Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Talk:Sexual intercourse#Article is overwhelmingly dominated by human sex

Opinions are needed on whether or not the Sexual intercourse article should lean mostly toward human sexual intercourse. One view is that since "sexual intercourse" mostly refers to humans and we have other articles to cover sexual activity of non-human animals (such as Animal sexual behavior), then it is fine that the article mostly leans towards humans, similar to the Anal sex and Oral sex articles. The other view is that humans should not be given so much weight, since the term "sexual intercourse" also refers to non-human animals. Flyer22 (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's really a problem, rename Sexual intercourse to Human sexual intercourse and leave the animal stuff in Mating. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Environmentalism as a Religion

I am seeking assistance in writing a section to the article Environmentalism regarding a significant minority opinion that Environmentalism can be seen as a religion. As this wikiproject concerns itself with religions perhaps there would be interested parties willing to assist in this endeavor. Please see the current discussion at Talk:Environmentalism#Enivironmentalism. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for NPOV review

• Recently an editor has raised concerns regarding NPOV with some articles I had worked on prior to an extended wikibreak.
• I have committed to no longer edit or watch these pages.
• However, I would appreciate it if others could look them over with NPOV in mind, and discuss on their talk pages and make appropriate changes if need be.

One of the articles was related to this WikiProject:

1. Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

I will not object to any changes proposed, discussed, or implemented.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem article

Collective salvation. I really don't know what to think about this article. I am considering nominating it for deletion. Does anyone know something about the topic? Borock (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone else just nominated it. Borock (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Deity infoboxes

Is it possible and within the remit of this project to conflate the various deity infoxoes into one that will have parameters for each cultures deities?--NeilEvans (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Asking for a FAR of the article Sharon Tate

I believe it no longer meets FA status and have nominated it for FAR. Per wiki rules, I am notifying all of the article's involved wiki projects. Crystal Clear x3 03:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Defining "Fundamentalist Christianity" as "militant"

There's a discussion occurring on Talk:Fundamentalist_Christianity concerning the use of "militant" to define "Fundamentalist Christianity". Feel free to participate. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 21:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Another Gospel (countercult book)

Hi. I see an issue with the article on Another Gospel (a book by Ruth Tucker on "cults"), and I'm hoping some people here might be able to help.

The problem I see has to do with WP:NPOV. Essentially all of the material cited in the article comes from sources within (or at least leaning toward) the conservative / evangelical Protestant camp — people who strongly believe, or tacitly accept as a given, that this religious view is right and that the groups described in Another Gospel are self-evidently wrong. But when I've tried to find sources discussing this book from an opposing point of view, I discovered there just don't seem to be any sources at all discussing, or even mentioning, Another Gospel that aren't coming from a Protestant / evangelical POV.

Technically, I suppose it could be said that the article satisfies NPOV because it does represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" — but when no one outside one specific viewpoint seems to consider the topic worth commenting on at all, I have to wonder if the result is truly neutral, as opposed to satisfying the letter of NPOV while downplaying the spirit of the policy.

Does anyone know of any sources not allied or sympathetic to the Protestant / evangelical community which could be drawn upon to give more balance to the treatment of this article? Or, alternatively, can anyone suggest other ways of handling an issue like this? Or do people here believe that, in fact, there is no "issue" and that what I'm seeing as a not-really-neutral treatment of the subject is in fact neutral (or, at least, as neutral as we can expect it to be) because what is currently being done is the only thing we can do?

Just to state my own possible biases here for completeness' sake: I proposed this article for deletion in early 2010, claiming that it "violates WP:NPOV to a possibly irredeemable extent". I was basically unanimously shot down, and the article was kept — and I accepted that result and moved on in an attempt to improve the article as best I could — and in my view, the article is better now than it originally was — and although (per my posting here) I still have reservations about the neutrality of the article, I am no longer hoping to get it deleted and would prefer to keep improving it instead. Additionally, I am LDS (Mormon), and my faith is one of the "cults" treated in Tucker's book, but I am committed to seeing this book treated in a balanced and neutral manner, and I am not following any sort of secret agenda to sabotage the article. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Assemblies of God USA

Please review the General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America and leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America/archive1. Thanks so much. Ltwin (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

New categories for organizations of Catholics. PLEASE comment!

