see justice as a blind balance scale on a level playing field, but that the poor, the needy, the orphan and the alien, those on the bottom of society, are not trampled on. When you invoke the name of "Jesus", your following words are predicated upon the God who lays aside his almighty power and advantage and chooses to love his enemies by submitting to their violence and uses it to save them from their failure to be righteous people. When we use the name "Lamb" we combine that image of the one who lays down his life and the one who is worthy to open the seals and will defeat the armies of the world not with metal swords but by his very words. And so on. I do not feel it is generally wrong or inappropriate to use the names of God interchangeably, however God has many names for just as many reasons. I always find that it seems right to use the name which addresses the actions or our history with God that best fit the topic. — unsigned comment by Chrismon (talk • contribs)

[edit] Whassup with Recent changes?

There's funky little numbers with plusses and minuses after changes, and I just scored a (+194). Do I get a prize? Wooster (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha. That'd be nice. Tom said they give a quick reference as to whether someone deleted (-), or added (+) material and how much (the size of the number). The goal seems to help you get through the recent changes much quicker (e.g. looking out for edits over 150 or whatever number you deem big enough to double-check). JordanBarrett (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary opinions?

At points in writing Biblical theology articles, I occasionally need to make a commentary-type decision (see my footnote on the Cleansing/s of the Temple in Temple, for instance). I try to explain that there are two sides to the debate, but obviously, it's difficult to write an article without taking a position. What to do? Wooster (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Great question. I agree that it's hard, but if you're up for it, I think it may be possible to simply outline the views, giving their strengths and weaknesses, and leave it at that. True, that's trying to be "neutral", but it may be possible in some instances. Granted, I think your own view may come through in the presentation of the strengths and weaknesses. But, I'm not going to argue very hard for this idea. Let me know your thoughts. JordanBarrett (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I find it particularly hard given that a lot of the time these issues are not sufficiently central to warrant long discussion in either text or footnote, but not sufficiently peripheral to be safely ignored. I try to avoid taking positions where there isn't going to be a decent consensus, but you can't just sweep some of these things under the carpet. Wooster (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. In normal theological discussion, I would by all means welcome all the major views and a persons position. Yet, here at Theopedia, where we exist primarily to be an online theological aid, I hesitate to bring up too many issues that could either prove divisive, confusing, or unhelpful. But again, as you've mentioned, some of these are necessary, and I trust your discernment on such issues. ;) JordanBarrett (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have any systematic theology books, I think those are good guides on what is seen as a fair treatment of an issue when more than one side is presented. I leafed through a couple of mine by Grudem and Ryrie and found examples in both. There were a couple issues that they addressed on which I disagreed with their conclusions. However, I did feel that they at least presented my position fairly. --jaredtotten 21:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can a non-Calvinist be involved

I am a Christian who believes in the infallibility of the Bible, and since my work on the Tolkien Gateway wiki have been wanting to get involved in a Biblical wiki. I wanted to make clear one of the "doctrines": does this wiki (so to speak) hold the belief that the choice of man to believe in the sacrifice of Jesus has nothing to do with whether or not they are saved, and that God chooses people rather than their making a decision to come to him? I've read the Statement of Faith, but I'm not a Calvinist, and I'm wondering how extreme this wiki is in terms of Calvinistic doctrine. --Chashmal 02:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess what we'd want to say is this: you are very welcome to contribute provided you can post material which lies within the boundaries of this site. Your personal beliefs do not, in that sense, matter. There is much on which we can agree: for instance, biblical studies material is frequently (but not always, so be a little careful) non-controversial. If you want me to deal with the specific point of doctrine you raised, I can do; suffice it to say that I wouldn't cast the question in those terms, but insofar as I can deal with that terminology, we would have a disagreement. We have a choice, true, but which sinful man will choose God? It would take a miracle! Wooster (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Chasmal, I would echo Wooster's invitation to participate, and I would touch on your question about people making a decision to come to him by saying that Calvinism takes an honest look at what the Bible says about the condition of man before regeneration and recognizes his utter inability to turn to God. Consider the following:

In Romans 7:18 Paul admits, "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out." He continues in Romans 8:7-8, "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." He affirms this inability in 1 Corinthians 2:14 "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." Jesus also addressed this inability in John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

