Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 90 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

This talk page will be used to discuss articles, etc of interest.

WikiProject Zoroastrianism

Hey, I was wondering if I could "recruit" som volunteers for the WikiProject Zoroastrianism. The project could use a lot of help. Thanks. Warrior4321 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming style

I'm looking at this Category:Religious views by individual and there's no common style for titles. Some say 'Person's views on religion', others say 'Person and religion', 'Person's religious views', etc. It'd be a good idea to have a standard naming style. Any suggestions? Mahanga^Talk 20:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I like "Person's religious views", as it's specific and matches the category name. --Alynna (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Articles nomination backlog

Hi! There is currently a backlog of GA nominations in the religion category (one of them is an article I wrote!). The oldest nomination there is from the 29th July (nearly 7 weeks ago). Does anyone feel like reviewing some articles? I would review some myself, but I don't really have the relevant experience (I've just made my first GA nomination). Thanks! --Tango (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Benjamin Disraeli

Benjamin Disraeli has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevant AfD

Relevant AfD to this WikiProject, on the article Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordination of activity

As most of you know, there is rather a lot of content out there clearly related to at least some degree to religion in general, and individual religions in particular. The amount of content makes it reasonable to think that it might be useful if we were to know who, if anyone, directly works with content related to any specific religion or religious tradition. Ultimately, maybe, if there are enough people, the various religion-related WikiProjects and task forces could try to organize to be more effective, much in the way that WP:MILHIST has done with their muliple project coordinators. I would love to see this sort of thing take place, but to do it would involve having people willing to provide the necessary "support services" for content relating to their particular topic of interest, whether it has a specifically dedicated group yet or not. These individuals would also function as unofficial contact people for needs related to their particular subjects of interest. I have left messsages on the talk pages of all the related religion and religion related WikiProjects and work groups, and any individuals coming to this discussion from those messages, or just reading this on this page for the first time, who would like to take on some work to help manage some of the content are encouraged to indicate their willingness by adding their names below, if possible with an indication of what particular faith or other topic they would be willing to work with. And, yes, if there already is a name or two dealing with your particular subject, feel free to add your name as well. The more there are, the better off we will probably be. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've become increasingly involved in Ancient Egyptian religion and the related topics, and am very slowly working to improve them. As I seem to be the most-involved editor there, and am watching all of those pages, I might as well put my name in, though at the moment there isn't much activity to coordinate. A. Parrot (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• I've just started working on cleaning up a lot of Hinduism related articles and will be moving on to do more. Nothing much seeems to be going on now, but I'd be glad to join the list. Manoj Prajwal (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• I've been working for quite a bit of time on Zoroastrianism related articles. There isn't much or any activity going on, but I'll put my name on the list. warrior4321 22:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• I enjoy researching controversial groups that some call cults, and others refer to as new religious movements – and then putting that research to use to bring related articles up to audited levels of quality past WP:AFD, WP:DYK, WP:GA, WP:PR, and sometimes WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• I frequently write and rewrite articles on subjects in the area of Germanic paganism. For the unaware, that includes Anglo-Saxon paganism, Norse paganism, continental Germanic paganism and so forth. As of now, I've written nigh 40 GA articles in the field, with several more in the works. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what you're looking for here, so feel free to delete me from this list if what I say seems inappropriate. My main interest is in Buddhism. I no longer edit articles, having discovered that Wikipedia has no effective procedure for enforcing its neutrality policy. I do comment from time to time, & I'm always available to supply information from scholarly sources. There's a supply already on my user page (& some in its history). Peter jackson (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• I work mostly on pages related to the Bahá'í Faith - my most recent and ongoing project has been Category:Bahá'í Faith by country for a couple years but at times I've tried to expand content in biographies of Bahá'ís or educational institutions and to stabilize/update Bahá'í content in a variety of already existing articles - and of course I have interests beyond religion as well. I've occasionally tried to updating multiple faith's articles or articles with multiple faith entries but had less success. And we have a group project too - Wikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith. Smkolins (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• I monitor the Unitarian Universalism (UU) articles which are under the scope of the Unitarian Universalism work group. I insure their in the right categories or sub-categories and if need be I will create a new category(ies) or sub-category(ies) and populate it/them with the appropriate UU articles. So if you think an article might fall wholly or party within the scope of the Unitarian Universalism work group and want to be sure I would be a good person to contact. --Devin Murphy (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• I seem to be involved in a lot of articles that cover multiple religions (Gender of God, Transgenderism and religion, Religion and AIDS, etc.). Not sure if that's a speciality, but I'm always glad to help. --Alynna (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Relevant AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonies. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Brainwashing and mind control

