Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 12 |
Images
I generated list of articles about priests, without image in infobox on this wikipedia, but with image on plwiki - maybe somebody will be interested. This list will be regenerated so it may be a good idea to add this page to watchlist. Similar list on different topics are available here Bulwersator (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
George Went Hensley at FAC
The article on George Went Hensley is again a Featured Article Candidate. The previous nomination was archived due to lack of supports (or opposes, for that matter). The criteria for Featured Articles may be found here. Anyone wishing to do so may leave comments. • Astynax talk 17:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
All Entries Concerning Religious Figures
Suggest that this page (on Zeus) and all other pages relating to deities use present text in primary descriptions. E.g. "Zeus is the father of Gods and men - as opposed to was.
It should be recognised that regardless of numbers all deities "past" are, to this day, acknowledged and even worshipped by people the world over and many of these religious groups are growing in number and regaining validity and legal recognition (see: Y.S.E.E.).
As the Jesus of Nazareth page uses present tense in regards to him as the central figure of Christianity, so too should the present tense be used for all deities to prevent offence to those still worshipping pre-Christian Gods.
Using past tense implies that the deity in question is not a true divinity but rather a purely historical concept. It further suggests that these deities are no longer worshipped.
In the interest of religious tolerance and equality all entries on the God, Gods and/or Goddesses of any religion should be referred to in the same fashion as any other divinity.
Crisscrossono (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- At a quick glance over different articles, I believe that the past/present distinction is not over whether the deity is pre- or post-Christian (or else Yahweh would be in past tense, and Abraxas would be in present tense), but whether the modern worship of that deity is a continuous tradition or a reconstructed revival. Damballa and Ahura Mazda are in present tense and their worship never died out, while Shangdi and Sol Invictus are in past tense even though there's nothing stopping anyone from appropriating those ancient religions for their own purposes. The articles on ancient Egyptian deities are sometimes inconsistant, but mostly lean towards past tense ("So-and-so is a deity in Ancient (nationality) Religion/Mythology" reads awkwardly).
- I can't find anything in the manual of style about it, but I'd suggest using past tense for beings whose worship has died out, and then speaking in present tense of any revivals when they are notable. I believe that this is the pattern for the mostly used distinction, which would reflect an unconscious consensus.
- Indeed, WP:NOTE may be why the articles are divided into past-tense and present tense: Zeus is notable for the ancient Greeks' worship of him, while Krishna is notable for worship of him past and present. Should some modern worship of Hadad become as notable as the ancient worship, it might be worthwhile to adjust the tense of the article, but not simply for political correctness. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- The one reservation I have regarding the above is that there will often be some reasonable disagreement between the current possible "revival" group and at least some of the academic sources as to whether there is a continuous history. For instance, would belief in King Arthur as a hero, and presumably Merlin and the like, qualify as "revival" or "continuous"? So far as I can tell, there is some serious disagreement within the academic itself regarding that matter. Not that I necessarily object to Ian's ideas per se, just that it might not actually resolve anything more easily or clearly. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- A group's status as "revivalist" or "reconstructionist" does not reduce the validity of that group's faith. Modern temples have been built to these Gods, clearly showing that they are still worshipped. Again, the primary issue is that referring to deities in the past tense implies that they do not (or no longer) exist. Furthermore the example of "So-and-so is a deity in the Ancient (nation) Religion" doesn't read particularly awkwardly at all (as can be seen on the pages of Athena, Demeter and Ra - to list a few - which use present tense in the introductory descriptions). I'm not suggesting that entire pages use present sense - obviously that would make the whole document read as nonsense (e.g. "Ancient Egyptian cults honour Horus at his temple at... etc" - past tense is needed here, obviously, as it is discussing a purely historical event) but when we are reading the introduction for a deity present tense should be used as many of these Gods are worshipped in today's world. At what point does a religious group re-gain validity? These groups have numbers, temples, celebrations, social networks, rituals, prayers, legally recognised organisations and scriptures; what more is needed for such groups to have their religion viewed as more than just a chapter in a history book? It's not an issue of political correctness, it's a simple matter of respect. There is no reason not to use the present text as we do with monotheistic deities, all these Gods, as previously mentioned are worshipped and "pagan" religions are expanding once more. What is the harm? The information is not altered in anyway other than recognising these deities are still revered, which, is completely accurate. Those not worshipping the deities in question will still be able to understand the document perfectly and those that do worship them will have no cause to be offended. As I said; what is the harm? Crisscrossono (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- FYI, when "gods" is pluralized it is no longer capitalized, as "God" is capitalized not because of his divinity, but because the word is a proper noun. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 10:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- A group's status as "revivalist" or "reconstructionist" does not reduce the validity of that group's faith. Modern temples have been built to these Gods, clearly showing that they are still worshipped. Again, the primary issue is that referring to deities in the past tense implies that they do not (or no longer) exist. Furthermore the example of "So-and-so is a deity in the Ancient (nation) Religion" doesn't read particularly awkwardly at all (as can be seen on the pages of Athena, Demeter and Ra - to list a few - which use present tense in the introductory descriptions). I'm not suggesting that entire pages use present sense - obviously that would make the whole document read as nonsense (e.g. "Ancient Egyptian cults honour Horus at his temple at... etc" - past tense is needed here, obviously, as it is discussing a purely historical event) but when we are reading the introduction for a deity present tense should be used as many of these Gods are worshipped in today's world. At what point does a religious group re-gain validity? These groups have numbers, temples, celebrations, social networks, rituals, prayers, legally recognised organisations and scriptures; what more is needed for such groups to have their religion viewed as more than just a chapter in a history book? It's not an issue of political correctness, it's a simple matter of respect. There is no reason not to use the present text as we do with monotheistic deities, all these Gods, as previously mentioned are worshipped and "pagan" religions are expanding once more. What is the harm? The information is not altered in anyway other than recognising these deities are still revered, which, is completely accurate. Those not worshipping the deities in question will still be able to understand the document perfectly and those that do worship them will have no cause to be offended. As I said; what is the harm? Crisscrossono (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- The one reservation I have regarding the above is that there will often be some reasonable disagreement between the current possible "revival" group and at least some of the academic sources as to whether there is a continuous history. For instance, would belief in King Arthur as a hero, and presumably Merlin and the like, qualify as "revival" or "continuous"? So far as I can tell, there is some serious disagreement within the academic itself regarding that matter. Not that I necessarily object to Ian's ideas per se, just that it might not actually resolve anything more easily or clearly. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to join
I would like to join this group - anything that I need do? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I honestly would prefer that this article be deleted, for reasons I've outlined before, but it appears that consensus says otherwise. In that case, I request (again) that someone knowledgeable improve the page. At the very least, the page should be edited to reflect its scope. I'm sure that Christianity is not the only religion in which people have made predictions which failed to come true, but no other religion is currently represented.