Now as to your actual question, perhaps if you were to ask, "does this wiki hold the belief that the belief of man in the sacrifice of Jesus has nothing to do with whether or not they are saved?" you might get a better response. Romans 10:9-10 is pretty clear about that answer, "...if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Hope this helps. HokieRNB 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Now looking at the username I chose (in haste) I see it really doesn’t fit me at all. It sounds too much like Chemosh, I guess. I just took it from a Hebrew word referring to the radiance of God. I know that anyone can edit here as long as they adhere to these beliefs, but I was wondering precisely as to the nature of these beliefs before I considered seriously joining this wiki.

To your verses, Hokie, Romans 7:18 & 8:7-8 do not refer to Salvation, but the ability to do good, which is truly only in God (the “good” of the unsaved are but as filthy rags). Unless you understand doing good deeds to merit salvation (in which case our beliefs would truly separate), they do not apply to this belief. The only verse you gave that would appear to support Calvinism is the last one, John 5:44; but remember that the very next verse quotes the prophets, that “And they shall all be taught of God (NASB)”. This may itself have been taken out of context (I can’t find the place in the OT where this is), but the main thing is several chapters later, in John 12:32: “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself”. I take the verse you gave to mean that without God’s drawing men to Himself, no-one could be saved, which is true. But he draws all men, and I think you could interpret it that way just as well without John 12:32. Whether they accept this or not is a different matter.

Now why I am here is not to argue about these beliefs, but to clarify those of the wiki. So does this wiki include (or hopefully will include) articles on all characters of the Bible, places, etc.? And how does it compare to other Christian wikis? --Chashmal 15:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Chasmal - points well taken. Thanks for the clarification. I guess I would put "have saving faith" into the category of "do good", and would further point to Romans 9:16, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." This is merely to reiterate the point that faith and repentance are gifts, and not something that we can muster up on our own. However, I also appreciate your point that you didn't bring this up to argue about these beliefs. The scope of this wiki is quite broad, indeed. Any significant character, place, or teaching in the Bible should eventually find a home in an article here. I'm not sure whether Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz really needs an article, but if someone has the energy for it, I say have at it.

Now to your new point, which is probably what you meant in your original question, "how does it compare with other Christian wikis?" I would have to say that it (A) is probably one of the largest and most active of the Christian wikis, and (B) has a well-defined hedge of protection around what defines consensus, in that it is evangelical (focused on the Gospel), orthodox (focused on right doctrine), and reformed (focused on the Five Solas). As stated in the guiding principles, content that does not fit within these boundaries will be critiqued, edited, or deleted. HokieRNB 15:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pages likely to be covered well by wikipedia

What is the policy here about pages that are likely to be covered well by wikipedia? I keep noticing many many topics that I would think a reformed wiki would have but Theopedia doesn't (like Synod or most denominations or Excommunication or...). I can link off to the wikipedia articles or leave these are red links and hopefully someone fills them in. Not sure what the preference is. Jbolden1517 02:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Do note, Theopedia is still new and growing and has almost no comparison to Wikipedia in terms of consistent editors. Here at Theopedia we are suspicious of Wikipedia's claim to a NPOV, and thus we write our own articles but there are also many times where we adapt Wikipedias content and conform it in ways we see necessary. Hopefully that makes some sense. Please add any further questions. Thanks. JordanBarrett (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So repeating this back to make sure I understand, the preference is to leave it as a redlink with someone later linking/filling information from wikipedia as needed? Jbolden1517 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, leave it as a red link, but I'm not sure as to Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is GFDL and we are Public Domain, we cannot simply copy content from them without making that entire article separate from the site-wide license of PD. In other words, it's probably better not to quote from them just because of the hassle. --Tom 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I buried Paul