Whether or not to add Catholics for Choice to the category Category:Roman Catholic Church organizations has led to a bitter edit war. At Wikiproject Catholicism, we agreed to make the some changes that could solve the problem. The idea is to add additional categories, which would differentiate official Catholic organizations from unofficial organizations. The idea is:

• Create Category:Organizations of Roman Catholics for any religious organization of self-identified Catholics. This will replace Category: Roman Catholic Church organizations as a subcat of Category:Christian organizations by denomination.

• Rename Category:Roman Catholic organizations by century and its subcats to Category:Organizations of Catholics by century, etc.

• Rename Category:Roman Catholic Church organizations to Category:Official Roman Catholic Church organizations. Make it a subcat of Category:Organizations of Roman Catholics. This category would include only official organizations. The Catholic League for example would be excluded - they may not be dissident, but they are unofficial.

• Create Category:Dissenting organizations of Roman Catholics as a subcat of Category:Organizations of Roman Catholics. This would include organizations of self-identified Catholics who are identified by reliable sources, eg. mainstream newspapers and academic books, as publicly dissenting against Catholic Faith (as in the Catechism) or Catholic discipline (as in the Canon Law), as long as the dissenting persists and has generated significant coverage. The threshold of coverage to include an organization in this subcat will be decided on a case-by-case basis. This shouldn't generate controversy, because dissenting organizations are often proud of their dissent.

• Affirmative sourcing will be necessary to include an organization either in the "official" category or in the "dissenting" category. Such sourcing being absent, the organization will remain in Category:Organizations of Roman Catholics.

Anyone here objects? Please comment. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Another question: is there any other wikiproject that would be interested in this? We don't want to make such a sweeping change without community agreement. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Short comments

• I agree. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Having been the other person hammering out this compromise with JP, I also agree. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• I don't really understand Wikipedia categories, but as a pre-Vatican II Catholic, I do understand why this matter could be very contentious. The above looks like a well-thought out solution. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Sounds okay to me. Agreed. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

AFD

The discussion on the proposed deletion of Hindu gods and goddesses and Abrahamic religions could use some informed opinions from those familiar with the scholarship; you'll find it here. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism

Discussions as to what the article should and should not contain have restarted on Talk:Criticism of Judaism, and outside comments would be helpful. Please see the archives and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Discretionary sanctions for history and active sanctions. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Saint Agatha

Could someone knowledgable about the iconography of the saints take a look at Saint Agatha's article? Although the image chosen for the infobox is of historical value (its caption is footnoted) and I wouldn't argue against its being included in the article, my impression is that the more conventional image would be of Agatha serenely holding a platter bearing witness to her mutilation. (The article has a link to what's available on Commons.) Is there a principle of trying to choose something for the infobox that is most representative? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be standard practice to use an image that includes traditional iconography - some articles do, and some don't. Is there a specific image you think should be in the infobox? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There are a few quality images on Commons of the "breasts on a platter" type. To be frank, the current image causes me to wonder whether it was chosen because it's by far the most sensational and evokes contemporary pornography; with mythology articles, I often find that the top image will be the one that displays the most nudity or sexuality, and not necessarily one that best illustrates the figure's attributes or has the most artistic fame. This may be the first time I've seen it with a saint. I don't see this as an issue of censorship, but of illustrative value. Perhaps I'm wrong to worry about it, so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The images currently in use are all from the same 100 year time period, and two out of four depict the mutilation itself. I think it would make sense to mix things up a bit on the page. A quick google image search shows quite a few images of Agatha with the breasts on the plate, and without any depiction of the mutilation at all. I'm not sure what image should be first, but I support changing the images up a bit in general.Griswaldo (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the emphasis on the act of mutilation without a representation of the platter iconography (which expresses the quality of "saintliness") is what bothered me as a matter of undue weight. I'll take a look at the options when I can if no one else does; I write on Christianity only rarely. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move related to this project

This requested move of the page Korban Olah to "Burnt offering (Bible)" may be of interest to those participating here. Comments are welcome.Griswaldo (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Griswaldo, I suppose I should have notified this here myself. The alternative proposals include burnt offering (Judaism), or simply to burnt offering as in WP:RS Ancient Israel context outnumbers Ancient Greek context 10x and the article already disambigs to holocaust (sacrifice) for Ancient Greece. FWIW Wikipedia:Requested moves also has a WP:EN proposal to move Korban Pesach to Passover sacrifice, and a few other sundry WikiProject Religion related moves including scandal (theology) to stumbling block. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Relevant RfC

There is an ongoing request for comment at Militant atheism that is relevant to this wikiproject. Please see Talk:Militant_atheism#Should_the_article_be_split_or_made_into_a_disambiguation_page.3F. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:International Society for Krishna Consciousness#Request Move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:International Society for Krishna Consciousness#Request Move. Elizium23 (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48 Elizium23 (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change a section title

