Category talk:Christian narrative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religious texts
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Category This article has been rated as Cat on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

The material on this page was originally part of a discussion on Category talk:Christian mythology.

Contents

[edit] Proposal

1 The Category:Christian mythology is, at least for now, retained.
2 Create new Category:Christian narrative.
3 Subcategorize this category under the following scheme:
1. Category:New Testament narrative
a. Category:Gospel episodes (Events described in the Gospels)
b. Category:Episodes in Acts (Events described in the Acts of the Apostles)
c. Category:Parables of Jesus
2. Category:Christian biography (Lives of Christians)
a. Category:Christian hagiography (Lives of saints, as a subcategory of Christians)
3. Category:Christian folklore (Traditional Christian stories and folktales; this may have some overlap with Christian hagiography)
4. Category:Christian literature (Fictional literature written by Christians to tell Christian stories or convey Christian themes: Chronicles of Narnia, Ben Hur, Left Behind, etc.)
5. (Others as needed)

Hopefully, at some point in the future, the Wikipedia community will come to consensus on the neutrality (or lack thereof) of categorizing stories that embody belief as "mythology". In the mean time, this proposal stands on its own as a useful categorization scheme, which may eventually provide a realistic neutral alternative to "mythology", both here and for other religions.

Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Not bad...you'll likely see some overlap with 2 and 2a, and with 3 and 4. I say do it. Thanks for your work. KHM03 14:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The distinction that I'm trying to make between 3 & 4 is that Category:Christian folklore is traditional in the sense of "original author unknown, passed down by oral tradition", whereas everything in Category:Christian literature would have a known author (C. S. Lewis, Lew Wallace, etc). You could still have some overlap (e.g., 'Twas the Night Before Christmas could be both "folklore" (Santa Claus subject matter) and "literature" (poem by Clement Clarke Moore)), but there's nothing wrong with that. JHCC (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree; things like Narnia might be both folklore and literature by now (maybe the Middle Earth stuff as well). KHM03 15:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
A lot of "Christian folklore" appears in literary sources that claim to be historical, and may have been thought worthy of belief by its compiler. Some of the stories can in fact be traced to original authors or at least originated in specific works. When I suggested "Christian folklore" originally, it was pointed out that some people take "folklore" to mean exclusively oral traditions. Provided that it's understood that these sources contain Christian folklore, I think this system will work. Smerdis of Tlön 16:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I like this a lot. I also think it's the best compromise we are likely to achieve any time soon. I would recommend its adoption. DJ Clayworth 15:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this- I prefered the proposal in "JHCC's proposal" section, rather than this new one. What would actually go in the Christian mythology cat? Obviously FestivalofSouls would answer everything to do with Christianity, while I think a Protestant and a Roman Catholic would disagree over certain topics (argument over the Assumption of Mary anyone?). Looking over the last section, did anyone other than Festival actually disagree with the earlier proposal? If there's only one or two people disagreeing with the broad consensus of opinion then I think we can go ahead anyway (obviously if it's more than 1 or 2 people then we probably shouldn't). --G Rutter 16:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
What was it that you especially liked about the previous proposal (other than removing Category:Christian mythology)? I'd be happy to incorporate other suggestions.
Remember, anyone can dispute the categorization of any article, but this at least gives a neutral alternative to "Christian mythology". In your example, I doubt that either a Protestant or a Roman Catholic would dispute that the Assumption of Mary (at least the recounting of the episode itself) is a Christian narrative (specifically, an element of hagiography, subcat 2a), even if they disagree on whether or not it should be called a "myth". JHCC (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, removing the mythology cat was the main thing I liked. Actually, looking at it again (if we ignore the fact that the mythology cat still exists), I was probably a bit hasty- the sub-cats from Christian narrative are probably better named in this new proposal. Looking at the current Christian mythology cat I notice that there are 2 sub-cats "Alleged relics of Jesus" and "Christian demons". Ignoring the POV of the first (I'll change it in the next day or so to "Relics of Jesus"), do people agree that these should be sub-cats of Christian folklore, or do people think they should go somewhere else? Anyway, I change my vote to going ahead with creating and populating these categories. Thanks for all your work JHCC and others. --G Rutter 17:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Relics are neither narratives nor characters in narratives, and therefore should not be included in the "Christian narrative" category. However, Early history of the Shroud of Turin could conceivably go in "Christian folklore". Demons could sometimes be characters in folktales (see above for Smerdis of Tlön's example about Bernard of Clairvaux). JHCC (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Creating a new category is as easy as navigating to an article and writing the name of the cat you want in brackets. Even before any bytes are added to make a cat page, the cat exists with whatever you've just categorised. If you want a cat page too, just follow the link and add bytes. It's that simple. So it appears there is sufficient consensus now, to safely do so and we can start finding the appropriate cats according to these consensus guidelines. Codex Sinaiticus 16:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

