Jump to content

Talk:Abrahamic religions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CIS (talk | contribs) at 04:41, 6 August 2011 (→Article mixes BCE/BC usage; per WP:ERA only one style per article is recommended: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Time to archive?

The last new archive of this talk page took place about a year ago, and the last manual archive, in July, manually added to that long Archive2. I'd like to start using either MiszaBot or ClueBot to automatically weed out old discussions regularly. Everyone OK with this? Anyone have a preference on which bot to use? Parameters for aging to archive? Dovid (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea. Pace is a question I don't have an easy answer for - something more often than 1/yr? I don't have a pref on which bot. Smkolins (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would go for about 6 weeks. How about this?
{{autoarchivingnotice|bot=MiszaBot|age=45|small=yes|dounreplied=yes}}
{{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=45}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| archive = Talk:Abrahamic Religions/Archives %(counter)d
| algo = old(45d)
| counter = 2
| maxarchivesize = 50K
| minthreadsleft = 5
| minthreadstoarchive = 4
| archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
}}

This will age anything over 45 days old (6.5 weeks, 1.5 months). It will always leave at least 5 discussions on the active page, and will not bother to archive unless there are at least 4 old discussions (headings) that can be archived at once. It will only break for an additional archive page when the current archive page is at least 50k in size. There will be a notice at the top of the page indicating that we archive, and having links to the archives. Each archive page will contain a small navigation section to jump among the archive pages. Dovid (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worth a shot. I'd say go for it. Smkolins (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, go for it Daniel De Mol (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried to set it up, but it appears to not be working. Anyone want to take a look at it and fix it? Dovid (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

"The different religions, and some of the branches within the same basic religion, have been in bitter conflict with each other to the extent of war and bloodshed." is being changed to, "At times and in various locations the different religions, and some of the branches within the same basic religion, have been in bitter conflict with each other to the extent of war and bloodshed." This makes it clearer that the history of Abrahamic religion has not been one of constant conflict at all times across all geographical locations. Daniel De Mol (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Violent conflicts

Between Abrahamic religions and Non-adherents

"The Inquisition, mentioned above, also targeted non-believers and many accused of atheism lost their livelihoods or their lives" is being changed to "The Catholic Inquisition, mentioned above, also targeted non-believers in Catholic orthodoxy and many accused of atheism (regardless of what they professed) lost their livelihoods or their lives"
1. The Inquisition was a Catholic Inquisition.
2. I'm not sure whether it targeted many people who were actual atheists, so far as I know the people it accused of atheism where actually believers, and since wikipedia articles are not the place for speculating on whether or not a person who professed belief in God was actually an atheist, if "non-believers" be insufficiently elaborated upon to imply that atheists were targeted then it will definitely require the citation of a scholarly source.
Daniel De Mol (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The colonization of North America by the Conquistadors was done in the name of revealed monotheism." is being changed to "The colonization of North America by the Conquistadors was done in the name of Catholicism."
1. Although I appreciate the subtle acknowledgement that monotheism is revealed in the way the sentence was priorly worded, it needs to be changed due to statements 2 and 3 below.
2. Because Trinitheism does not equal monotheism.
3. Because if the person who wrote this is so unable to diffrentiate between different groups under one central doctrine then let them go and ammend all the communism and atheism articles to say that 70 million people were killed in the name of atheism.
Daniel De Mol (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also some references to violence from non Abrahamic groups towards Abrahamic religions such as Communism would be in order here as well to keep it all balanced. Daniel De Mol (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Bahai faith often - or sometimes - considered an Abrahamic religion?

I don't know. But the first citation on this subject in the article, Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Religion, says it is sometimes.

Additional sources asserting it is cannot be compiled to prove it is often, that's a synthesis: Original Research.

We have a reference stating it is sometimes. To replace sometimes with often, we sources stating it is often, rather than other sources stating it is.

Additionally, piling on references, some of which are obscure or tangential, is known as citation clutter. We don't need tons of references to the subjects, including references to catalogs, and sources without page numbers. We need quality rather than quantity.

The article currently states Bahai is sometimes, and this statement is well sourced. That is to say, it appears to be from an academic source rather than a blog or a religious website

Please provide two (no more, no less) reliable sources that state the word often rather than sometimes, and I will be perfectly content to let it stand.