There's a proposal to adjust one of the main section titles used in "Wikipedia's contents", which will also affect the order in which the section titles are presented. See Portal talk:Contents#Proposal for main section title adjustment. The Transhumanist 02:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Project article of deletion

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of new religious movements BigJim707 (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Art and Religion

I just noticed that WP's coverage on the relationship between art and religion seems kind of poor, considering how important the subject is. The best I could find for visual arts were: Sacred art and Cult image. Religious music is better. What's missing is a discussion on the influence of religion on art. That's got to be notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean? Our coverage of Christian art is very extensive, comprising a large number of very specific articles as well as a few top-level articles, and we also have a fantastic article on Islamic art. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should have an article entitled Religion and art. (I don't know how else to express what I'm trying to communicate.)-Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment and contribution needed at Adolf Hitler's religious views.

There is a dispute at the article Adolf Hitler's religious views. HERE is the subject of the dispute. Comments and contribution would be helpful. Mamalujo (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh

We've been having trouble on the Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh page, an editor User:Vikas.insan want's to include honorifics in the article. According to what I understand, WP:Honorifics states that we should not include them. We're looking for guidance on the issue? What is correct according to policy and how should this be managed? Please post your responses on the Talk:Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh page. Thanks Gsingh (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad, visual depictions and the sore need for expert commentary

At AN/I there is currently a discussion that relates to whether or not it is appropriate or accurate/educational to have depictions of Muhammad throughout that entry. For the AN/I discussion see - HERE. For the discussion at the entry talk page see - Talk:Muhammad/images. The reason I'm posting here is that I'm surprised by some of the comments being made by various contributors. For instance, just now I was told that Muhammad is not a religious article, it is merely a biography. I clearly disagree completely. This discussion is in sore need of knowledgeable commentators. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Important Information regarding the Criticism of Religion sidebar

Just so more people know, I have launched an edit\delete nomination for the Template:Criticism of Religion sidebar on the grounds that it is phrased in a very POV way and encorages further POV in articles, as well as it being generally redundent.

Template:Criticism of Religion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Ion Zone (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Brahman#Brahman in Early Buddhism

Would anyone like to take a look at Talk:Brahman#Brahman in Early Buddhism? I've made a suggestion there for rewriting a section of the Brahman article. My rewrite wouldn't produce anything like a complete overview (it was cobbled together from what few sources I could find on short notice), but I think it's far superior to the current section, which seems to consist almost completely of original research. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

FAR Transhumanism

I have nominated Transhumanism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The article is within the scope of this WikiProject. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Religion in Africa

An Request for comment has been opened on Talk:Religion in Africa that may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject. We invite your input there. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article review for Katie Holmes

I have nominated Katie Holmes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed subcategories for clerical and/or academic converts

This may seem slightly pointless. However, I do think that religious converts who had earlier been members of the clergy of the faith from which they have converted and possibly academics in related academic subjects are, possibly, going to perhaps receive a greater degree of attention regarding their conversion from independent sources, and, possibly, either themselves discuss the reasons for their conversion more frequently and/or have such material discussed in biographical content regarding them written by others. Anyway, I was wondering what the rest of you might think about specific sub-categories for clergy and academics who may have converted to one religion or religious group who had earlier been members of the group from which they had converted, and, also, what phrasing for the category name(s) might be most useful. I have a feeling that this will most likely cover converts from one branch of Christianity to another, but still think it might be useful for other forms of conversion as well. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a category would be a good idea, but a list might work. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest having a look at Category:Religious converts and its subcategories for precedents. For example, Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism and Category:Anglican bishop converts to Roman Catholicism already exist. But for all I can tell that's the only "converting clergy" category, and I doubt there are many other pairings where we would have enough examples to necessitate a separate category. For example, the lone page in Category:Converts to Shintoism could arguably be put into Category:Jesuit converts to Shintoism, but why bother? Huon (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I would think that in some categories there may be enough population to justify the subcat. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, while I personally would have no objections to creating lists/articles on the subject, I am not myself certain that they would necessarily meet notability requirements. I'm not sure that categories necessarily have to meet the same requirements. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate of help notice on WP Talk:WP Christianity

Already posted this note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. Please see Talk:Gospel. Fine to link to peripheral material articles and deal with theories at length there, but basic "Gospel" article needs to be kept mainstream. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Assistance identifying religious images on the International Space Station

There is a photo here Beware!, it's big and zoomed right in. There are pictures and a Crucifix, all Russian orthodox I would expect, I'd love to know how to properly describe the pictures, to label what they show. They've been numbered as picture one picture two and so forth when you hover the mouse over the top of them. Discussion about it could go on this page, or here, whichever is easy for you. Thank you everyone. Penyulap _talk 21:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Religion will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in religion. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Free will for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious coercion in Israel. Borock (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Paganism articles AfD list?