FURTHER THOUGHT: I'd like to add the following subcategory:

5. Category:Non-Biblical Christian historical writings (Things like the Histories ofEusebius, Socrates Scholasticus, and Sozomen)

Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I also like this plan, but I don't think that we should add Non-Biblical Christian historical writings. These are Christian historical narrative, a subcat of Christian narrative that is different from NT narrative. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we restore Category:Non-Biblical Christian narratives, in which to put anything not in the New Testament? In other words:

MAIN CATEGORY: Category:Christian narrative
A. Category:New Testament narrative
1. Category:Gospel episodes (Events described in the Gospels)
2. Category:Episodes in Acts (Events described in the Acts of the Apostles)
3. Category:Parables of Jesus
B. Category:Non-Biblical Christian narratives,
1. Category:Christian biography (Lives of Christians)
a. Category:Christian hagiography (Lives of saints, as a subcategory of Christians)
2. Category:Christian legend and folklore (Traditional Christian stories and folktales; this may have some overlap with Christian hagiography)
3. Category:Christian literature (Fictional literature written by Christians to tell Christian stories or convey Christian themes: Chronicles of Narnia, Ben Hur, Left Behind, etc.)
4. Category:Non-Biblical Christian historical writings (Things like the Histories of Eusebius, Socrates Scholasticus, and Sozomen)
5. (Others as needed)

or this:

MAIN CATEGORY: Category:Christian narrative
A. Category:New Testament narrative
1. Category:Gospel episodes (Events described in the Gospels)
2. Category:Episodes in Acts (Events described in the Acts of the Apostles)
3. Category:Parables of Jesus
B. Category:Non-Biblical Christian narratives
1. Category:Christian historical narrative
a. Category:Christian biography (Lives of Christians)
(1). Category:Christian hagiography (Lives of saints, as a subcategory of Christians)
b. Category:Non-Biblical Christian historical writings (Things like the Histories of Eusebius, Socrates Scholasticus, and Sozomen)
2. Category:Christian legend and folklore (Traditional Christian stories and folktales; this may have some overlap with Christian hagiography)
3. Category:Christian literature (Fictional literature written by Christians to tell Christian stories or convey Christian themes: Chronicles of Narnia, Ben Hur, Left Behind, etc.)
4. (Others as needed)

JHCC (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"b. Category:Non-Biblical Christian historical writings (Things like the Histories of Eusebius, Socrates Scholasticus, and Sozomen)"
That's a pretty bulky name, but the historians you gave as examples could also be Early Church Fathers or comparable term. Should the Category name distinguish more modern Historians? Codex Sinaiticus 18:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
It is a bulky name, but I'm open to suggestions. Early Church Fathers is bad, because the vast majority of Patristic writing was not "history" as such. "Non-Biblical Christian history" is also bad, because it implies historical veracity, which is not its purpose. Perhaps Category:Patristic historical writings and Modern Christian historical writings? JHCC (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that there is never a need for a "Non-X" category. Merely as an example ...
... is better than
  • Christian writings
    • Category:Non-Biblical Christian historical writings
    • Category:NT narratives
— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. In other words:

MAIN CATEGORY: Category:Christian narrative
A. Category:New Testament narrative
1. Category:Gospel episodes (Events described in the Gospels)
2. Category:Episodes in Acts (Events described in the Acts of the Apostles)
3. Category:Parables of Jesus
B. Category:Christian historical writings (Non-Biblical narratives written to describe people and events in Christian history)
1. Category:Christian biography (Lives of Christians)
a. Category:Christian hagiography (Lives of saints, as a subcategory of Christians)
2. Category:Patristic historical writings (Things like the Histories of Eusebius, Socrates Scholasticus, and Sozomen)
3. Category:Modern Christian historical writings (Histories written about and by Christians since the Renaissance)
C. Category:Christian legend and folklore (Traditional Christian stories and folktales; this may have some overlap with Christian hagiography)
D. Category:Christian literature (Fictional literature written by Christians to tell Christian stories or convey Christian themes: Chronicles of Narnia, Ben Hur, Left Behind, etc.)
E. (Others as needed)

especially if we define "Christian historical writings" in the Category descripton as not including the NT — in other words, by genre rather than (disputed) historicity. Better? JHCC (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] cont...