Brainwashing was recently merged into Mind control. Please come take a look. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Major COI issues at Messiah Foundation International

If anyone else enjoys removing POV/COI from religious articles (which I do, but have been bogged down), the article Messiah Foundation International has some huge COI issues. I tried rewriting the introduction to at least summarize the group's beliefs rather than be just a bunch of fluff, but the article still needs a lot of work. Among other things, large portions are just direct quotes from their religious leader, making it pretty soapbox. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Atheism Article

Hi, a series of proposed changes to the atheism article and have been outlined at Talk:Atheism#article_.2F_source_discrepancies, comments would be appreciated.

List of religious organizations

Hi. The article List of religious organizations is in need of serious help. It was in an abandoned state and discussed for deletion, however I feel it has strong potential to become a useful list. But it needs lots of help and collaboration. Is someone of you interested? --Cyclopia^talk 23:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll add it to my watchlist and swing a couple edits that way when I get the chance. I think it's an excellent list so far in terms of diversity, but how do I say this..."It's not such a bad little list, all it needs is a little love" Peter Deer (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Relevant AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Fefferman. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Article request

Would anyone care to start an article on Unification Church sex rituals? It seems to be a topic of some public interest and sources should be easy enough to find. Please see: Talk:Unification Church views of sexuality. I'm a church member myself and if I started it I would be in so much trouble with my family (wife and kids)  :-). Steve Dufour (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, is there an article on "Later Day Saint sex rituals"? Borock (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I kind of don't want to know, since I have many Mormon friends. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Each topic needs to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines in order for inclusion, which essentially means that it must have sufficient third-party coverage for mention. Peter Deer (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

True. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfulfilled religious predictions

Evidently, my AfD for this article will fail, and so I will ask for someone to take a look at the article and see how it can be fixed. (I honestly don't think that the article can be fixed and thus won't try to do so.) My primary issues are that this list is ill-defined and hopelessly broad, leading to utterly arbitrary entries. (I'm also concerned about why unfulfilled religious predictions should have a page, while neither "fulfilled religious predictions" nor "unfulfilled psychic predictions" qualify for an article.) Here are some issues I see:

• The move from a purely Christian article to a broader world religions article has succeeded in a name change only. Not one single non-Christian prediction has been listed.
• There was evidently only one unfulfilled religious prediction in the first 1500 years of the church, but about a dozen in the past century. Obviously, the list is skewed towards recent predictions.
• This list gives the appearance of equal importance to such events as the Great Disappointment and Oral Roberts's prediction that Jim Bakker would be acquitted. Because there is no clear criteria for inclusion, each of these predictions is listed.
• The list will never approach anything like completeness. Notable unfulfilled religious predictions are a dime a dozen, near as I can figure. Unless the list is restricted to some clear class of predictions (doomsday, say), the project is as hopeless as "List of false political statements".

Evidently, these concerns do not warrant deletion (according to the current AFD), but hopefully someone will at least try to improve the current state of the article.

Thanks. Phiwum (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Book-class

Since this is one of the bigger WikiProjects, and that several Wikipedia-Books are religion related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WikiProject Religion people can oversee books like Greek Mythology - 1 : Deities much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.