Or was it "I'm very bored"? I can never remember. Anyway, just a note to say that I'm quickly tiring of Theopedia these days. As I've stated in other talk pages, my desire is for the Word of God to be elevated above all else. I also believe that contrary to some opinions expressed as of recent, as men of God we are adequate, equipped, and approved to handle the Word of God, by the guiding of His Spirit. I wish that I didn't have to wade through 40 edits in 3 days on 1 article, with what seems like the majority of the attention focused not on the Bible and what it has to say, or even to other resources that might help someone quickly find out what the Bible has to say, about the topic. I wish I could devote half the time and energy of others toward making these articles more friendly, bare minimum coming to consensus on a basic definition. Of what value is a wikipedia article on giraffe that jumps right into the discussion about conservation tactics for the Rothschild's giraffe of Uganda, without at least letting the reader know that the giraffe is an African even-toed ungulate mammal, the tallest of all land-living animal species? I just needed to get that off my chest. NRN HokieRNB 13:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK since this is directed at me.... It was my intent to create unique content which consolidates the wide range of views that exist in the literature. Dealing with that means assuming the reader is already familiar with the basics (and if they aren't providing high quality sources to read the basics). That means the articles should briefly summarize the basics but focus on areas of disagreement. In some sense a review of the literature, not a review of the topic.

It appears I'm absolutely alone in this view. It seems like most others are looking for just another collection of bible studies no more authoritative then what you can pick up at any Christian bookstore. Just a random author's opinion about a topic that is not familiar with the wealth of literature that already exists. So I'll leave. Jbolden1517 14:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeff - this was not directed at you. If anything, it was directed at the hundreds (if not thousands) of other people who waft through this site and never contribute anything, or at least to the several other active participants. I think your contributions are extremely valuable, but I'm frustrated by the fact that no one has stepped up to put some structure and framework to the articles. You are right that we will have some disagreements, but please don't take that to mean that you shouldn't continue your work. HokieRNB 14:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh OK. Sorry for taking that wrong. Then I'm going to be comforting. I certainly agree I've been writing about the "conservation tactics for the Rothschild's giraffe of Uganda". Remember on wikipedia it often takes 2-3 years from the time an article is started to the time its actually a well written balanced article. I doubt it will be different here. Take a look at church membership. A week ago the article looked like this (please click). [1]. Today we have an article that covers (in pretty good depth):

1. An elegant biblical justification for membership (for which Mkmcconn deserves the credit)
2. A short history of the doctrine of membership in the US
3. Rules governing joining and unjoining a church with a focus on differences between presbyterian denominations in how they view membership

The 3rd item is exactly the sort of thing you can't find anywhere else. That ain't bad progress for a week. Jbolden1517 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chapter articles

Two extremely related questions. Read John 1 to get an idea of the sort of article I'm asking about, if you're not sure.

1. What would a perfect chapter article look like? What would be its structure and content?
2. Do we have an example of the way we want the chapter articles to turn out, for comparison?

I'm thinking about doing some chapter article stuff, but I want to know what kinds of material is useful. Obviously links to sermons, commentaries and so on; but what else? Do we really want a strict verse-by-verse approach, or would something a bit more prose-y be all right? Wooster (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New change to Theopedia

Greetings all, Theopedia has undergone a recent and important change. Instead of leaving the articles open to free editing by any user, it has been decided to close off articles and begin an application process where people can become editors, admins, etc. The hope is to gain even greater unity, integrity, and quality of articles among other reasons. You will now find a link on the Main Page to apply, and so if anyone would like to be an editor please follow the process stated on the application page. The details are still being worked out and added to Theopedia, so please be patient as we finalize this process. If you have any questions please email Aaron, Tom, or myself. Blessings, JordanBarrett (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copied wikipedia articles need to be redone

Note to all: because Theopedia is public domain, we can no longer use wikipedia material as a base for the article. We can still quote/reference it, but not entire articles. This means that we need to go through articles and remove some content and also remove any GFDL templates or reference templates for wikipedia. I don't know the ins-and-outs of why this changed, and I'm sorry to throw more work out there. If you have questions about details, ask Aaron or Tom as they know how this works. JordanBarrett (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspected that might become an issue. I can't remember why we felt we had to go to public domain rather than GFDL like Wikipedia. Hmmm.