I won't do the work myself, because I'm not educated on world religions and I don't want to put in the time to improve a page that I think is a bad idea to begin with. But I surely do encourage others to improve this page, if consensus is that it is an encyclopedic topic worthy of inclusion here. Phiwum (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am certain there are non-Christian predictions myself. I will try to find sources and information in the next few days, but would welcome input from anyone else as well. John Carter (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me that this should either be made into a "list of" article, or should be turned into a more substantial article on the general phenomenon of failed predictions, rather than a list. As for other faiths, I recall that there have been some Lubavitcher rabbis who predicted the coming of the Messiah within certain time periods, which did not materialize. I think L. Ron Hubbard may have made some specific Scientology related predictions that were rendered impossible upon his death. bd2412 T 01:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Frankly, it seems that any list we produce will necessarily be incomplete and arbitrary or biased, especially given the historic lack of enthusiasm in improving this article (but perhaps the folks here will surprise me!). But, in any case, of course there are non-Christian unfulfilled predictions and if this is supposed to be an article about religion generally, they should be included. The page has been inclusive since May, 2007 (when they removed the reference to Christians from the title), and in all that time, the only non-Christian prediction I've seen listed was one which I added, but which was later (accidentally?) deleted. I'm not claiming WP is intentionally biased against Christians (and my complaint really isn't about bias), but the end result is, for whatever reason, obviously not a list about religions in general but only about Christianity. (I sincerely doubt that I will like the article much more if it includes other religions, but at least it will be a closer match to its title.) Phiwum (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would point out that Christianity is more likely to yield unfulfilled predictions because it is a very large, diverse, and decentralized religion, and because it is doctrinally inclined to suggest that an end of times (the event most often predicted) is coming in some relatively short order. bd2412 T 15:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're right. I wouldn't know, since I don't know world religions, but there surely must be some other religions which could be represented on the page. Surely, some persons have made "religious predictions" which have failed for some other religion (Judaism? Theosophy? Other?), no? If so, the article should reflect this fact. After all, it was renamed from "Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians" five years ago, yet still has no non-Christian content! Phiwum (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would point out that Christianity is more likely to yield unfulfilled predictions because it is a very large, diverse, and decentralized religion, and because it is doctrinally inclined to suggest that an end of times (the event most often predicted) is coming in some relatively short order. bd2412 T 15:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Frankly, it seems that any list we produce will necessarily be incomplete and arbitrary or biased, especially given the historic lack of enthusiasm in improving this article (but perhaps the folks here will surprise me!). But, in any case, of course there are non-Christian unfulfilled predictions and if this is supposed to be an article about religion generally, they should be included. The page has been inclusive since May, 2007 (when they removed the reference to Christians from the title), and in all that time, the only non-Christian prediction I've seen listed was one which I added, but which was later (accidentally?) deleted. I'm not claiming WP is intentionally biased against Christians (and my complaint really isn't about bias), but the end result is, for whatever reason, obviously not a list about religions in general but only about Christianity. (I sincerely doubt that I will like the article much more if it includes other religions, but at least it will be a closer match to its title.) Phiwum (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me that this should either be made into a "list of" article, or should be turned into a more substantial article on the general phenomenon of failed predictions, rather than a list. As for other faiths, I recall that there have been some Lubavitcher rabbis who predicted the coming of the Messiah within certain time periods, which did not materialize. I think L. Ron Hubbard may have made some specific Scientology related predictions that were rendered impossible upon his death. bd2412 T 01:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- At least a few links for such predictions here, from religioustolerance.org, which is I think considered a reliable source here, and elsewhere under the search "failed predictions of the end of the world" might help. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji
There seems to be a bit of a war going on at Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji and some of the surrounding articles such as Ravidassia Religion, which appears to be a newly-formed religion based on the teachings of a 14th century Indian guru, of which Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji is the holy book. It's way out of my league, I only came across it in passing whilst assessing articles, but the respective talk pages detail some of the accusations which include edit-warring, facts not being supported by the supplied references and POV pushing. Would some kind soul care to have a look? FlagSteward (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:HighBeam
Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Portal Listing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Ravidassia >> pls list the portal in the directory of religions also at other place where you think it should be listed.McKinseies (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
ToV
I'm looking for input regarding the Church of Satan affiliate here. I'm wondering if anyone could offer information regarding notability and any potential references for building an article? Y12J (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Need input
Is this article Makara (Hindu mythology) the same subject as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Makara (The Dragon in Sri Lanka)? It doesn't seem quite the same to me, the one is about the creature in the Hindu pantheon, the other is about a creature important to Sri Lankan culture (using Buddhist images). Any input/thoughts/feedback welcomed. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Proposed moves
There are discussion underway at the talk pages of Books of Chronicles, Books of Kings, and Books of Samuel as to whether or not to move those pages to article titles reflecting the singular nature of each of the works in the Masoretic text, rather than the current Septuagint-based titles. The input of any interested editor would be greatly appreciated. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Will of God currently has a disambiguation tag on it, but it is clearly not a disambiguation page per WP:DABCONCEPT (specifically, it does not distinguish between a list of articles with the phrase "Will of God" in the title, except for one song). On the other hand, it is completely unreferenced. This seems like a rather important topic, so I request that our experts use the abundant materials thrown together under this title to make into an article. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- As there has been no movement on this, I have disambiguated the page in a accordance with WP:DABCONCEPT, and have also merged God's plan into it. As always, more work can be done. bd2412 T 12:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I think the Mythology WikiProject is dead
Hey!
I noticed that the WikiProject Mythology page is pretty inactive. I was wondering if anyone here had the time to share their expertise with the editing and revising of the page, Bident, a Greek mythology stub that I have been struggling for the past few days to find information on via the Internet and also through my own standard reference points. Any help that you can provide would be much obliged!! DrPhen (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is just a symptom of a larger trend... How do you spell "editor attrition"? Long term editors seem to be getting fed up and leaving right and left, from multiple projects. History2007 (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hopefully the trend reverses itself. I really need some support on relatively obscure areas of Greek and Babylonian mythology, such as Sharur and Bident. If you have any time at all to spare later, please consider taking a look at either of them! A lot of editors have come out to work on Bident but the other one is a little 'under the weather' so to speak as far as article quality goes. It's adequate but not quite there. DrPhen (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- lol I definitely sympathize with the editor attrition thing. I'll take a crack at Bident though. Peter Deer (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hopefully the trend reverses itself. I really need some support on relatively obscure areas of Greek and Babylonian mythology, such as Sharur and Bident. If you have any time at all to spare later, please consider taking a look at either of them! A lot of editors have come out to work on Bident but the other one is a little 'under the weather' so to speak as far as article quality goes. It's adequate but not quite there. DrPhen (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
proposal to rename
Here, and immediately below it, I propose that Shinshūkyō should be retitled Shinkō shūkyō. (Of course I provide my reasoning there.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Just the definition of the "arabic/Quranic word which means "Christ the son of Mary"." Not sure what to do about it, either AfD or redirect? Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Less knowledgeable than I should be on this subject. Is the term actually used in the Qur'an? If so, let's redirect it to Jesus in Islam. If not, it's a foreign-language redirect, which we don't generally use, and it should be deleted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Removal of polemical categories from two book articles
Several "Books critical of ..." categories were recently removed from Another Gospel (see here) and Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion (see here). The reason given is that these polemical categories are not the main focus or notability of each book. I'm not at all convinced by this reasoning; indeed, it seems to me that criticism of such groups as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Scientology, and the Unification Church is central to the purpose of each of these books. But rather than just take unilateral action and revert, I'd like to bring this question to the attention of more people and see what (if any) consensus might exist — especially since these two articles don't seem to have very many people watching them. What do people think? — Richwales 02:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think the question here might be some form of overcategorization. They do seem to be categorized as "anti-cult" or something similar, which would make it more or less repetitive to further categorize them for individual groups, unless the books very clearly have significant discussion about particular groups. I would think, in general, that maybe if a book gave lengthy attention to only a few groups called cults, then individual categories for those specific groups might be relevant. But if the individual groups only receive rather short attention, like maybe a comparatively small chapter, specifically about them, then I would question whether the amount of attention in the book itself would be sufficient for the inclusion of specific categories. Now, as an example, the book Wild Grass by Ian Johnson contains only three stories, one of them about Falun Gong. If we had an article about that book, which we don't right now, I think having about a third of the book being about the subject would be sufficient for a category for Falun Gong. But if the group is only one of many groups included in a book, I can't see a reason to overburden the article with what might be considered excessive categorization. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Another Gospel (with which I'm fairly familiar from past work) contains a dozen chapters devoted to various individual "cults". For example, there's a 44-page chapter on Mormonism, a 32-page chapter on Jehovah's Witnesses, a 22-page chapter on the Unification Church, and a 20-page chapter on Scientology (page counts based on the book's table of contents). And the polemical bent of the book is, IMO, amply illustrated by many of the chapter titles — e.g., "Historical Heresy: Unorthodox Movements of Past Centuries"; "The Way International: Denying the Deity of Christ"; "Scientology: Mind-Altering Pseudo-Psychology"; and "The New Age Movement: The Occult Made Respectable". So we're definitely talking here about far more than just passing references. On the other hand, there are also chapters about movements other than the ones in dispute here — though I'll admit I haven't checked yet to see if we have established categories for books critical of Seventh-Day Adventism, Christian Science, the Bahá'í Faith, or the others dealt with in this particular book. — Richwales 06:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that you are right, as you know more about the book than I do. But I think WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION might be relevant. As is, the article on Another Gospel seems to contain only a passing reference to many or most of the groups involved in the categories under discussion. As such, they might be considered to not meet the overcategorization subsection WP:DEFINE. Granted, it is hard to know, as per that article, what "defines" the notability of a book, but it is also somewhat hard to say that an article should be included in a category for simplying mentioning a given topic in passing, as seems to be the case here. I suppose the same thing would apply to including given authors of individual articles in an encyclopedia for inclusion in categories related to that encyclopedia. If the content of the article more clearly indicated the nature of the specific criticism of the groups in question according to sources other than the book itself, that might help more clearly establish the relevance of the given categories. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Having read the article Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion I sense that the book is descriptive rather than critical and what criticism there is may be implied rather than explicit. In the absence of further information about the book, I would find it hard to reverse the elimination of the template in this case. As far as Another Gospel is concerned, my fundamental worry is the problem of deciding where overcategorization begins. I don't find the reasons given in the explanation of the removal of the templates very convincing: arguing for the "superiority" of one religion implies criticism (direct or indirect) of any other mentioned. Theoretically the solution might be to have a generic category "Books critical of christian cults" or something similar. I know there is a possible POV there, but I am going to try and produce an essay on the wider problem of "Main-line Christianity" which, if it could be objectively defined (and I think it can), might facilitate the structuring of many articles on Christianity and would also serve as a reference point for a category of the type suggested. Jpacobb (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- It does seem to me that these books might be discussing groups which might all fall in the broad field of "new religious movements". Certainly, all those Richwales named seem to be to have been described as NRMs at some point. If that is the case, a category about books critical of NRMs might also be reasonable. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Having read the article Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion I sense that the book is descriptive rather than critical and what criticism there is may be implied rather than explicit. In the absence of further information about the book, I would find it hard to reverse the elimination of the template in this case. As far as Another Gospel is concerned, my fundamental worry is the problem of deciding where overcategorization begins. I don't find the reasons given in the explanation of the removal of the templates very convincing: arguing for the "superiority" of one religion implies criticism (direct or indirect) of any other mentioned. Theoretically the solution might be to have a generic category "Books critical of christian cults" or something similar. I know there is a possible POV there, but I am going to try and produce an essay on the wider problem of "Main-line Christianity" which, if it could be objectively defined (and I think it can), might facilitate the structuring of many articles on Christianity and would also serve as a reference point for a category of the type suggested. Jpacobb (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that you are right, as you know more about the book than I do. But I think WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION might be relevant. As is, the article on Another Gospel seems to contain only a passing reference to many or most of the groups involved in the categories under discussion. As such, they might be considered to not meet the overcategorization subsection WP:DEFINE. Granted, it is hard to know, as per that article, what "defines" the notability of a book, but it is also somewhat hard to say that an article should be included in a category for simplying mentioning a given topic in passing, as seems to be the case here. I suppose the same thing would apply to including given authors of individual articles in an encyclopedia for inclusion in categories related to that encyclopedia. If the content of the article more clearly indicated the nature of the specific criticism of the groups in question according to sources other than the book itself, that might help more clearly establish the relevance of the given categories. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Another Gospel (with which I'm fairly familiar from past work) contains a dozen chapters devoted to various individual "cults". For example, there's a 44-page chapter on Mormonism, a 32-page chapter on Jehovah's Witnesses, a 22-page chapter on the Unification Church, and a 20-page chapter on Scientology (page counts based on the book's table of contents). And the polemical bent of the book is, IMO, amply illustrated by many of the chapter titles — e.g., "Historical Heresy: Unorthodox Movements of Past Centuries"; "The Way International: Denying the Deity of Christ"; "Scientology: Mind-Altering Pseudo-Psychology"; and "The New Age Movement: The Occult Made Respectable". So we're definitely talking here about far more than just passing references. On the other hand, there are also chapters about movements other than the ones in dispute here — though I'll admit I haven't checked yet to see if we have established categories for books critical of Seventh-Day Adventism, Christian Science, the Bahá'í Faith, or the others dealt with in this particular book. — Richwales 06:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- If the category decision w/r/t Another Gospel can be made only based on the content of the article (without direct reference to the book itself, and the attendant primary-vs.-secondary-source concerns), then there may not be much that can be done. As might be evident from the Another Gospel talk page, a major problem related to this article was that there were very, very few good secondary sources available (possibly because the book was written for a niche audience, and not many outside reviewers considered it sufficiently noteworthy to merit any attention at all). I still think it would be helpful to include the categories in question (since I believe they are more than adequately justified via a direct appeal to the contents of the book); however, if others aren't prepared to agree, I can live with that and move on to other, more important issues. — Richwales 18:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Are Bishops Notable?
I am looking for some policy that states that Bishops have default notability without establishing Significant coverage, like congressman or NBA players. I see the title being treated as such on several biography pages and was wondering if any editor here could provide me with some insight. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 16:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think any of the specialized subpages of WP:BIO (such as WP:PROF, WP:MUSIC and so on) apply to bishops, but I don't think any of them should be taken to say that a congressman or an NBA player who has miraculously avoided significant coverage is still notable - these pages just outline criteria that make it extremely likely that such coverage exists. I similarly expect that most bishops should have received significant coverage (and I'd say if a subject is a bishop that's a sufficient assertion of notability to prevent speedy deletion via A7). Should there, however, be a bishop without significant coverage, in my opinion his job alone does not make him notable. On the other hand, I'm rather skeptical of "inherent notability" in all contexts, and others might disagree with me. Huon (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK, this is a hard one. First, there are individual ministers in some denominations who have, so far as I can tell pretty much on their own, called themselves "Bishops". I can't see that their doing so would automatically qualify those individuals as being notable on the basis of their own self-designation. Having said that, it is the case in pretty much all the major older Christian denominations, like the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches, that the information about the appointment of a new bishop and some biographical information, pretty much sufficient to establish notability, is published and released at the time of his ordination. But, in some cases, particularly if, for whatever reason, the bishop in question is from the early era of the church and the relevant local records of his church have not survived, even there it may be really hard to find anything beyond his name. In such cases, they probably wouldn't qualify as notable either. But, in general, for recent history, particularly the past few hundred years, yeah, it is a safe bet that any bishop from a major denomination will have had his biography published at the time of his ordination by the local newspaper and the denomination's relevant publications. That being the case, it is probably true that in those cases the individuals are suffiently notable. For some "self-proclaimed" bishops, or others of really small churches, it would probably be less clear regarding their notability. Hope that helps a little. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting responses. Huon, default was a poor choice of words. WP:Notability (people) lists several accomplishments that are considered notable and can stand in for Significant coverage, but clearly states "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Given that, actual practice is that these biographies survive A7 with poor citations like a baseball stat site.
- However, following on John Carter's insights about Church publishing behavior around Bishop promotion, I would think that the Church's own publications would violate Independent of the subject. However, if being a Bishop in a major Church like Anglican was alone notable (like a Academy Award), then the independence of the source might not matter as much if it was from a Church document. I'm not really sure how important Bishops are in every denomination like Anglicans, but it seems to me that there are some pretty low tier bishop positions, not everyone put in charge of a diocese. And a Bishop born somewhere like Chicago and given a small post, isn't likely to get mention in the local media; and thus may only get mentioned by the Churches own media, which would violate independence.--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps an example is in order. John Franklin Spalding was the article that inspired me to ask this question. The only citation is an obituary, which isn't considered a reliable source. My Google search found only sources that were A) not a reliable source B) Anglican church related publication, or C) list of Bishops in the area which would call for a list page, and not an individual biography page. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I should probably clarify what I said above. I was thinking, particularly in recent days, of sources like L'Osservatore Romano and/or Our Sunday Visitor. Both of those sources, while fairly clearly tied to the Catholic Church, are are also in general counted as reliable sources, and sources which could be used to establish notability. I think at least the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Anglicans have a few sources of a similar nature as well. In general, though, personally, for bishops since at least the beginning of the 20th century, and probably the 18th in the West, it is almost certainly a safe bet that they are notable. Western churches have struck me as having a real tendency toward navel-gazing in the past few centuries, and have an almost endless stream of history books produced about themselves, often published by schools with ties to the denomination in question. I've even seen an encyclopedia covering just the Franciscan missionaries to California for the first hundred years of that effort. Not bishops, not Catholics, not even Franciscan missionaries, but Franciscan missionaries to California for that one span of 100 years. Based on that book alone, I tend to think at this point it is a very safe bet that someone out there has written about pretty much all bishops in recent history and the like are probably significantly mentioned in some academic or independent history book or two somewhere. John Carter (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I guess that makes sense. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I should probably clarify what I said above. I was thinking, particularly in recent days, of sources like L'Osservatore Romano and/or Our Sunday Visitor. Both of those sources, while fairly clearly tied to the Catholic Church, are are also in general counted as reliable sources, and sources which could be used to establish notability. I think at least the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Anglicans have a few sources of a similar nature as well. In general, though, personally, for bishops since at least the beginning of the 20th century, and probably the 18th in the West, it is almost certainly a safe bet that they are notable. Western churches have struck me as having a real tendency toward navel-gazing in the past few centuries, and have an almost endless stream of history books produced about themselves, often published by schools with ties to the denomination in question. I've even seen an encyclopedia covering just the Franciscan missionaries to California for the first hundred years of that effort. Not bishops, not Catholics, not even Franciscan missionaries, but Franciscan missionaries to California for that one span of 100 years. Based on that book alone, I tend to think at this point it is a very safe bet that someone out there has written about pretty much all bishops in recent history and the like are probably significantly mentioned in some academic or independent history book or two somewhere. John Carter (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps an example is in order. John Franklin Spalding was the article that inspired me to ask this question. The only citation is an obituary, which isn't considered a reliable source. My Google search found only sources that were A) not a reliable source B) Anglican church related publication, or C) list of Bishops in the area which would call for a list page, and not an individual biography page. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK, this is a hard one. First, there are individual ministers in some denominations who have, so far as I can tell pretty much on their own, called themselves "Bishops". I can't see that their doing so would automatically qualify those individuals as being notable on the basis of their own self-designation. Having said that, it is the case in pretty much all the major older Christian denominations, like the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches, that the information about the appointment of a new bishop and some biographical information, pretty much sufficient to establish notability, is published and released at the time of his ordination. But, in some cases, particularly if, for whatever reason, the bishop in question is from the early era of the church and the relevant local records of his church have not survived, even there it may be really hard to find anything beyond his name. In such cases, they probably wouldn't qualify as notable either. But, in general, for recent history, particularly the past few hundred years, yeah, it is a safe bet that any bishop from a major denomination will have had his biography published at the time of his ordination by the local newspaper and the denomination's relevant publications. That being the case, it is probably true that in those cases the individuals are suffiently notable. For some "self-proclaimed" bishops, or others of really small churches, it would probably be less clear regarding their notability. Hope that helps a little. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
As an Anglican I have read the above with a certain amount of amused interest. Perhaps the following comments may help.