As I said, I have no personal opinion on the subject, I am simply asking we follow the rules.

Aquib (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know its not easy to please you, but i have added 37 references just to keep you happy. If you revert me again, i will add another 50 references, and so on. Happy new year. Someone65 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone65, I confess I do not look forward to plowing through your 37 citations to see which ones actually state the Baha'i Faith is often considered an Abrahamic religion. As a courtesy to myself, as well as the other affected editors, would you be so kind as to furnish two (2) of the best quality sources among the 37, so I can verify them? Thanks -Aquib (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be instructive to keep in mind that this article has been the subject of intense editing at various times - the whole structure has been redone at least twice in the last year. At times the major re-write has entirely stripped out the Baha'i Faith and at other times has placed it in complete parallel form with Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I too thought that a single high quality reference would satisfy editors that the Baha'i Faith simply belongs in the article. However that was not the case. Numerous sources were cited as a result and third party editors were involved as well as admins. The situation has been relatively stable for almost six months now. I'd appreciate editors respecting this history. All that being said I favor Aquib's clear reliance on what the reference actually says which is "sometimes" and simply adding more references does change "sometimes". But please note this is like a microcosm of the earlier arguments and both sides were then, and I beleive are now, trying to do well for the article but I underscore the point of contributing, and rules, is to make good articles. I think we would be well to keep that clearly in mind. Rules by themselves do not make good articles and neither does unedited contributions. We need both. Smkolins (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patient and thoughtful explanation. I understand the situation, and I support your position as well. I will try again to explain the principles involved to the other editor. Best regards, -Aquib (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So can't we just return to the status quo, which has been stable for some time now? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are asking me, Carl, I would happily support returning to the state of the article before Someone65's edits - ie the 12/28 CDT version. Provided other long-time contributors to the article agree as well. That was, in fact, my original intention. Thanks -Aquib (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing for or against changing sometimes or often as I don't think it's really important, and I agree with the current structuring of the page, with the Baha'i Faith mention being a small part of the article (and it has to remain small based on WP:UNDUE), but it is funny that one source that uses sometimes is enough to overrule many other sources that just say is. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was the point I tried to make many times in the past. Smkolins (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good point, assuming there are a couple of quality sources to support it. I can't easily tell from the citation dump that's currently in the article. We need the best quality sources: academic material published on a university press. And unless the sources are accessible online, I would need page numbers and access to my library, which is closed until January 3rd.-Aquib (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we even have RSs which say Bahai is not an Abrahamic religion? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that it is Abrahamic when the founder of the religion calls it that. Some academics label it as Abrahamic, and others don;t mention it either way. I haven;t seen any references that dispute it being Abrahamic in origin. This dispute seems to be by an editor who was quoting a source (the first citation) that says "A group of religions that recognize Abraham as a patriarch. This includes Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Sometimes, the Baha'i World Faith is included in this list." Of course, this says that Baha'i is Abrahamic, and that sometimes some people list it as such, and sometimes they do not. It is not disputing whether it is or not. As the other references also support that it is Abrahamic, this is really just a misread of a citation by one editor. Atom (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here we go with an editor stripping it out entirely again. This is what lead to the list of references in the first place. In a version my earlier (circa september 2010) I detailed very specific references including pages numbers where needed as well as references where leaving the religion out of the category was criticized. I've never seen an RS stating it shouldn't be considered Abrahamic. Smkolins (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's just say it's Abrahamic, and leave it at that. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest another alternative. Completely remove these "sometimes" sentences from the lead and the beginning of the Baha'i Faith section. The appearance of the section on the Baha'i Faith in the article under discussion implies it is an Abrahamic religion, as it does for the other religions mentioned in the article. We have lots of general references to the effect it is Abrahamic. There is no contradicting source I have seen. The reference using the word sometimes is not necessarily authoritative.
The best sources I have at hand for this question are Hodgson's Venture of Islam and Lewis' Jews of Islam. While they are not specific on this point, the Abrahamic orientation of Baha'i Faith is implicit in their mentions of the subject. Both authors identify the origins of this religion as "Islamic", if I may paraphrase for purposes of discussion. Lewis p 20, Hodgson V3 p 305-306.
The Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Religion is a tertiary work written by a generalist for a publisher of topical encyclopedias. It is generally reliable, but not definitive in a matter such as this.
Among the ~37 citations supplied in regards to this question, none are for top-tier sources -unless someone wants to work out the details. They are tertiary, nonspecific, non-academic and/or not peer reviewed. The generally support the assertion the Baha'i Faith is Abrahamic.
  • One exception is International Social Science Review, a peer reviewed journal. However, I cannot find a bio for the author - Adam Berry. Others are tantalizing, but have problems.
  • Lubar Institute nails the question, but has no author. In addition, Lubar's web page contradicts Hodgson and Lewis by using controversial terminology - leading to an implication of bias or unfamiliarity with the subject matter. "Shooting from the hip", in this instance.
  • The UN Human Rights Council agenda is topical but nonspecific. It is useful and interesting but does not cite an authority on the specific question. The specific question we are trying to answer is not considered per se.
So, from my perspective, removing the sentences would seem to be a reasonable option. Just a suggestion.
Aquib (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Perhaps something like a sentence "Another religion listed as Abrahamic is the Bahá'í Faith." As for references perhaps consider:

((legal/government))

  • Flow, Christian B.; Nolan, Rachel B. (November 16, 2006). "Go Forth From Your Country" (PDF). The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved September 19, 2009.
  • * "Abrahamic religions". Authorities & Vocabularies. The Library of Congress. Retrieved September 19, 2009.

((academic))

((criticism of exclusion by academic or government agency))

Smkolins, The Children of Abraham : Judaism, Christianity, Islam by Peters should be all you need. This is a gold standard text, and it will trump The Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Religion. Google books won't let us "look inside", but the 2004 printing is available at my library, and the page count matches the 2006 edition. I can try to drop by Monday evening and get us a quote from the text along with a page number. Aquib (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found eleven new references you might consider as "academic or peer reviewed";

Someone65 (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Someone95 - believe it or not I've seen most or all of them. They are all either use the Abrahamic characterization outside of a formal religious context or are so close to being Baha'i sources that they are not independent. I agree with Aquib that the (two volumes of) The Children of Abraham : Judaism, Christianity, Islam by Peters should be enough to substantiate the issue - however both were primarily published in French, not English. The Publisher mentions publishing in other languages including English but I've yet to find one in any media or situation. I have found English language reviews or comments about the project but none outside of Baha'i journals that are easy to access. We had a little debate about using it in the English Wikipedia about it and for a time it did indeed serve. But, well, it's not been stable over a period of even a year yet. But it has improved in most respects compared to the last few years before where the Baha'i content was regularly stripped and we had to re-hash this all again. Now there seems to be a broad consensus among wikipedia editors, if not systematically every editor, that the religion belongs in the article, just not on par with the more well known three. I also added the ethnographic section to bump up the diversity but the citations for that also got tied up with the broader editing that went on - I've pulled some of them back. But to help quell the issue I also tend to extend the discussion with more references rather than presume one "strong" one will quite the issue. The one's I highlighted have generally been felt to be strong - plus the Lubar institute though it has it's weakness. Smkolins (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smkolins, I dropped by the library at lunch today and spent about 20 minutes looking through Peters' The Children of Abraham. The 2004 edition doesn't seem to mention the Baha'i Faith: not in the index, the forwards or anywhere I can see in the first few chapters. The 2006 version is not available to me. -Aquib (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I see what's going on. I thought you meant the "Fils de Abraham" book but you are referring to the REVIEW of the Peter's book that I posted as a possible citation. Follow the link. It goes to the online REVIEW of the book. This was published in a professional library journal that is not itself available online (but is the substance of the reference). This review was used commonly as a published review of the Peter's book - see Google Books and pricecow for example. Smkolins (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK I understand. Well, sorry, I thought I had nailed it down. Best regards -Aquib (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone agree that the word sometimes needs to be removed? All references claim Bahai is abrahamic and none claim the contrary, as i stated earlier here. Someone65 (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to state the matter more carefully; every reference found to date that mentions the Baha'i Faith says it is Abrahamic, but not all references mention the religion including some of the most significant. But neither do they mention various other regional/ethnographic religions seemingly clearly related as well though of only local importance. I de-emphasize the reference that say "sometimes" in favor of the strongest references above, drop the word sometimes in the lead and in the Baha'i section say that various individual religions, legal, governmental and academic authorities state it is Abrahamic. Something like that. Smkolins (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Aquib (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If u guys are wondering why I filled it with references, the Bahai section has been removed several times last year. Thats why.Someone65 (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just un-filled it, because a single fact doesn't need that many supporting refs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate your memory of this SarekOfVulcan. Smkolins (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SarekOfVulcan, i hope you know that 3 people (besides me) have agreed that the word sometimes should be removed, and User:Jeff3000 also objected to it, but you just reverted this consensus edit. I will reinsert the sentence proposed by Smkolins without adding any more refs. Someone65 (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early Judaism