Also, on a different matter, how come when I type 4 tildes for a signature, it still shows "Gomarus" instead of current Username? Gomarus 13:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, you'll have to ask Tom. Regarding the GFDL issue, Aaron had initiated the plan to allow our material to be public domain (which I agree with) so that it's more easily accesible to anyone who wants to use our materials. If it ever happens that a missionary wants to use an article for whatever reason, they weren't allowed to before without properly citing us. We wanted to remove the barriers and if people were helped by theopedia's content, we wanted to make it as easy as possible for it to be used by others w/o worry of copyright issues. Aaron can explain it better, but hopefully that's a start. I printed out a list of articles that need to be redone, and it's honestly not that bad. JordanBarrett (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Go into your preferences, and where it says nickname, change that to your name. --Tom 16:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Duh. I shoulda checked that. Thanks Tom. Jim Ellis 17:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How original is original?

As I have been writing the Gospel article, I've been trying to plow through to get a general structure down. In this "plowing" I've been wondering how much of this would be considered original work? I have tried to litter the text with biblical references, using quotes when easily inserted and trying not stray from the most obvious intent and implications of the text. Would that be considered original?

Also, as a more general question, how important is it for Theopedia's content to not be original? After all, "Encyclopedia" does not mean "original", it means "learning that encircles", or less literally, "well-rounded knowledge".

In general I would suggest the following: The Theopedia articles are not to be the place for one to publish his own opinions, theses, essays, or research. Rather it is to present a summary of credible and factual information from citable (published) sources in a manner consistent with Theopedia's theological perspective. Your own words (as an editor) are necessary to knit together a good coherent article designed for Theopedia's format, etc. It is difficult (sometimes) to keep our opinions and personal perspectives out of things, but that is the goal. In other encyclopedias, the author of an article surveys/researches the topic and then presents his summary material followed by a bibliography of scholarly sources to back up the article. Jim Ellis 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Good summary Jim. I would agree. Jordan Barrett (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] editing problems

Sorry about the problems guys. Our settings file was really disorganized and I was getting confused on what was doing what ;-).I think it's working properly now. And I organized it to ;-). --Tom 20:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project versus talk page

What is the difference between the project page and the talk page for a particular article? I thought a project page would discuss the logistics for working on a project, e.g. who is doing what, what needs to be done, suggestions for major reorganization of a project's articles that would not fit in a single article's talk page. Should to-do list for a page be on the talk or the associated project page? --Alex 03:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Focus

1. Do we want to try to focus all our efforts on developing one area at a time? --Alex 00:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Are we trying to expand our systematic theology articles right now? Should we focus on expanding the more important articles or on getting as many stubs written as possible? --Alex 00:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical versus systematic

Should we try to mark a clearer distinction between biblical theology and systematic theology? For example, should we have separate pages for Creation from the perspective of following the theme in Scripture and from the perspective of the role it plays in theological systems? --Alex Woehr 03:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I vote that these be integrated. Otherwise, by having separate articles, we continue to support the dichotomy of biblical and systematic theology. Jordan Barrett (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not kept up with the dialog you two have had on this issue. Alex, if you have another perspective (or approach) to discussing Creation (e.g. from a biblical theology standpoint), I agree with Jordan that our preference is to combine it here in the one article. You may develop it as a draft on the Discussion (Talk) page, or create a new Section in the article and begin its development there. In either case, this should be based on citable sources and not merely your own thoughts. :-) Jim Ellis 14:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A "History of Christianity" Project

Having a degree in history, I believe I'm far better suited for contributing to the historical content of Theopedia than the theological content. For the most part, I am going to discontinue contributing in theological articles (yes, I can hear the cheers from the all the OPC folks ;). (Do not get too excited as there might be cases where I am burning to add something from Barth!) Anyhow, to focus on the historical, I would like to begin a new project, "Theopedia:History_of_christianity". This project would serve two main goals: 1) to give a mildly specific introduction to the time line of Church history, and 2) to give a mildly specific introduction to the time line of the development of Christian doctrine. Combining these two things is too cumbersome a task for both the author and the reader. Though they must, of course, reference one another as they have and do influence one another. From this effort would arise new main articles of "Church History" and "Development of Doctrine", which would provide a fuller historical flow of their respective focus -- though they would not discuss, in depth, the details of each time and place. Thoughts? — unsigned comment by Jason Gabler (talk • contribs)