There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The only caveat I might add is that books specifically related to mythology fall within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology, not this project. Otherwise, sounds good to me. John Carter (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well there's plenty of other religions-related books in there like Wikipedia:Books/Islam and Wikipedia:Books/Christianity. Let me know if you need help implementing the book-class.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can adjust the Template:WPReligion to include the book-class, I can adjust the various other religion banners to include it as well. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I tagged all the books that I though were religion-related (see Category:Book-Class Religion articles). Feel free to assign them to different projects as necessary (if their banners doesn't support the book-class yet, either contact them or me). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Help please: Ordination of United Methodist Women

I spotted this one at WP:FEED and it needs some expert help please. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

New England Institute of Religious Research

There is a dispute at New England Institute of Religious Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the depth of coverage and appropriate use of sources. I would appreciate the guidance of uninvolved editors. The relevant discussions can be found here and here. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: UFO religion

Please see Talk:UFO_religion#RfC_Church_of_the_SubGenius. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please see Talk:Scientology_controversies#RfC:_Alleged_oppression_of_Scientologists_in_Germany. Cirt (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Biblical disambiguators

I wanted to start a discussion about using "Bible" as a disambiguator. I recently moved/renamed a couple of articles so that they use a "<name> (Bible)" pattern (instead of "<name> (ancestor of Noah)", which seemed a bit wordy as well as being unusual). There are many articles that currently use the word "Bible" as a disambiguator, but the problem there is... well, it's an awkward disambiguator. I remember participating in a long but productive discussion about something similar a couple of months ago, as part of a specific WP:RM, but for the life of me I can't remember or locate the page...

Anyway, if anyone has any ideas on better disambiguators we could use, I think we should discuss it. I'm tempted to recommend "Biblical characters", but I know that will go over like a lead balloon. Something similar, but without the overtones inherent with the use of the word "characters", would seem much more appropriate however.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

How about "Biblical figure"? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a possibility. I worry that "figure" is still too... irreverent? It's important to keep in mind that the word or phrase needs to be at least something that no one will actively oppose, and we are talking about the Bible here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think "figure" is not disrespective, but also think that "(Bible)" alone is better. Debresser (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it. As the wording of that phrase suggests, I am not opposed on some higher religious principle, just to say I would prefer something else. If you look at the current (ish) top disambiguators, most are a noun, so you can say, "XYZ the film/footballer/song" or whatever. In this sense, your most likely parallels are with the sport names which are just thrown on. Other than that, there isn't really much precedent, hence my "reckon". - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 11:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The difference that I see between "Bible" and most other dabs, is that "Bible" is a singular proper noun. Since a dab is supposed to be about differentiating many items with the same name, it seems a little odd to use a singular proper noun to do that. This is essentially the same argument that I used in the Mary Jones discussion that Dweller linked to below (although, I didn't really express it well there).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The beauty of "Bible" is it is a) totally and instantly intuitively clear b) brief c) applicable to people, objects, animals, kingdoms, whatever. --Dweller (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it really, though? Aside from the (potentially fractious) point that there are many forms to The Bible, the word "Bible" is a singular Noun. If you mention the article title Jared (Bible) in isolation, and having little or no specific knowledge beforehand, is Jared a person, place, or thing? There are similar issues with using something like "Moon", or any other singular proper noun, as a dab.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