Hi: I notice there are WikiProject deletion sorting listings under this project for Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism . . . but none for articles on pagan religions. May I suggest that this is needed? It should also include articles related to heathenry (Germanic paganism), such as the current Afd discussion of Swedish Forn Sed Assembly, which you do have listed in your general list, but many interested in our coverage of pagan religions are not going to have that general list watchlisted. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Christianity categories on Commons

If anyone expert on Eastern Orthodox Christianity would care to weigh in at Commons:Commons:Help_desk#Orthodox Churches that would be great. - Jmabel | Talk 08:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Dec 7 2010: fork, delete, restore, duplicate.. mess

Here's some fun :)

A year ago.. this fork was reversed but the new article created leaving duplicate content in both, and worse, both articles in a mess. One appears to be rabbinical exegesis on Ancient Israel's offerings - half written in English, the other badly sourced points about whole offerings in Greek religion and (?) Christianity. Does anyone want to enter WC with a brush? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

3rd parties and new eyes would be greatly appreciated. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Critics in Template:Criticism of religion

There's a discussion at Template talk:Criticism of religion on which critics to list in the template. Additional input would be appreciated. Huon (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

CfD

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_1#Category:Critics_of_religions_or_philosophies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Activity

OK, I have gone through both the original Eliade edition of The Encyclopedia of Religion, as well as the second edition edited by Jones. Waiting to go through Religion Past and Present and a few other high-quality, well-regarded reference sources.

Anyway, it seems to me that there are a number of articles in those sources which relate to multiple religions, and we could probably at least have "main" articles here on those topics, with where useful and possible additional "child" articles for various religious traditions. Of particular importance seem to me to be articles about "Religion in (continent)" and "Religion in (country)" type articles. The Military History project, so far as I can see, tags articles within their scope which fall within the scope of various child projects for all relevant subprojects, particularly those with at least a dedicated section to them regarding one of the subprojects, and I can see how it might be useful for us to do that as well. I have photocopied the lists of articles from both of the editions of the Encyclopedia of Religion, and a few other similar sources, and think they might be useful.

Also, I notice, having gone through reference works dealing with philosophy, that many of the articles relevant to religion also have entries in reference works on philosophy. Similarly, various gods, goddesses, heroes, and other mythological characters appear in reference works dealing with mythology. In both of the cases mentioned above, it looks like they often share similar material, but that they also will often have material in the article of a book in one field which does not appear in similar articles about books in a different field.

So, yeah, there does seem to me to be a lot of overlap between these various projects, both within the field of religion and in the broader mythology/philosophy/religion field, both in terms of our articles and in terms of applicable reference sources. That being the case, maybe we might benefit from having some degree of active cooperation between all the related projects.

Personally, I could see, maybe, if others would also find it acceptable, maybe having a monthly newsletter dealing with all the projects. It could perhaps include seperate sections for the various broader scope projects, like Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism in religion, Greco-Roman, Norse, and Egyptian mythologies in mythology, and some of the more frequently written about fields of philosophy, with maybe a common peer review process, and possibly common assessments. Also, I think that doing so might help develop some of the content apparently more within the scope of one project, but which also falls, to a perhaps lesser degree, in the scope of another.

Finally, if we were to do something like this, I think we might have maybe a few other options. Some have said that giving barnstars for article development may not be enough of a motivation in some cases, particularly articles which cross project lines and articles like some of the African religious traditions which are important in their fields, but which the understandable systemic bias of many of our editors might not encourage them to develop. We do, after all, tend to be most interested in things we know about, and many of us know rather little about several of these ethnoreligions. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, we could also arrange some sort of system whereby people who write an FA or GA during a given period could also be given the opportunity to write an essay on some other site which might be able to be included in the external links of some relevant articles here. One other criterion which could be used in the selection process would be the relative importance or priority of such articles, in the event there are multiple articles which qualify for a given time period. I personally have been pushing for some time for Wikibooks on topics like "Why I am (or am not) a Christian", for instance, and I think many editors might be willing to help develop some of the more obscure content, outside of their primary scope of knowledge, if they had such incentives. I myself have had a Facebook page for some time that I have never used, and would be more than willing to allow it to be used for such purposes if we could develop a system for it.