What about Theopedia:Church history? Which name is better? --Alex Woehr 17:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Because "Church history" is a history of the body Christian persons and "development of doctrine" is a history of that body's doctrine. Both fall under a larger heading of Christian history. Jason Gabler 17:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely up for you contributing where you feel your strengths are. ;) The project pages (theopedia:"insert title here") seem to me to be pages that serve as a page to put ideas on (I may be wrong here). If this is the case, an article titled History of Christianity would serve as the main page with further sub-pages. Jason, I know you said you want to shy away from theology, but I think that if you're going to work on the development of doctrine we should try and work the historical theology article into this somehow (at least so that we don't forget about it). Jordan Barrett (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, Jason, I still don't see the difference between "church history" and "history of Christianity." Perhaps you're saying that church history is a sub-topic of history of Christianity. Is that the case? I'm just trying to understand how this works out logically, or in outline-form. Jordan Barrett (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. Christianity is the term for the faith which provides the formative hope underlying the creation of the Church and Christian theology. I.e. Christianity in essence is the very Gospel itself and the "history of Christianity" is the history of that Good News. You could say it starts with Amos 9 and ends with Revelation 22. The Church is Gospel's progressive body politic and Christian theology is the progressive understanding of what it means to be that body. I would agree that "historical theology" is a better route in categorization than "history of doctrine". (Bromiley's book is named just that, "Historical Theology" :).

As for my shying away from theology, I'm not afraid it :) I just want to spend my time where my strengths are. I have no problem talking about (the history of) theology. I'm just not going to do theology. — unsigned comment by Jason Gabler (talk • contribs)

[edit] Recent changes Monster

Would we all use "Show preview" more often than "Save page", please? Scores of edits, each a minute or so apart, makes the Recent Changes link almost useless. Jason Gabler 17:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What if we do use "Show preview", and still don't see every change that we want to make, until the change is saved? Have you tried changing to "Enhanced recent changes"?   → Mark ^{(Mark McConnell)} 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What does "don't see every change that we want to make" mean? Are you saying that you make changes to a page, then do "show preview" and your changes to not appear? Jason Gabler

What I mean, Jason, is that writing and editing what is written is a process of thought. Not everything occurs to the editor all at once. Also, new ideas introduce new changes in the flow of the essay which need to edited, and new errors that need to be fixed. It would be nice if what came out the first time was exactly what you want it to mean, just as you mean to say it. But, since this is a wiki, you don't need to worry about that. This medium makes it possible to quickly alter, compare versions, preview, and save changes, review and make new alterations, even "scores" of times in just a few minutes. Have you checked out the "Enhanced recent changes" preference? If not, you might find that you like it.   → Mark ^{(Mark McConnell)} 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The process you describe in editing is exactly what "Show preview" is for. Jason Gabler 20:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What Jason is getting at is that he would rather you hit "show preview" 10x until you get it the way you want rather than hitting "save." I agree that some of the edits could have been less due to hitting "show preview" a few more times. However, I do not want this to come across that 1) no one is allowed to make mistakes, 2) you can't make multiple edits to an article and are limited to only one, etc. Then again, a long list of minor edits on the recent changes - let alone the "history" of an article - can get frustrating. Can we find a happy medium? Jordan Barrett (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it impacts the history too. All I'm asking for, like you say, is a middle ground anyway. But certainly not for any sort of medium -- the bible expressly forbids their use. Jason Gabler 20:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The process I described is exactly what I described, Jason. It includes previewing, reviewing, rewording, re-writing. Sometimes its smoother than at other times, and sometimes you just can't get anything right. Your complaint is noted. I recommend the Enhanced recent changes, if you want a less cluttered view of the changes made, if you haven't already tried it.   → Mark ^{(Mark McConnell)} 01:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you are 100% correct. The process you described is in fact the very one which you described. I have no doubt about that. Did you know that, coincidentally, it is also the exact the process for which the "Show preview" button was created? Jason Gabler 04:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Show preview button also gives you opportunity to consider whether you should really post this stuff, after all.   → Mark ^{(Mark McConnell)} 19:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark, if you can show how my (and Jordan's) suggestion works against what you want to achieve and your editing style, then do so without the snide remarks. Otherwise, just put your ego aside and take the suggestion. Jason Gabler 02:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jason, if you can show that I have said that I am unwilling to do what you have suggested, then I invite you to once again drive this suggestion into the ground in an effort to overcome what you perceive to be my insurmountable ego.   → Mark ^{(Mark McConnell)} 16:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for being willing to do what Jordan and I have suggested. Jason Gabler 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to persuade you, that although I intend to follow this procedure sometimes I screw up, and not to be upset when I do. Or, you can continue to hammer me, assuming that my apologies are an indication of my over-sized ego.   → Mark ^{(Mark McConnell)} 00:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We're not asking for perfection (I hope not or I'm doomed!). Lets consider this issue resolved. ;) Jordan Barrett (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Log-in page