<- I don't understand your Jared point. The disambiguator works fine - you know it's something to do with the Bible. And yes, there are many forms of The Bible. I can't see that that's a problem. It can be used broadly. --Dweller (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The dab that is used should at least hint at the nature of what it is differentiating. If you look over Jarry1250's list above it seems that most do (the sports related ones being a notable exception, but... well, WP:OTHERSTUFF, you know?).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It was the very tricky conversation at Talk:Mary_Jones_and_her_Bible. --Dweller (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's it! Thank you!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with just using (Bible) is that there may well be several such people in the bible. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible#standardized_way_of_naming_articles_for_biblical_persons Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually just noticed that immediately after placing the note about this conversation in the WikiProject Bible talk page. I actually thought about copying that conversation here, or something... Anyway, Lemmiwinks2's suggestion is to use "<name> (son of <parent>)" That's certainly a possibility, although it's not my favorite choice. The primary issue there is that it's a bit self referential, don't you think?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Using (Bible) after article names is rather vague and something that I wouldn't promote because of the said vagueness. I think a better idea would be something along the lines of "(Biblical character)", "(Biblical event)", "(Biblical location/city/town/lake/mountain/anything else)". However, I do understand that (Biblical character) can't always be used, considering that there are, at times, multiple people in the Bible with identical names. As said above, there could be a "name (son of dad's name)" placement, or maybe the naming could involve which book or chapter of the Bible that the person is mentioned in or what events are tied to their name. They're just ideas, though. Thoughs? Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 20:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the objection to the word 'character' is more that it's stepping on many people's beliefs and implying to them that the person being spoken of wasn't real (whether or not the word actually implies this). That's why I suggested 'figure' as that's a pretty common word to use for real people (i.e. political figure, etc.) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. What about "Biblical person"?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be my intention at all to step on people's beliefs by using the word "character", because I myself am a Christian. Biblical figure and Biblical person are both great ideas, though. "Character" is probably out then. Thanks all of you. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 03:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, "Biblical figure" or "Biblical person" should both work. --Alynna (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Biblical figure" sounds like it won't be actively opposed, at least (ie.: reverted). I think that I'll change one or two and wait a couple of days to see how that goes.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Question... what if you need further diambibuation? I am thinking of situations where the same name appears more than once in the Bible (example: there are multiple women named Mary in the Bible. Another example: Boaz, can refer to the husband of Ruth or one of the pillars outside Solomon's Temple.) Simple puting "Mary (Bible)" or "Mary (Biblical figure)" isn't going to be enough. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Mary we can see that those situations are already taken care of (although, not well, in my opinion). I think that this is step 1, which may or may not be the end of things.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In the case of characters mentioned in the Koran as well, Muslims might consider Bible dab biased. Peter jackson (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Two articles for Islamic/Biblical prophets???

I noticed that some articles, such as Ibrahim, Moses, Noah etc, one for the Qur'anic version and one for the Biblical version. I am curious why this is, and why the main article gives preference to the Biblical version (Ishmael for example). They seem to all go to the "Islamic view of so and so" which to me, even as a non-muslim, I find sort of offensive in taking ownership of the prophets (in a sense, it is saying that 'this is what they think of OUR prophets'). I am wondering has this been discussed? and if so where. My biggest problems are the ones where the spellings are the same (Adam, Ishmael) however my preference would be the merge all of them and discuss them from a Neutral point of view respecting information contained in all sources, be they history, the bible, the koran, the baha'i books etc. Grant bud (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that there is a Qur'anic version separate from the usual Bible itself. Islam recognizes the same material that Jews and Christians do and unless their is clearly a separate description in the Qur'an, these articles should be merged. I have just proposed that for the Islamic "version" of Moses. Unless the others are clear about being separately defined in sura someplace, they, too, should be merged. Student7 (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD for New England Institute of Religious Research

• New England Institute of Religious Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New England Institute of Religious Research. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Prophecy

Hello all, I was wondering if you could help with some comments at Prophecy. There is this editor that is changing the lead sentence of the article using a Bible verse which is not an academic definition nor is it using the secondary sources as defined in no original research. He seems bent on arguing on Truth rather than verifiability, and doesn't really understand the way Wikipedia works. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk)

Deletion discussion

I have nominated Moralistic therapeutic deism for deletion. This basically boils down to a nonsensical coining on the part of some extremists trying to paint the average (nonextremist) Christian as a defective Christian, and while they're at it to confuse the meaning of deism. Please delete this nonsense. Torquemama007 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Destiny of the unevangelized