Not bad - but why not call 'Christian literature' 'Christian fiction' - that makes clear that it is self-consciously unhistorical work. Then if you rename 'Christian historical writings' as 'Christian literature' Christian fiction could be a subcatagory. Hence:

MAIN CATEGORY: Category:Christian narrative (replacing myth - Id still say - all but festical seem to agree)
A. Category:New Testament narrative
1. Category:Gospel episodes (Events described in the Gospels)
2. Category:Episodes in Acts (Events described in the Acts of the Apostles)
3. Category:Parables of Jesus
B. Category:Christian writings (Non-Biblical narratives)
1. Category:Christian biography (Lives of Christians)
a. Category:Christian hagiography (Lives of saints, as a subcategory of Christians)
2. Category:Patristic writings
3. Category:Modern Christian historical writings (Histories written about and by Christians since the Renaissance)
4. Category:Christian fiction (Fictional literature written by Christians to tell Christian stories or convey Christian themes: Chronicles of Narnia, Ben Hur, Left Behind, etc.)
C. Category:Christian legend and folklore (Traditional Christian stories and folktales; this may have some overlap with Christian hagiography)

I think if we don't sort out the 'myth' debate we are avoiding the problem - everyone but festival (who wants categories to assess truth claims) seems to support a replacement. The rest is IMHO fairly trivial and can be changed as it goes along. --Doc (?) 20:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The obvious problem with this proposal is that it seems to imply that the books of the New Testament are not "Christian writings"! "Literature" is not sufficiently broad to cover all non-NT writings, and it also has the implication of "Fiction" that we do not want to apply to historical works. Also, as previously noted, most "Patristic writings" are not narrative and therefore do not belong in this category. JHCC (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New proposal

MAIN CATEGORY: Category:Christian narrative

A. Category:New Testament narrative
1. Category:Gospel episodes (Events described in the Gospels)
2. Category:Episodes in Acts (Events described in the Acts of the Apostles)
3. Category:Parables of Jesus
B. Category:Christian historical writings (Non-Biblical narratives written to describe people and events in Christian history)
1. Category:Christian biography (Lives of Christians)
a. Category:Christian hagiography (Lives of saints, as a subcategory of Christians)
2. Category:Patristic historical writings (Things like the Histories of Eusebius, Socrates Scholasticus, and Sozomen)
3. Category:Modern Christian historical writings (Histories written about and by Christians since the Renaissance)
C. Category:Christian legend and folklore (Traditional Christian stories and folktales; this may have some overlap with Christian hagiography)
D. Category:Christian literature (Fictional literature written by Christians to tell Christian stories or convey Christian themes: Chronicles of Narnia, Ben Hur, Left Behind, etc.)
E. (Others as needed)

Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming that when you say that there will be some overlap of parallel categories, this means we are designing the categories to be used together, rather than sub-cating hagiographies in legend, for example; but that, none of the sub-cats of Christian narrative will also be assigned together with the main category. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes. An article on a saint may contain both solid and verifiable historical data (thus, not legend) and also popular stories (thus, legend and folklore) (again, Smerdis's example of Bernard of Clairvaux is a good one). A work of literature may be built on a legendary character ('Twas the Night Before Christmas is a poem by Clement Clarke Moore based on the character of Santa Claus — here, the original content of the poem has also entered popular folklore, e.g., the names of the reindeer). As for assigning subcategories together with the main category, I'm not sure what WP policy is on this (if there is one), but I don't see much problem either way. JHCC (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that things are meant to be included in as many sub-cats as is relevant, but not also in the main cat- so Bernard of Clairvaux could be in both Hagiography and Folklore, but should not also be listed directly in Christian Narrative. That's my understanding of how the cats work anyway. --G Rutter 18:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
G Rutter, that is also my understanding. This also sounds good to me. I would change Category:Christian literature to Category:Christian fiction and allegory, if only because "literature" might be overbroad for what you are proposing to put there. I'd also add Category:Christian apocalyptic literature as a further subcategory off the main Category:Christian narrative; don't see this causing a major fuss. Smerdis of Tlön 18:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Category:Christian fiction and allegory isn't bad, and it removes the hesitation one might feel about categorizing sub-standard writing as "literature"! I suppose that the Book of Revelation would go in both Category:Christian apocalyptic literature and Category:New Testament narrative, and the Left Behind books would go in Category:Christian fiction and allegory and Category:Christian apocalyptic literature? JHCC (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newer proposal