The log in page seems to imply that it is possible to create a login from there. I think we should clarify that it is necessary to go through the application process in order to obtain a login. --Alex Woehr 12:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. I guess this comment can be removed if everyone likes the new login wording. --Alex Woehr 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with templates

I noticed that on the Romans articles the templates are all screwed up. I haven't looked elsewhere, but I imagine something went wrong when you guys were fixing the server. What's the best way to fix this? It'd be good to get this done soon as the pages look pretty bad. Jordan Barrett (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Hi All,

I'm really new on board, and am no theological expert, but I am really excited about Theopedia and would love to help. So I have a suggestion: There are many comments growing around various bible verses, but the original text doesn't appear to be present. I realize that there are copyright issues surrounding various translations, e.g. the NIV but there are no such restrictions around other translations e.g. the New King James version. Now I don't want to start a discussion about which translation is 'best'. That topic is endlessly argued, but I do feel 'something' is better than 'nothing'. And having the original text in any translation would be a great help. What are peoples thoughts?

- Nathan

Nathan, welcome! Well, so far the attitude here seems to be that there are better sites for casual bible reading (biblegateway.com, etc). I don't know what the progress is on it, but I believe we did attempt to get the copyright permission for the ESV a while back. For my wiki, we have permission for the NASB.

Also, in the past, there has been a debate on exactly how we would go about incorporating the Bible text into a wiki site. For example, do we include all the text of a book on one page (which would be very easy to do, but would be no different than any other bible site), or use an advanced template system that allows the reuse of any single verse all over the website (we are trying this at my site). In the end, I think the main focus of Theopedia right now is theologically related articles. There may come a time later, when more editors come along, that our goals increase.

Does that answer your question? :-) --Tom 16:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Right now it seems like the ESV will be our primary but not exclusive translation. Check out John 1 for an example. It's probably good to have a primary translation. It's still up for discussion. I need to talk to the ESV guys again. Also, I'm working on raising some money to hire out a seminary student for about 80 hours of writing initial commentary on a book of the Bible to spearhead that whole part of the site. I see that as perhaps the biggest potential of Theopedia right now. - Aaron Shafovaloff 18:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the welcome Tom & Aaron. I looked through the John 1 link and thats exactly what I had in mind! Having the actual text present provides context to the commentary. Having to refer to an external site to read the original text is cumbersome. Also having the actual original text present also provides excellent opportunities for hyperlinking. Lastly I noticed in the verses I read from John 1, how helpful having the different translations was. Aaron your suggestion of hiring a seminary student is excellent! If we have a clear copyright does anyone mind me putting the ESV verses up aka the John 1 example? Minus the commentary, i'll leave that for the experts :)

[edit] Main page needs a change

Hey all - if anyone wants to change the featured article and theologian, that would be a nice change. ;) Jordan Barrett (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JETS articles need to be removed

A heads up to anyone who wants to help out: the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) has yet to make the journal available online (they're redoing this portion of the site), and so all of our previous links to articles in JETS are now dead. If you type in "JETS" in the search bar you'll find a decent list of links that need to be removed. I'll contribute time on this here and there, but would appreciate any help. Thanks. Jordan Barrett (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good refernces to link to

If anyone has the time, we should link Theopedia articles to a lot of the articles here. There's lots of good stuff by good scholars to link to. Jordan Barrett (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good find. Jim Ellis 14:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All editors with accounts, you'll want to see this:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevisions#Use