- It may be an inevitable consequence of the dynamics of Wikipedia and not wanting to upset people, but a lot of not-truly-notable stuff slips through the filters, e.g. [1]. Do we need "sub-encyclopaedia"s such as en.basketball.wikipedia.org into which much of the not really notable stuff could be moved?
- We need to distinguish clearly between "reliable sources as such" and "sources which establish notability". I can think of a number of Anglican "in-house sources" which are certainly reliable ones once notability is established, but might not in themselves establish it.
- The difficulty with John Carter's last suggestion may well be getting hold of the independent book and this may do little more than reproduce selections of the more accessible "in house" material.
- John Carter is perfectly right to point out the fact that there are many pastors of small groups who call themselves or are styled "bishops" by the group and have no claim to notability. (There must be hundreds in Chile alone.)
- There are probably a thousand active bishops (diocesan + assistant) in the Anglican Communion. While the occupants of major sees are probably notable, though Roger Wilson (bishop) of Chichester seems questionable (I lived in the diocese for much of his tenure) and can think of others; there are many small Anglican dioceses, specially newer ones, where the mere fact of having been the bishop does in itself not attract notability.Jpacobb (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with you Jpacobb. Religious articles are not really my thing though, but I do find that notability requirements for religious factoids about the major faiths tend to be supported by the church's own publishing efforts. I personally think that waters down the articles of truly notable bishops, but I don't really want to take up that cause personally. Perhaps the WikiProject Religion could as a group put something together to add to the Notability (People) guidelines. Or, perhaps better yet, put an essay together like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. I find that one incredibly useful for determining the notability of military subjects. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- At least one major religious grouping, the Latter Day Saints, have bishops which would not be automatically notable and any guidance would have to point this out. See Bishop (Latter Day Saints) which says "The Latter Day Saint concept of the office differs significantly from the role of bishops in other Christian denominations, being in some respects more analogous to a pastor or parish priest.". Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with you Jpacobb. Religious articles are not really my thing though, but I do find that notability requirements for religious factoids about the major faiths tend to be supported by the church's own publishing efforts. I personally think that waters down the articles of truly notable bishops, but I don't really want to take up that cause personally. Perhaps the WikiProject Religion could as a group put something together to add to the Notability (People) guidelines. Or, perhaps better yet, put an essay together like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. I find that one incredibly useful for determining the notability of military subjects. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
So, following the above discussion on Bishops, I think an essay guide on notability of religious topics is in order. I took the liberty of creating a very rough draft; following the script laid down by reasonable consensus at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. This project seems to have more than a few interested editors so I encourage you all to take a look, debate, and WP:BEBOLD. I do not want to take further lead on this subject because I am not very versed in the discussions of religious articles on Wikipedia. I'm just good at getting the ball rolling. If other editors find this all very interesting, they might want to invite editors from other Religious affiliated projects --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Mass deletion of links
The important template {{Religion topics}} has suffered a mass deletion of links. The editor responsible for this has avoided the talk page and they appear to be edit warring. I have started a discussion here Template_talk:Religion topics#Deletion of links. – Lionel (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Recent move of Existence of God to Existence of God(s)
The above article was recently, so far as I can tell unilaterally, moved from the first title to the second. There has been a request for a move back to the old title at Talk:Existence of God(s)#Article title question, and I would welcome the input of any editors regarding the name and content of the article in question. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Related RfC
Please comment at Template talk:Religion topics#RfC on what articles to be included in this template. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Bias by Adjwilley
Although he is generally an okay editor, User:Adjwilley has been acting very strange on the God article. From his edits you get the impression that he believes there are only 3 religions in the world (Chistianity, Judaism, islam). For example on the talk page he has on numerous occasions argued against the mentioning of religions other than the above 3. He has in fact argued that only those 3 should be emphasised in the God lede. When you add details which are uncharacteristic of those 3 religions such as pantheism or deism he swiftly removes the information. When you add religions other than the above 3 he also reverts you.
When pushed on his tendentious editing Adjwilley replies with ignorance, for example stating that Baha'i faith is the same as Islam or understating the religious size of of other religions (i.e. he said that Zoroastrianism has 20,000 adherents). When corected he prefers a low-quality source (a daily newspaper) over a higher-quality source from research reports.
WP:LEAD states that a lede should include any prominent controversies. Adjwilley however has decided that the God lede should not include any controvrsies, but should instead state "what most people generally do agree on"[2]. I would appreciate some more eyes on this article since we seem to be going nowhere. Pass a Method talk 05:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to be first to comment here (since I did at AN/I also), but I think you are misinterpreting Adjwilley's statements. It almost goes without saying that an article on God will be fraught with complex discussions on what to include or leave out. Not only do you have each person within a religion having slightly different understandings of God, you also have various denominations within those religions, different sects, cults, and so on. God can be defined by whatever a person decides they want God to be. So naturally you need to begin to pare down the article to what the READER is expecting to see when they come and look for an essay on God. Who, what, where, why, how, when, etc. Does God have a gender? Do you include God(s) like Greeks or Romans had, or just God, as in a singular all-powerful entity? I'm honestly not sure what to expect from your comments above. I've seen some of your other edits and you strike me as an editor who doesn't mind pushing for an unusual and somewhat biased view. I would suggest, focus on the mainstream first, cover the unusual second, mention the fringe if you must. -- Avanu (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at the edits of the editor mentioned; I said my piece at the discussion as invited to do, and left it at that. However, it seems to me this is a textbook example of an article where we must put a high priority on avoiding entrenched bias. A reader has a right to expect a general encyclopedia to make an effort to do so on big/general questions. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
somewhat off topic commentary
|
|---|
|
- I have responded to the above accusations here on the article talk page. I'd like to keep the discussion focused on article content, and not perceived bias in other editors. Interested parties, of course, are welcome to participate in the discussion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI, the usage of the term "No religion" is up for discussion, see Talk:No religion -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
RfC on God
There is a request for comment regarding the scope of the article God at Talk:God#Scope of this article. Any and all input is welcome. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
There is some current activity at the above page, which indicates that there is some difficulty defining exactly the term "religious traditions" in the article title. Any input on this matter would be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Weekly Torah portions
There is currently discussion taking place at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha) regarding material to be included in wikipedia regarding this reading, as well as the others. Input is more than welcome, particularly as I believe the outcome of the eventual discussions regarding these articles may very well significantly influence any future articles relating to other articles relating to regular scripture readings by adherents of a given faith. So far as I know, we have no particular guidelines in place for such readings during services, and it is likely these discussions will at least establish a precedent of some sort. And, yes, I think the input of non-Jewish editors who would not be likely to encounter the same sort of WP:POV problems regarding this content as some Jewish editors might be excepted to would also be very much welcome. John Carter (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Religion
The page Wikipedia:Religion has been marked as failed... however there is an ongoing tlak about the tag I added today. I added the tag to indicate the page is being surpassed by the new proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Can we get a few more people to comment on the old page pls ... see Wikipedia talk:Religion#Failed proposal from 2009.Moxy (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Religion in Norway and by extension other Religion in articles.