Anyway, I would welcome any and all comments. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You might find these links and comments to be helpful.

• Wikipedia:Collaborations has guidance on collaborations.
• Category:Culture WikiProjects contains Category:WikiProject Religion.
• Category:Humanities WikiProjects contains Category:WikiProject Philosophy.
• Category:News contains WikiProject newsletters.
• Wikipedia:Vital articles can be used for deciding the relative importance of topics.
• The assessed importance of articles is shown on these pages.
  • Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mythology articles by quality log
  • Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Philosophy articles by quality log
  • Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Religion articles by quality log
• Category:Top-importance articles contains these categories.
  • Category:Top-importance Mythology articles
  • Category:Top-importance Philosophy articles
  • Category:Top-importance Religion articles.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The are many problems with this proposal. While on an idealistic theoretical plane User John Carter (talk · contribs)'s proposal to "unite" and streamline all these WikiProjects sounds "wonderful" (almost "messianic" in its editorial ambitions) the hard truth and reality is that it would undermine the creativity, uniqueness and freedom that each WikiProject currently enjoys because users in each one are committed to those fields as first loves and are not paid hirelings of WP to "streamline" information on WP. If the WikiMedia Foundation wants to spend money and hire editors to make one generic homogenized mish-mash blah of everything, then fine. So then do the same for all the Language WikiProjects and Math and Science WikiProjects and Country WikiProjects etc etc etc. Just leave well enough alone, and if it ain't broke don't fix it. There is till far too much to do in improving articles and editors are tired and getting bogged down with ever increasing policies and requests and the result is that good editors are leaving WP in droves. Editors are busy and hassled enough and do not need to be looking over their shoulders. For example Judaism editors should not be wondering, heck am I supposed to be doing this like the Islam editors, or should the Christianity editors be wondering if they should be doing things like the Atheism or Mythology editors. This is just another pie in the sky case where some overly-ambitious WP editors and proposals lose sight of the fact that reality is different to Wikipedia and the two often do not mix well. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I had sent an individual message to the above editor specifically because of his history of objections to any sort of proposals involving matters of this kind. I would note that there was actually no indication of "uniting" the projects in my proposal. However, as I indicated, here are a number of articles, and potential articles which can be found in print encyclopedias, which deal with topics which fall beyond the reach of any single dedicated project. These would include the "Religion by country" articles I mentioned above, as well as any number of similar articles, on, for instance, specific types of animals which are prominent in more than one religion. Nor was there any intention of any sort of policy changes implied or expressed. However, if there are not regular newsletters relevant to specific projects, and I myself am not aware of any, but would welcome finding out about them, then I do think it might make sense to have a single common newsletter. And, for what it might be worth, some of the first-level articles included in the Encyclopedia of Religions mentioned above still do not even exist here. To the extent that such is true, and recognizing that we should be, to some extent, trying to remove systemic bias, I believe that, to the degree that such is the case, there is evidence that the system is, if not broken, at least in need of some fine-tuning. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support a reduced version of proposal - it would do no harm at all for a more objective 3rd party, agnostic, detached eye to be treating all of the religion projects as needing significant improvement. Too many of the Hinduism/Buddhism/Islam/Christianity/Judaism pages read like blog/sermon/madrasa/Sunday-School/yeshiva content. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• In Ictu, how absurd to suggest that agnostics are now the "high and mighty" powers-that-be of being the "objective 3rd party" of religion -- that would be like proposing that religion editors need to be the required "final judges" of all scientific and secular WP articles for the sake of truth and fairness. Get real man, this is not a game. Leave well enough alone and just let the religion editors keep on writing and editing so that Wikipedia grows as an encyclopedia. When someone wants to read up about Christianity, as an example, they don't want to read what agnosticism or Judaism have to say about it, they want to read and learn first and foremost what Christianity says about itself from its own sources, of course following all the WP editorial policies. Then, only AFTER that has been done, they can ADD on any other legitimate perspectives and accepted points of view. There is already too much of mish-mashed wishy-washy academic secular critical scholarship that's inserted into too many articles pertaining to religion and no one can make heads or tails of what the actual religion has to say or preach about it, that basically kills any understanding of what the subject is about in the first place. IZAK (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This suggestion seems counterproductive to me. The problem that we have right now, in my opinion, is the forcing of one religion into a mold that may fit another religion quite well but does not fit the religion being written about. We should write from the perspective of the religion at hand, not a reference religion. We are supposed to maintain a global perspective. We should not be "homogenizing" the different religions into a "blah", if I can borrow those words from IZAK's post above. Bus stop (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Actually, I am not entirely sure what is meant by the above. No one was ever thinking about writing from the perspective of a "reference" religion, as is said above. The sources I mentioned at the beginning here, The Encyclopedia of Religion and Religion Past and Present, are basically counted as being the best general reference sources on religion out there, and the first of them actually made a point of having articles relating to specific religions written by adherents of that religion wherever possible. Obviously, for some where that might not be possible, like for instance Aleut religion, the articles are written by outsiders. Also, there was no intention or even implication of "homogenizing" religions. Certainly, for some articles in the sources, like for instance Cattle in religion, there may well be more than sufficient grounds for more specific articles of more limited scope, like for instance Cattle in Hinduism. So, honestly, I am myself still somewhat uncertain of the specific points being objected to above. Also, I note that both of those to whom I have responded are I believe primarily interested in Judaism. Certainly, if the Judaism WikiProject wished to opt out, there would be no objection. However, there was, at least so far as I can see, no real attempt to "homogenize", as per the comment above. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• John, you are making a big mistake. You are working under the wrong assumption that Judaism editors or Islam editors or many other religion's editors edit and write on WP with "The Encyclopedia of Religion and Religion Past and Present" as their "bibles" which they don't even know about. Many Judaic editors have vast academic training in all sorts of fields as well as equally deep classical Judaic training often times in advanced Talmudic Yeshivas, and in particular most Jewish Orthodox-oriented as well as Hasidic- and Haredi-oriented editors, and many of the most active active Judaic editors are like this, do not deem "The Encyclopedia of Religion and Religion Past and Present" as necessary and in fact they regard such non-Judaic sources as counter-productive and even destructive of the classical approach they are working hard to convey. Many of us are not university professors of religion nor do we approve of that kind of academic approach to religion in any way. It would not be Judaism or its teachings! It is dry and stultified. Far better to let the editors write and create articles for Wikipedia, and they have done a maginificent job thus far, as long as they adhere to all current WP policies, coming as they do from a vast and rich variety of disciplines that only enriches Wikipedia. You are making life difficult by proposing a whole new set of "rules and guidleenes" for all religion editors to ahere to (with the best of intentions) but that would make life even more difficult for an already tough editing enironment (unless your goal is to chase those people away and just have WP religion to yourself to rule the roost? That would not make a lot of people happy nor would it help WP credibility as it sinks deeper into yet another type of "political correctness".) But there will be no way to enforce it and its presence will only stifle and stunt good contributions from a vast array of directions. Wikipedia has enough rules and regulations, we don't need a whole new slew of nitpicking and stifling rules and guidelines. Leave that for the next genration of Wikipedians who may want to do it. IZAK (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Seven Point Counter Proposal