MAIN CATEGORY: Category:Christian narrative

A. Category:New Testament narrative
1. Category:Gospel episodes (Events described in the Gospels)
2. Category:Episodes in Acts (Events described in the Acts of the Apostles)
3. Category:Parables of Jesus
B. Category:Christian historical writings (Non-Biblical narratives written to describe people and events in Christian history)
1. Category:Christian biography (Lives of Christians)
a. Category:Christian hagiography (Lives of saints, as a subcategory of Christians)
2. Category:Patristic historical writings (Things like the Histories of Eusebius, Socrates Scholasticus, and Sozomen)
3. Category:Modern Christian historical writings (Histories written about and by Christians since the Renaissance)
C. Category:Christian literature (Various kinds of creative and symbolic writing)
1 Category:Christian legend and folklore (Traditional Christian stories and folktales; this may have some overlap with Christian hagiography)
2 Category:Christian fiction and allegory (Fictional literature written by Christians to tell Christian stories or convey Christian themes: Chronicles of Narnia, Ben Hur, Left Behind, etc.)
3 Category:Christian apocalyptic writings (various prophetic writings, poetry and symbolic stories pertaining to Christian eschatology)
D. (Others as needed)

Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Mark suggested on his talk page a category for Christian miracle narratives. I have created it; see the category page. JHCC (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

May we fiddle with this suggestion in wiki-fashion, instead of in the manner of Talk? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely! JHCC (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I restored "literature" as a major sub-cat — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

DONE! Now let's categorize those articles! JHCC (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Christian miracle narrative

This subcategory was created as a result of a conversation between JHCC and Mark on the latter's talk page. JHCC thinks that this category should stand alone and articles so categorized should be cross categorized with Gospel episodes, hagiography, etc. Mark thinks that there should be individual subcats for miracles of Scripture and miracle narratives found elsewhere: New Testament miracle narrative, Tanakh miracle narrative, Septuagint miracle narrative, Book of Mormon miracle narrative, etc. What does everyone else think? JHCC (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Google test

google test ... "Christian narrative" 7,110,000 vs "christian mythology" 3,070,000 ... Christian narrative comes in higher, but with hit results that are mostly affirmative of this religous belief. Christian mythology has more objective article hits examining the Christian beliefs. Sincerely, JDR 20:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that, if Christians prefer a categorization scheme that is not biased against their opinion (but doesn't assert their opinion either), that it therefore shows the bias of the categorization that they have chosen? Incredible.
How about running that Google test again, with "Myth of Christianity", "myth of the trinity", "myth of the resurrection", and see if these phrases ever assert the falsehood of these Christian doctrines. If you find Google tests persuasive, the controversy is on the verge of being solved. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The key words "Christians prefer" ... ala., Christian POV; does assert their opinion. The 'google test' shows the POV of the terminology of "narrative". JDR 20:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC) (PS., Is "bias of the categorization" a NPOV?)
Just as I thought you were saying. "Christians prefer" not to use words that imply falsehood. Therefore they use a word that is useful for critical detachment (Narrative theology for example, is a higher critical approach - which doesn't, by the way, necessarily shun the use of the word "myth", some practitioners using the terms "myth", "story" and "narrative" almost interchangeably). It is really quite preposterous to say that "story" asserts belief because it doesn't connote falsehood, because it is preferred over "myth" which does. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
"Christians prefer" not to use words even after it has been stated how the word is used. Also ... "myth" is not "mythology". Narrative is used mainly within the Christian faith ... and is biased toward the affrimative. It should be stated that the narratives can be fictious ... "non-fiction makes factual claims about reality".
Narrative theology shuns outside objective and critical analysis by scholars and academics. It's "quite preposterous" to ignore outside analysis of any religion.
Sincerely, JDR 15:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Careful. The argument is that Christians prefer to use words in the way that they are actually used. I prefer that no one, not even the holy priesthood of high and mighty academia, should invent ironic meanings for academic and scholarly use, that the average person will not understand without undergoing a thorough desensitization program. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Trying to frame a discussion does nothing for your argument.
There has not been any "invention of ironic meanings". The ambiguity of words are removed when it stated how the word is used (and this is in accord with the NPOV policy). Some "Christians prefer" not to use a word even after it has been stated how the word is used. "The average person", though, would understand how a word is used after it has been stated how the word is used. Sincerely, JDR
I could as easily say "academics prefer to use the word myth ... ". The word then requires an explanation, to show why this word is preferred, and how it isn't necessarily biased against any particular belief (which is almost never the case, actually - it is biased against a literal historical view). The words, "narrative" and "story" are the words that would be used to explain what a myth is, in this special sense, because they are the objective terms that do not communicate either belief or disbelief. The definition of myth therefore borrows the objectivity of these terms: suggesting to the reader not to think "false" as they first might think. Instead, the definition will read (must read in order to be intelligible) "A myth is an explanatory story, a traditional narrative ..." — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
"Myth" is not "mythology". You keep repeating 'myth' ... while the discussion is over 'mythology'.
If acadeics say it, would that be a "bad thing"?
Narrative and story can be fiction or non-fiction. Which is it?
Sincerely, JDR 17:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] application and subcategorization