There is a discussion in the talk:Religion in Norway pages on the status of the Norwegian Humanist Association and how it should be dealt with in that article. The first issue is whether a line should show for it in a bar chart and a second issue is whether the article should be renamed to reflect that legally Humanism is a "life stance" and not a religion though as far as I can see for many practical purposes it is treated like a religious denomination. I would welcome some thoughts from people actively involved in the Religion project. I note the proposed manual of style does not seem to cover Religion in articles and that might be something to address. --Erp (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Category:Religion templates
I have proposed that Category:Religion templates be merged into its parent Category:Religion and belief templates. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the merge discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Newsletter for religion/philosophy/mythology?
I was wondering what the rest of you might think of maybe trying to put out a newsletter for the religion/philosophy/mythology area, maybe something similar to MILHIST's Bugle or the Christianity Ichthus or something similar. There is a lot of overlap between the various topics, and honestly it seems to me from what I've seen a lot of material is more or less languishing in WikiProjects or groups which have little if any current activity. I don't myself know exactly what it would look like, or how to make it most effective, but I think some sort of way to draw editors who know something about the topic in general to content needing input or improvement, whether directly in their field of interest or not, might be useful for a lot of content. I am leaving notices on the talk pages of the Mythology and Philosophy WikiProjects regarding this thread as well. Anyway, I would welcome any and all responses. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's a nice idea and good luck. I do have to wonder if this is the most productive location for your RfC, though. Either way, this is a persistent issue Wikipedia has been grappling with. See WP:Expert retention.
-Sowlos (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)- I couldn't think of a better place, unfortunately, except maybe the talkpages of the Mythology and Philosophy projects, which don't seem to get much more activity or attention than this one. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Criteria
You are invited to give an opinion on this proposal [3] Pass a Method talk 08:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
A bit silly, but I'm having an argument with an editor over this article. He wanted to define all deities as supreme beings in the initial sentence (and called me adultist for suggesting a children's book wasn't a good source). Hist latest edit took my attempt at compromise, "Some religions have one supreme deity, others have multiple deities of various ranks" and added "that may be considered universally supreme by their adherents simply because they are deities, regardless of their rank." This makes no sense to me.
I've got a bigger problem with the article. Shouldn't it explain what the difference is between a 'god' and a 'deity'? If we can agree (ie find the sources) that there is one. Pagan theologian Michael York thinks there is - see Michael York: Not All Gods Are Deities and he's a reliable source, see [4]. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- That article
isneeds a lot of cleaning up. In my experience, haphazard and poorly citied articles encourage this sort of dispute.
For future reference, try finding relevant (and reputable) sources to support a definition under attack. One, "Sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Two, it requires the other party to produce counter sources of equal/better quality or stop.
—Sowlos (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The MoS
It looks like there hasn't been activity on this in over a month. Is this still current?
Sowlos (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's still "in the process" of being considered, I guess. There is a reasonable chance that the activity might pick up a little with school starting again, I think. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- The project members still have not implemented alot of the recommendations from the talk page. Like the "Criticism sections" - as no project can dictate the types of section or where content can or cant be placed (WP:Advice pages - WP:OWN). So we have a problem - no progress - thus no talking - outsiders (non project members) are waiting to see some progress in the recommendations already there before bring up other problems. No need to keep talking if no-one is fixing anything.Moxy (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- First, we're not even sure if the proposals have consensus. And there is a fear on the part of some of wikilawyering and walls of text, which some think we may already have seen. I think similar things happened in the earlier proposal as well. Also, there was no intention of "dictation", I don't think, but maybe just indicators of "best practices" or maybe most likely or useful sections. And there might be a problem, unfortunately, of people actively resisting "fixing anything", if doing so wouldn't agree with their own opinions or beliefs. That's always been one of the biggest problems with content related to belief systems of any sort. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- "First, we're not even sure if the proposals have consensus" - your in the proposal process now and need to move forward on the recommendations or the proposal will just die like that last on. Your in the process of trying to gain consensus and should try to implement the ideas of those that have commented because you guys asked them to comment. If the project is not willing to adhere to the advice from those it asked the advice from, then there is not much we can do is there. Moxy (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- True. Personally, though, I don't think that any actions taken by me as an individual would be accepted by certain parties, shall we say. In fact, I am virtually certain that some individuals would argue that any action I might take is itself clearly biased. And I don't know of any time when the project asked for input from anyone, although I think a few individual editors, like me, may have done so on their own. There is another question regarding how representative, neutral and potentially biased any of the input to date has been, including my own. Lastly, there is one matter which was, I think, one of the reasons that drew some of the other early editors in, specifically how to deal with "secular faiths" or whatever one wants to call them. Pseudoscience is a field with many of the same difficulties religion has. I would myself be very happy to see someone, almost anyone really, show an interest in taking the lead on this topic, but, like I said, I think I have already seen evidence that any input of mine, however neutral and objective I might see myself as trying to be, would be challenged by at least a few parties and, on that basis, probably not as productive as any similar contributions from others. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- "First, we're not even sure if the proposals have consensus" - your in the proposal process now and need to move forward on the recommendations or the proposal will just die like that last on. Your in the process of trying to gain consensus and should try to implement the ideas of those that have commented because you guys asked them to comment. If the project is not willing to adhere to the advice from those it asked the advice from, then there is not much we can do is there. Moxy (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- First, we're not even sure if the proposals have consensus. And there is a fear on the part of some of wikilawyering and walls of text, which some think we may already have seen. I think similar things happened in the earlier proposal as well. Also, there was no intention of "dictation", I don't think, but maybe just indicators of "best practices" or maybe most likely or useful sections. And there might be a problem, unfortunately, of people actively resisting "fixing anything", if doing so wouldn't agree with their own opinions or beliefs. That's always been one of the biggest problems with content related to belief systems of any sort. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- The project members still have not implemented alot of the recommendations from the talk page. Like the "Criticism sections" - as no project can dictate the types of section or where content can or cant be placed (WP:Advice pages - WP:OWN). So we have a problem - no progress - thus no talking - outsiders (non project members) are waiting to see some progress in the recommendations already there before bring up other problems. No need to keep talking if no-one is fixing anything.Moxy (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth
Should the title of the Genesis creation myth article be called the "Genesis creation narrative" or the "Genesis creation myth". Input welcomed here: Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move IRWolfie- (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hunger strike RfC
Could you please join the discussion at Talk:Hunger_strike#RfC_on_inclusion_criteria. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Will someone keep an eye on User:Pass a Method's edits to religion or religion-related articles? Or at least propose a topic ban with regard to his edits at these articles? There have been various complaints about this user's editing, not just to religion or religion-related articles, by the way. See this and this for some of the editor's other problematic editing.
With regard to religion or religion-related articles as of late, here are some problematic edits the user has made:
- Messed with the Soul article to add "mythological" to it, while removing "traditional spiritual"; this was tweaked by another editor, but "mythological" still currently remains the first descriptor.
- Removed "Christian church" and "Christianity" from the Universalism article.[5]
- At the Genesis creation narrative, stated, "I find it quite astonishing that some editors are arguing that possibly giving a negative connotation to widely-held unscientific misconceptions is somehow a bad thing. Its a GOOD thing.[8] This show his bias.
- Biased, religion-related edits at the Golden Rule article, such as this.