Too many Wikipedia articles about religion contain too much information from a secular non-religious and even anti-religious perspective that stands in the way of anyone seeking information about about a religion or religious subject learning about and understanding what the religion or religious subject itself is about in the first place. In effect, over the years, by misappplying Wikipedia's editorail policies, a secular point of view now predominates at the expense of a religious point of view. The proposal now made, based on many years of editing such articles, is that a SEVEN POINT PROCEDURE be followed by all editors when any article about religion or a religious subject is written, of course all the while in compliance with all Wikipedia editorial, citation, NPOV and style policies:

1. That the article opne by [[Description}describe]] and Explain what the religion itself says about itself and/or the religious subject in question and/or the way that religion views the subject.
2. That all the known religious and classical sources be cited and stated for further reference. (Many of those sources already exist as articles on Wikipedia.)
3. Difference among various schools of thought in that religion then be cited and described and expalined.
4. The history and pratices of the religion and the subject in question.
5. What schools of thought and religions say about this religion or subject.
6. What modern secular and academic scholarship has to say about the subject. (Unfortunately, far too often, this part comes to early and even gets the lion's share of the article, in the process obscuring, bloicking and just plain "deleting" the first real meaning of the religion or the religious susbject of the article.)
7. Add criticism of the subject and rebuttal of the criticism as found in known and accepted sources and schools of thought. (This part too gets overly-emphasized far too often in articles at the expense of what the religion itself has to say about itself and/or the relious subject related to it.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

Will of God

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)