This discussion really belongs at Category talk:Christian mythology. This page is for the discussion of the application and subcategorization of Category:Christian narrative, not whether or not religious belief should be categorized as mythology. JHCC (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a theological narrative category. Limited to outside academic and scholarly analysis. JDR 15:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you really think that narrative theology is behind this terminology? Your 7,000,000 Google hits mostly come from a left-leaning critical school, that most people have never heard of?
The problem with "Christian narrative" is that it isn't tainted enough with all the coloration of academic hostility to religious belief. It has none of the feel of naughty defiance of the thousands of years of Christian teaching, which used to speak in terms of "Christian facts". Now we shall say "Christian myths" in all those places where we used to say "Christian facts", and it's all the more liberating and noble, and it puts forward our credentials of scientific objectivity, if we do so while loudly proclaiming that we are Christains, who speak this way. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Christian hostility toward academics' objectivity and scholarly analysis is a problem. JDR 15:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

If all we can do is say "Christians are objective and scholars aren't!" and "No, scholars are objective and Christians aren't!", we're never going to get anywhere.
The only question is "how do we categorize these articles in Wikipedia?" The only criterion by which we should judge terms is how they are used in the English language, not just by scholars and not just by Christians, or even by Christian scholars, but universally. Once again, that discussion belongs on Category talk:Christian mythology. JHCC (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Which is, I hope, what I have argued for clearly enough to be understood. But Reddi claims that the word "narrative" is colored with Christian meaning, whereas it seems much more free of Christian colorations to speak of "Vedas narrative" than "Vedas mythology"; and then create categories of academic opinion which would be applied to the factual categories. It is quite frustrating to have the idea of "objective" and "subjective" flipped around for dogmatic purposes. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
That is not what I claim.
Narrative can be fiction or non-fiction. "Narrative" as used religously is colored with a non-fiction meaning implying truth of that narrative.
Your contempt for acadmeia is amusing, though; Academic opinions are sought in Wikipedia.
Sincerely, JDR 18:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Indeed they are sought - and in fact, despite my contempt for particular disingenuous approaches, I want to know what those opinions are, about Christian narratives. But the manner in which I approach that issue of knowledge and information, is not for Wikipedia to decide - for there are many ways of handling the interpretation of the texts and traditions besides the "Abrahamic mythology" approach.
Simply to say "Narrative" would not be serviceable to any academic categorization scheme. "Christian narrative", however, is useful for making of it what it might be wished to make of it - according to academic opinion. Therefore, use the category of "Christian narrative" to construct a clear, academically responsible structure of categorization. There are no stories within "Christian narrative" that would not be fully served up to your categorization scheme of "mythology" - they are all Christian myths, the true ones and the false ones. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Reddi, you say, "Narrative can be fiction or non-fiction. " I'm glad that we agree on that. So far so good. However, you go on to say '"Narrative" as used religously is colored with a non-fiction meaning implying truth of that narrative.' I agree that religious narratives can be non-fiction (that is, they claim (accurately or not) to factually present reality), but they can also be fiction (for example, the Left Behind series, which have invented characters and plots on a Christian apocalyptic theme). The categories of fiction and non-fiction apply equally to religious narratives as they do to non-religious narratives. JHCC (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This whole discussion is disingenuous- to categorize Christian Narrative as 'Mythology' is clearly a rejection of any reality within Christianity- all of it's beliefs are based on narrative. This is very insulting to a Christian and shows off the pomposity of wiki editors- as if they have any more right to declare Christianity a fiction than those who declare it a non-fiction. The reality of course is that there is an corruptive agenda at work though it doesn't affect Christianity, just the veracity of wikipedia.