- Removed Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible from God article.[9] As User:Avanu stated when reverting him, "Editor shows a pattern of bias in overall edits." 94.76.201.77 (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not that bothered by many of the examples you present (for example, an image actually depicting the Golden Rule seems an improvement over an image depicting the Good Samaritan for the Golden Rule article; I'm a little surprised WikiProject Bible considers the God article relevant; and I believe given the Church of Scientology his edit to Church was appropriate because it's not just a name for Christian institutions), but John Carter seems to already keep an eye on him. Was there an attempt to discuss these issues with him? I couldn't find anything on his talk page (except a notification of this thread), at least not in the last two weeks. Huon (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is not just bias, it is the lack of rationality in the edits. I had told him that, John Carter did and IRWolfie did. Pass a Method makes all kinds of edits that defy rationality.... They are mostly minor edits that reduce quality, not just biased but random, useless edits, all over the place. If I drink 14 beers, then start editing, I would do the same... But I never drink 14 beers. History2007 (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- History2007, sorry for any inconvenience. Its difficult to edit rationally when the most persistent IP stalks and wp:hounds you over several months. This IP has been on my back since January and even managed to get me blocked once. I have managed to range-block this IP several times but my stalker always seems to come back 2 days later with a new proxy IP viciously harrassing me again. I have largely given up trying to battle my stalker because my stalker has more energy than me. Pass a Method talk 10:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- PassaMethod, you seem rather clearly in the above comment to indicate that some of your edits may not be rational. Any reasonable person would know how to deal with that problem. If you can't edit rationally, don't edit. Period. It isn't hard. You seem to rather significantly overlook the fact that several of your edits are of an extremely questionable nature. If, as I think is indicated by some of your own comments and indications of some of your earlier problems with similar editing with other topics, you consistently find your edits open to question, the most reasonable thing to do would be to open discussion of any changes before making the edits. You seem to have the energy to make several edits of a rather dubious nature, and I honestly cannot believe that the attempt to possibly use that as an excuse for your own seemingly ongoing problems of dubious edits in now multiple topics is of any use to anyone. Please focus on the quality of your own edits first. If you stop making questionable edits, it is unlikely that any "stalker" would have anything to stalk you over. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- History2007, sorry for any inconvenience. Its difficult to edit rationally when the most persistent IP stalks and wp:hounds you over several months. This IP has been on my back since January and even managed to get me blocked once. I have managed to range-block this IP several times but my stalker always seems to come back 2 days later with a new proxy IP viciously harrassing me again. I have largely given up trying to battle my stalker because my stalker has more energy than me. Pass a Method talk 10:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Off-topic
|
|---|
|
- Pass a Method, while I can understand that harrassment seems to be a problem, I still do see a bias in your contributions often. Please try to focus on making edits that are more neutral. As for this IP editor, I believe you need to be blocked immediately. PassAMethod never named the IP in his comment, but here comes someone happily stepping in and playing games. I will be following up on this. -- Avanu (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Avnu i will try. But blocking the proxy IP is pointless coz he's just gonna come back 2 days later as he's done hundreds of times. I'm pessimistic about that. Pass a Method talk 20:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Pass a Method, while I can understand that harrassment seems to be a problem, I still do see a bias in your contributions often. Please try to focus on making edits that are more neutral. As for this IP editor, I believe you need to be blocked immediately. PassAMethod never named the IP in his comment, but here comes someone happily stepping in and playing games. I will be following up on this. -- Avanu (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
To any admins watching this, i would like to request removal of IP block exemption from Flyer22's account. This is per WP:IPBE which states "may be removed if concerns arise". This is in the hope of more transparancy, not a lack of good faith. Thank you Pass a Method talk 19:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- The appropriate venue to make such a request would be at one of the administrator noticeboards, not here. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the premise here is false. I looked at the edits and they did not show bias against Christianity, just a non-Christian viewpoint. So, for example, "church" is a term used for non-Christian houses of worship, such as in the UUA. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- However, "church" is generally used by Christians. Your point about the UUA is a bit flawed, because even though they are not Christian, they grew out of a Christian background and used terms from that background. If you speak to a person from UUA, they may use the term "congregation", "society", "fellowship", etc to describe the "church". When I reverted PassAMethod's edits, I added the word "generally" to reflect the fact that "church" in English is a generally Christian word, but is also used by other groups. "Mosque" would not ordinarily be applied to a place of worship for Christians, nor would "synagogue". Each term generally reflects the faith of those who are a part of it. -- Avanu (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I was advised by email to respond here promptly, but I was three hours late to reading the email. The above just makes me sad. I've been through this already, and wouldn't risk going through it again. I'm not sure what Avanu means by "PassAMethod never named the IP in his comment," but the IP admitted to stalking Pass a Method's edits and Pass a Method decided to tie that account to me and a family member, even suggesting that I am any of the number of IPs that have stalked him. I am not. When I was originally blocked, while being guilty looked like a possibility when comparing similar article space and random support from any IP, there was evidence in favor of my innocence as well (and edit summary style was one aspect of that). The issue was complicated, which is shown in a portion of my archive that I recently commented about, and which is why, within WP:ARBCOM, "there was a range of views, and differing interpretations of events, however there wasn't a consensus to unblock." Dennis has also recently commented on this matter. Contrary to Pass a Method's statement about identical twins, even identical twins often have different interests. My brother shares some of my interests in Wikipedia articles, but he was mostly editing the same articles during his mission to offer support to me anonymously. Then he got bold and created an account. That one was blocked for using proxies. And months after that, he created another one, which resulted in my block. In between offering me support, he was editing articles unrelated to me.
- I do believe that, in addition to my brother, there have been IPs who belong to more than one person who have complained about Pass a Method's edits more than just one time. The main offender's intent does not seem to be to stress Pass a Method out, but to draw concern to his editing patterns that have been characterized as biased and problematic in one way or another. To me, this is why the IPs don't consistently make comments about the matter on Pass a Method's talk page, but rather address others about it. Sometimes, these approaches are wrong; other times, they are fine because they are taking the matter to a WikiProject that is meant to deal with such concerns.
- Pass a Method, taking away my IP block exemption will not help matters. I didn't even request it. It was suggested to me, and I accepted it. But it was really a last resort type of thing because my brother continues to edit Wikipedia, will not stop, and it was suggested by administrators that he create a Wikipedia account. I saw that as a bad idea, even if using a tag on his user page stating that he is related to me. I don't want him to feel welcomed at this site or feel that he is welcomed to communicate with me on Wikipedia. IP block exemption ensures that he cannot create another Wikipedia account under our IP address and helps to keep me better disassociated from him. With or without it, he will still be using proxies to edit whatever part of Wikipedia he wants to. But again, I stress that I do not believe that he has been the only IP targeting your edits. So all in all, taking away IP block exemption will hurt me. For instance, if my brother signs up for an account under a proxy, that proxy will be caught sooner or later, usually sooner, and so will the account associated with it if a WP:CheckUser comes across it. If he signs up for an account using our actual IP address, however, then that takes me along with him if he is shown to be a trouble-editor at any article. So far, he hasn't shown himself to be a trouble-editor at articles, except for any time that he followed the meatpuppet route. But I do not condone him stressing you out in the way that he has, if that is the case. And I have done everything to keep him from editing Wikipedia, with the exception of kicking him out. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- What I meant is that the IP editor could have simply left this alone. Instead they chose to come and confront PassAMethod here and confirm that they were the editor he was referencing. Like I have said many times, we have proper venues for debate on the content that an editor adds, and we have proper venues to discuss editor conduct. Harassing someone or going personally to one editor after another is unproductive and unprofessional. I have no way of knowing if this brother of yours exists or is just a line you're feeding us, regardless, it will stop now. One thing I have a very dim view of is people bullying or acting unprofessionally in Wikipedia. The IP in the little show above was blocked by Dennis Brown, and I will make sure any editor who is simply harassing PassAMethod is similarly dealt with. It is one thing to have a reasonable debate about a person, quite another to hide behind a set of proxies and badger them. I don't care if it is being done with a supposedly noble goal, do things right or don't do them at all. If you and your brother both intend to continue to edit Wikipedia, stop the games and the shit. If you get blocked because of his actions, you will know why and you'll be paying a price for his bad actions. Make it right or don't. Now... this sideshow has completely sidetracked the point of the editor who opened this thread. Can we get back to that please? -- Avanu (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate you explaining, Avanu, and am glad that you will be looking out for any similar IP editors. As for my innocence, it's like I've stated and I have not played any "games and shit." But I've stated pretty much all I have to state about this case. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I asked you to stop the gaming occuring by your brother, who is theoretically in the same home as you. He is causing you problems by his behavior. -- Avanu (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- And all of that has been discussed at length, Avanu, which was addressed recently. Every angle has been considered. Hopefully, if he feels the need to complain about Pass a Method's edits in the future, it will be done the right way. He's stated before that if his editing directly causes problems for me, he will make sure that such problems stop. Again, I don't know if my brother is the only IP who has focused so persistently on Pass a Method, but I do believe that he is willing to stop when seeing that his editing directly affects me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- The easiest thing for him to do would be to create a personal account under his own name. Regarding PassAMethod, I think that should problematic edits from that editor continue, an RfC/U is certainly an option, and it might not be a bad idea to give those who have had problems with PassaMethod in different topic areas of wikipedia a chance to get together and try to find a way to perhaps reduce the indicidence of such problematic edits. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- And all of that has been discussed at length, Avanu, which was addressed recently. Every angle has been considered. Hopefully, if he feels the need to complain about Pass a Method's edits in the future, it will be done the right way. He's stated before that if his editing directly causes problems for me, he will make sure that such problems stop. Again, I don't know if my brother is the only IP who has focused so persistently on Pass a Method, but I do believe that he is willing to stop when seeing that his editing directly affects me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I asked you to stop the gaming occuring by your brother, who is theoretically in the same home as you. He is causing you problems by his behavior. -- Avanu (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate you explaining, Avanu, and am glad that you will be looking out for any similar IP editors. As for my innocence, it's like I've stated and I have not played any "games and shit." But I've stated pretty much all I have to state about this case. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- What I meant is that the IP editor could have simply left this alone. Instead they chose to come and confront PassAMethod here and confirm that they were the editor he was referencing. Like I have said many times, we have proper venues for debate on the content that an editor adds, and we have proper venues to discuss editor conduct. Harassing someone or going personally to one editor after another is unproductive and unprofessional. I have no way of knowing if this brother of yours exists or is just a line you're feeding us, regardless, it will stop now. One thing I have a very dim view of is people bullying or acting unprofessionally in Wikipedia. The IP in the little show above was blocked by Dennis Brown, and I will make sure any editor who is simply harassing PassAMethod is similarly dealt with. It is one thing to have a reasonable debate about a person, quite another to hide behind a set of proxies and badger them. I don't care if it is being done with a supposedly noble goal, do things right or don't do them at all. If you and your brother both intend to continue to edit Wikipedia, stop the games and the shit. If you get blocked because of his actions, you will know why and you'll be paying a price for his bad actions. Make it right or don't. Now... this sideshow has completely sidetracked the point of the editor who opened this thread. Can we get back to that please? -- Avanu (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Pass a Method, taking away my IP block exemption will not help matters. I didn't even request it. It was suggested to me, and I accepted it. But it was really a last resort type of thing because my brother continues to edit Wikipedia, will not stop, and it was suggested by administrators that he create a Wikipedia account. I saw that as a bad idea, even if using a tag on his user page stating that he is related to me. I don't want him to feel welcomed at this site or feel that he is welcomed to communicate with me on Wikipedia. IP block exemption ensures that he cannot create another Wikipedia account under our IP address and helps to keep me better disassociated from him. With or without it, he will still be using proxies to edit whatever part of Wikipedia he wants to. But again, I stress that I do not believe that he has been the only IP targeting your edits. So all in all, taking away IP block exemption will hurt me. For instance, if my brother signs up for an account under a proxy, that proxy will be caught sooner or later, usually sooner, and so will the account associated with it if a WP:CheckUser comes across it. If he signs up for an account using our actual IP address, however, then that takes me along with him if he is shown to be a trouble-editor at any article. So far, he hasn't shown himself to be a trouble-editor at articles, except for any time that he followed the meatpuppet route. But I do not condone him stressing you out in the way that he has, if that is the case. And I have done everything to keep him from editing Wikipedia, with the exception of kicking him out. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are no heroes here. The IP seems to be just "out to get him". PassaMethod is not a vandal, but his edits are far less than focused. And even if blocked can be back as a new account (as many others do) and waste time again. So it is best to try to talk PassaMethod into not editing when he has had one beer too many, and getting the IP to stop chasing him... History2007 (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is marked as of interest to this project, though as yet has received no rating. There is some dispute as to what the article should contain and also in relation to referencing. Perhaps some interested eds would consider putting it on their watch lists. Personally, I'm on the point of taking it off mine due to general lack of constructive input. RashersTierney (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
New article Ethanarilism - hoax?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We have a very odd new article that fell to uncat. Does anyone have any familiarity with this claimed religion? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hoax. Only got 19 Google results, most of which are links to a single YouTube (comedy?) video made by apparent minors and one of which is the Wikipedia article. Shearonink (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Have nominated for speedy deletion as G3/hoax. Shearonink (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Have heard of it when researching Tibet but was referred to as Ithonerilism it seems one of the children has changed the religion to fit his name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.41.104 (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have also heard of Ithonerilism it is some sort of cultish Hindu thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.41.104 (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- ??? You're the same guy as earlier. Now it's pretty obvious you're a troll in on the hoax. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've only been observing this discussion, but the subject at hand seems disproportionally controversial, considering how some people have sabotaged this thread somewhat. Since it seems that everything needing to be established is established, would it be acceptable to close this discussion by putting it in a blue field? Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- ??? You're the same guy as earlier. Now it's pretty obvious you're a troll in on the hoax. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have also heard of Ithonerilism it is some sort of cultish Hindu thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.41.104 (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Please see this discussion concerning the notability and authenticity of this supposed Druidic catechism. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:ERA RfC on BC/AD and BCE/CE usage
There is a current RfC on the wording of WP:ERA pertaining to the usage of BCE/CE and BC/AD. I'm alerting members of this project because of your discussion of era style guidelines for your project's MOS. The original RfC was posted here, where you may follow the link to the live discussion. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I created this essay in order to help apply WP:Notability guidelines to religious pages. What do people think? We could expand with things like a list of religions where Bishops are notable positions. We could also add a lot more to the list identifying "independent" religious news sources. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's great. It could use more details. I've been trying to research different wiki policies lately. Since I am interested in editing religious articles there are questions that really haven't been answered in my research. Is there any location where consensus has been made regarding things like religious publications as sources, details about what makes a religion/church notable for the English wiki etc... ? Fordx12 (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Updates to Eckankar Page
Hi, I am a fairly new editor with a lot to learn. I am trying to edit and clean up the page for my church, Eckankar. I have been a member of Eckanakr for 37 years and am a member of the ECK Clergy. I need help with two things - organization and removal of vandalism.
Reorganization: The page has some outdated information and is somewhat disorganized. I tried reorganizing the page, but apparently ran afoul of some rules regarding inline links and so my changes were undone. I would like to reinstate my previous changes, but do not want to start some sort of editing war.
Vandalism: Eckankar is a relatively new religion and has some detractors. The page has sections for Criticism and Related Groups. I am of the opinion that criticisms belong under the Criticism section and discussion of other religious groups belong under the Related Groups section.
There is a disgruntled former member of Eckankar who has recently started up his own small group called Akatha. Akatha members have been inserting argumentative statements into the sections on Eckankar beliefs and practices. The criticisms are phrased as if they come from an independent expert, but without citations. I have moved these comments to the Criticism section, but he/they have repeatedly undone my changes and has done so anonymously - showing only an IP address.
How can I make the organizational changes I want to make and also ensure that the vandalism stops?
Thanks. I can also be reached at steve at runfeldt.com --Sarunfeldt (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Some more eyes on this article would be useful. PamD 23:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Request for attention at La Luz del Mundo Article
Hi. I am one of three regular editors at La Luz del Mundo and I am requesting for assistance. By that I mean, I would like for editors to read the page, check sources, make sure there are no issues with the content be it original research or neutrality etc... I would also like to get the talkpage archived. It is extensive and it is a mess. In essence, I invite fresh new editors to edit the page. The current article is [12]. There is one editor who is section blanking so in order to check its neutrality, it may be best to make sure that the diff I just provided is used to compare any version that may exist upon reading the article.
My questions about the diff are about some sections that I contributed but need other editors to evaluate:
Is the Discrimination section okay as far as Wiki policy? What about the Architecture section? Is there anything in it that would constitute the article being "Premotional?" Do you see any Original research?
Feel free to edit it if you see problems there. That would help a lot.
Thank you all for your time. I am watching this page in case there are questions. Fordx12 (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Invitation to discuss Islamism
The article on Islamism needs to change. I made some comments about that over on the article's talk page. I hope that some editors with more knowledge on the topic will come weigh in. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
RfC at Talk:Religion#Image
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Religion#Image. —Sowlos 17:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
—Sowlos 17:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Essay on religious POV in Wikipedia
Any editors are welcome to contribute to the User:Pass a Method/Christian POV on Wikipedia piece. (It covers an alleged systemic Wikipedian bias against non-Abrahamic religions, not Christianity in particular.)
A similar invitation has been posted at the Atheism Wikiproject. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Islamophobia article
There is currently a proposal at Talk:Islamophobia to rename the article as "Anti-Islamic sentiment". AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
So Category:Metatheory of religion was created and populated and quickly targeted for deletion, and it seems logical that this project ought to weigh in on such discussion. Blessed be. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Goals for 2013?