This new article could do with tweaking and expanding, and it's been suggested it is redundant to original sin (though I'm not sure it needs to be merged myself). Fences&Windows 00:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a topic of multiple religions. Islam has some interesting things to say about it too. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Major issues with North American Emergent Church

Any idea what to do with this article? My gut is to delete and redirect to Emerging church. Any alternate suggestions? MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My gut agreed with yours. I redirected the article and talk page. Vassyana (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahweh and Allah.Borock (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volney Mathison. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:New religious movements

Is this category salvagable? It currently has no defined inclusion criteria, and even admits such ('Although there is no one criterion or set of criteria for describing a group as a "new religious movement"...'). As such, it doesn't work as a category. Is there any hope of defining criteria (such as a cutoff year)? Or is List of new religious movements (along with the broader set of Category:Religious organizations by year of establishment) a good enough replacement, as lists can include citations, while categories cannot? --Mairi (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is. It is an important label widely used in academic study. Just because the boundaries of the label are somewhat unclear and in dispute doesn't prevent its use as a category. NRM as a label has little to do with the date of founding, except that they are founded in the modern age. It has a great deal more to do with distance from the mainstream practices of their respective parent faith and social factors. I have revised the category description, including a common sense inclusion standard. Vassyana (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the category dscribes the religious movements as "new" concerns me, considering how there is not a set time when something isn't new anymore. Maybe it could be renamed? Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 20:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the label used by an overwhelming supermajority of reliable sources and scholars for the group of religions. It may not be ideal, but it is the standard terminology. Vassyana (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's used, doesn't mean it's suitable for a category. Part of the problem is that scholars are inconsistent about what is/isn't a NRM. From that article: "some authors use World War II as the dividing line after which anything is "new", whereas others define as "new" everything after the advent of the Bahá'í Faith (mid-19th century)" and "Generally, Christian denominations that are an accepted part of mainstream Christianity are not seen as new religious movements; nevertheless, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, Christian Scientists, and Shakers have been studied as NRMs". The problem with a category, unlike a list, is that we can't cite it. In a list of NRM, we can cite who called them that, and potentially include anything that someone's considered an NRM. Unless we come up with a specific definition, the category could include anything any scholar has called an NRM, which is less than useful, and hard to track. -Mairi (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A nebulous term used by a bunch of scholars is a fine topic for an article -- I wholeheartedly support List of new religious movements -- but it's a crappy topic for a category. Categories need blindingly obvious inclusion criteria. "Common sense" won't cut it. --Alynna (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to use capital letters to indicate the term is being used in a technical sense? I think scholars in the field do that a lot.

"Categories need blindingly obvious inclusion criteria. "Common sense" won't cut it." That would cause serious problems all over the place. Just think about Category:Religion. Just what is a religion? Peter jackson (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose if it is listed as a New Religious movement verifiable RS there is no need. I think the key is to use The NRM Work group has done i fine job of identying such groups. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ethnoreligious group

I'm posting this note here to request help with the article at Ethnoreligious group, that has a template from this Wikiproject on the talk page. The article currently has no sources for the definition of the term, and there is talk page discussion about a possible merge with Ethnic religion. If anyone here is interested in this topic, please join the discussion or add sources to the page. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 05:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Leo Ryan GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Leo Ryan for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib)

RFC for religion - President Obama

Could you help us define non-denominational Protestant, non-denominational Christian, Protestant, Christianity, United Church of Christ, etc.

Some want the infobox to say "Christianity". This is the most vocal group.

Some want Protestant.

Some want Non-denominational Christian and have a new, reliable source reference.