So far as I can tell, the English wikipedia seems to be the WF site that gets the most editors, so it made sense to me to maybe start this discussion here, and maybe post links to it elsewhere to bring in additional input. But I would be interested in finding out what if any possibly achievable goals we might like to set up for 2013. This would include goals not only for wikipedia per se, but also for any other entities, like WikiQuote, WikiSource, WikiNews, etc. For the English wikipedia, I think one goal which might be both useful and somewhat reasonably achievable would be to try to have at least started articles on all the major topics relating to religion in a global sense. This would, of course, include all the specific religions as well. Knowing that the list is far from being perfect, because some articles weren't completed on time and some might well have different titles here, I would think that those topics which have articles in the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which is probably the best reference work out there that deals substantively with "religion" on a global basis, could possibly get at least Start-class articles relating to them under whatever title might be appropriate here. For those of you who may not have already seen the listing of those articles, it can be found here. It does seem to me that we have most of what the editors of that work considered the major topics relating to the major religious traditions of the world already covered, with perhaps rather weaker coverage of the smaller, less globally significant ones. That is one idea, anyway. I would be interested in seeing what the rest of you think, specifically including those of you who deal primarily with content in other WF entities. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Improvement of major articles:
- Improving Religion, all major religions highlighted there, and all their major denominations to FA status would be good objectives.
- If we are considering more than just WP English, doing the same for each article in all working languages of the UN, EU, and AU would be fantastic.
- Attempting B class status for all other article linked to in User:John Carter/Religion articles would be amazing.
- As for WikiQuote and WikiSource, we need to establish their deficiencies. Since their content is either right or wrong, the question is more of coverage (than quality).
- —Sowlos (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Key goal: Get more people to watch pages. Many pages that have good content are still subject to ongoing unexplained deletions, including deletions of well referenced text and there are no where near enough people to watch them. ClueBot can do only so much, and as everyone knows not just this project, but all of Wikipedia has seen a migration of editors and IPS performing deletions or semi-vandals pushing fringe views now have open doors for doing what they want. Pending changes on many many articles would have been great. History2007 (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed.
—Sowlos (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC) - Agree. I've had less time to watch the several on my list this year, and as a result have seen some deteriorate as described above. Part of the problem is systemic and long-standing. Without better tools, it becomes a headache (at least for non-admins) to sort through layers of bad-quality edits piled on by 1 or more PoV-pushers or outright vandals. • Astynax talk 16:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- On the issue of tools: enabling revisionjumper and the show all changes watchlist expansion help enormously (for mid and short term changes). However, as someone who patrols regularly, I must agree with Astynax. It still is a headache. We can write additional Javascript tools, browser extensions, or externally hosted web applications if there is nothing else good enough. I know I would love to be able to see portions of articles highlighted by contributor, itemized lists of contributions currently in a given article by user, percentages on who is responsible for how much of a current article, numbers on how often various editors contribute to pages, any terms that users have a habit of removing or adding, lists of users that can be generated by specific editing patterns, etcetera. The public logs do provide all the data for that and more.
On the issue of article degradation be systematic: we need to be systematic in our approach. An organised patrol task force could work. Fancy tools not withstanding, most editors are limited in how many pages they can actively patrol. Coordinating who looks at what can expand coverage or at least make us concious of gaps.
—Sowlos (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)- Oh my! Is the tool thing too scary of an undertaking? :)
- I still think a patrol task force is a good idea. Perhaps liaise with the Counter-Vandalism Unit if possible.
—Sowlos (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- On the issue of tools: enabling revisionjumper and the show all changes watchlist expansion help enormously (for mid and short term changes). However, as someone who patrols regularly, I must agree with Astynax. It still is a headache. We can write additional Javascript tools, browser extensions, or externally hosted web applications if there is nothing else good enough. I know I would love to be able to see portions of articles highlighted by contributor, itemized lists of contributions currently in a given article by user, percentages on who is responsible for how much of a current article, numbers on how often various editors contribute to pages, any terms that users have a habit of removing or adding, lists of users that can be generated by specific editing patterns, etcetera. The public logs do provide all the data for that and more.
- Agreed.
- Assess all unassessed pages - There's no need for 2000+ unassessed pages under this project.
—Sowlos (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- While some of the goals above are ones I would myself agree with, I think it is worth noting that I indicated I wanted any we propose to be rather easily achievable. It does no one any good, and might do some harm, if our goals were too ambitious. That's why I suggested bringing only the missing important articles up to "Start" class, for instance. Otherwise, I do think that, once we have an idea of what the goals are, to, maybe next month, try to figure out specific ways of trying to achieve them. But, at least for the moment, I think it is probably best to try to find objectives we have a good chance of maybe achieving, and then figuring out methods to achieve them. John Carter (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Save the later two semi-serious sub-points of my first suggestion, all the above are easily achievable over the whole year via teamwork.
—Sowlos (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC) - Achievable, maybe. Likely to be achieved, based on the prior history of activity of this group, that's another matter entirely, particularly the part about working to get all the "core" articles from the EoR up to B-class level. Having myself recently developed one of those articles, Nerses IV the Gracious, using pretty much all the sources I could find on the topic in books and databanks available to me, I have to admit that I think it still probably is not a reasonable B-class. Another one I worked on as hard, Karl Beth, has even received additional work from other editors, but, honestly, still ain't much, and it is really hard to see anyone considering it "B" class. Some of the others are also apparently written about, but perhaps in sources which are unlikely to be readily available to most of us, which makes getting secondary sources problematic. Some of the other proposed goals, like getting more page watchers, and assessing unassessed pages, would require a bit clearer organization of this project. I would like to see that myself, and trying to address that is one of the things I hope to raise next month, possibly after this thread dies down. For WikiSource and WikiQuote, I tend to agree with you. At least a few of the standard sources for quotations are now so old that their early editions are in the public domain, and can thus be used freely with proper citation on WikiQuote. For WikiSource, personally, I would love to see us try to find ways to get some of the public domain reference sources on religion, like most of the early volumes of Hastings' [[Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics], which I think now are public domain, on WikiSource. John Carter (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking of WF projects improving the Way of St. James guide on Wikivoyage would also be cool.--85.55.204.69 (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Save the later two semi-serious sub-points of my first suggestion, all the above are easily achievable over the whole year via teamwork.
How to achieve goals for 2013?
The ways other projects have been successful in getting attention to development of their content in wikipedia seem to include at least these two:
- 1) regular "newsletters," like that of the Military history WikiProject, which provide updates on content and at least one common page that almost all of the involved editors receive
- 2) some sort of "contest" to develop content.
Another editor, less frequently used, is to, maybe, have editors review existing sources, including reference sources of various types, regarding this topic or some aspect thereof to see what they cover at sufficient length as at least an indicator as to what similar content might exist here. Personally, I think it would probably be best to try all of the above, and, maybe, if there is a newsletter, find some sort of way to maybe develop cooperation with other WF entities regarding maybe including some of their material in any sort of "contests" here. Are there any other ideas out there? Also, are there any editors involved here who would be willing and able to help do any of the things proposed? I could try to help with a newsletter, and maybe help a bit on a contest, but this sort of thing generally works best if there are more than one person involved. John Carter (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- 3)
This is probably one of the more easily achievable objectives we could have, as I tend to think that most subjects which have religion-related portals will also have substantial numbers of good articles. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, we could do something like this, starting in January:
We could start Requests for comment on the talk pages of portals not yet at FP status, and possibly those already there, for the purposes of trying to establish which specific articles are most relevant to that topic. Upon completion of that, we could request input from those editors willing to be involved in such an effort to work to bring a large enough number of those articles up to a good status that their inclusion in a portal would not be considered problematic in a FP candidacy.
One specific reservation I have about a lot of the religion or philosophy subject portals is the fact that, unfortunately, the inclusion of two articles, of which one is a biography, can be and is in some cases somewhat problematic in and of itself. For such subjects, I think there might also be just cause to maybe, if it is workable, add a section for a third article, specifically relating to matters of theology, organization, history and the like of the subject tradition. Acknowledging, for instance, that the recent Catholic sex abuse scandal is a major subject which could reasonably be considered important enough for inclusion in a Catholicism portal, the portal might well be more informative and useful to people if it could also be structured in such a way as to include, possibly in each item of rotation, some article which is specifically informative about the main focus of the portal, the "thinking" which is the primary reason for that specific topic existing. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)