Some want United Church of Christ (until 2008), Non-denominational Christian (2009-present)

I think #3 is the best. Some claim consensus but with 4 or more suggestions, there is no consensus. If you know about religion, please help. Other featured article class presidents list a denomination. To not have a denomination, you have to go back 1.5 centuries. Even those say Christian, no denomination or see below. No article uses #1. Help! JB50000 (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My comments: all four are largely accurate, it just depends on how much detail we want to provide:

1. Christianity is accurate, but there are so many varieties of Christian, I'd prefer more detail than this
2. Protestant is better, although there's still many varieties of that
3. I have mixed feelings about "Non-denominational". It's true that Obama no longer associates with a particular denomination. But it's still true he's more Protestant than say Catholic or Orthodox.
4. Listing both UCC up to 2008 and non-denominational thereafter is the most accurate, but maybe too much detail for an infobox?

My two preferences:

1. Non-denominational Protestant (better than Non-denominational Christian - he's closer to Protestant than anything else)
2. United Church of Christ (until 2008), Non-denominational Protestant (2009-present)

--SJK (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this just illustrates a point I've made a number of times before. Infoboxes are usually POV. Peter jackson (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The True Furqan

Would someone please contribute to Talk:The True Furqan. I am faced with an interlocutor who seems to have little understanding of how Wikipedia works, and would appreciate someone else looking at. --SJK (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC for Another Gospel

Please see Talk:Another_Gospel#RfC:_NPOV_and_article_Another_Gospel. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Academic journal categories

Hi, there are two categories for academic journals that fall within the realm of this project: Category:Theology journals and Category:Religious studies journals. I admit that I don't readily see the difference between the two and journals seem to have been assigned rather haphazardly to either one (some journals having "religous studies" in their titles having been assign to "theology journals" and the other way around). Is there any reason to maintain two separate categories and how should they be defined? Or should we just merge the two? In the latter case, should "theorlogy journals" be merged into "religious studies journals" or the other way around? (The former seems more logical, as "religious studies" seems to be more inclusive than "theology"). Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also agree with merging the religious studies journals into the theology journals section. Theology and religious studies seem to be close to the same thing. Also, the former category is more filled than the other one. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 18:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have made a soft redirect from "Theology journals" to "Religious studies journals". This way, there will be a "grace period" of about a week, if somebody would come up with a reason why this should not be done. After that, a bot will automatically move all the articles currently in the "theology" category to the "religious studies" one. --Crusio (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have assumed that "religious studies" journals were about the known, for example, presentation of scripture, catechism, that sort of thing. Definitive.

Whereas, theology journals is about the unknown, or not yet known, or being discussed. Still under discussion.

Religious studies would be the equivalent of how and what to teach science to children. Definitive.

Theology here, would be the equivalent of controlled experiments in teaching children science using different methods. Advanced and not necessarily definitive yet.Student7 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• But wouldn't many journals cover both aspects of what you describe? --Crusio (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

They're quite different. Theology is an activity that goes on inside religion. Religious studies look at religion from the outside. Peter jackson (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• That makes sense and I see how the fields can be differentiated. But again, like I said above, wouldn't many journals in this are cover both aspects? Perhaps you can have a look at the journals currently in those two categories and see whether they can easily classed as either one or the other. Alternatively, we could rename the category "Theology and religious studies journals". There are not that many articles that this would pose a problem, I think. --Crusio (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Peter Jackson, but more importantly, any merge must be discussed at WP:CFD. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Raëlian beliefs and practices

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Raëlian beliefs and practices/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Seventh-day Adventist Church

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people.

Generic RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people. Comments invited as might apply to some articles of interest to this wikiproject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC - prefixes in article title of Eastern Orthodox officials

An RfC is currently open (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#naming_convention_associated_with_Eastern_Orthodox_officials) regarding the appropriateness of having position titles in the article title of religious Eastern Orthodox officials. Commentary would be welcomed, as the WP:NCWC talk page has a low level of activity.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ammended: The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church reorganization proposal - comments welcome

A proposal has been made to restructure and shorten the article Catholic Church. Comments on whether or not the proposed changed should be implemented are welcome. Karanacs (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)