The section that discusses early Judaism currently states,

"In that period its religion was identical with that of its neighbours"

I have seen this claim before, but I have never seen a factual--or even a scholarly--basis for making it. It is, as far as I can tell, a minority belief amongst intellectuals.

"it was polytheistic,[citation needed]"

I'm wondering how one is supposed to know that? Not only is this claim not sourced, I'm wondering what discovery or knowledge would prompt a source to make such a claim? I'm sure it would be possible to find some book somewhere that makes the claim, but I would like to know the basis for them to make the claim.

If I need to point to a counter-claim, I can point to the Bible. Indeed, I could even point to "National Geographic," which has published many articles on Abraham over the years, one of which specifically states that Abraham followed one God. That is the unique aspect of Abraham's faith: he came from a polytheistic culture, but broke away to worship just one God. Polytheism occasionally crept into Jewish life after Abraham lived, but it wasn't significant until after the civil war split the kingdom. Polytheism in Israel permanently died within 200 years, after the Babylonian captivity. So, out of 2500 years or so before the birth of Jesus, parts of Israel were significantly polytheistic for about 200 years.

"temple-based,[citation needed]"

Early Judaism did not have a temple, according to the Bible. That makes sense, for a people who were nomadic would not be likely to erect permanent structures. The Temple wasn't built until Solomon's reign, about 1500 years after Abraham lived. The earliest Jews worshiped at open altars, and the later early Jews worshiped at open altars in front of tents dedicated to housing the ark of the covenant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooua (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP:Be bold in editing. --FaktneviM (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islam was founded by Muhammad in the 7th century CE upon the teachings in the Qur'an.

This is severely mistakes by wikipedia, kindly look in to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.123.91.149 (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could You state where is bad claim placed, please? I can´t find sentence, which You criticized. Thx. --FaktneviM (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is the sentece, "Islam was founded by Muhammad in the 7th century CE upon the teachings in the Qur'an." already in the lead section of the article. --FaktneviM (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What religion did the Abrahamic religion evolve from?

Does any know the answer to this? When you look at older religions like the Greeks or Romans you have accurate time lines and what religions they evolved from even going so far back to hunter gather type societies that worshiped the Sun and the Moon. Is there any information out there that shows what gods and beliefs evolved into the Abrahamic God and the time lines involved or is it because there are still so many people around who believe in those Religions and believe they are real that any info that did show the evolution of these religions are simply ignored or suppressed? Tcla75 (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORUM FaktneviM (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), not the founder of Islam..He was the last and final messenger..

Nomansem (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)MENTIONED BELOW ARE THE MAILS SENT BY ME...[reply]

As Salam Alai Kum Brother, Nafsadh I do not know why you are reverting and re editing my post in ABRAHAMIC RELIGION in the Wikipedia. Are you not aware of the universal fact that Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)was not the founder but the last and final messenger of GOD. Why then post information which is not authentic and do not match the Holy Qur'an. If other reasons/cause then please justify and ellaborate.


Dude..

What do you mean by how to deal with Islamic Articles…??? I agree with the fact that that we need to act slowly and effectively but you are stating untrue facts.. Moving slowly and effectively does not justify that you can state absurd and illogical facts in your article..

NO where does the Wikipedia policy states that you mention points which are untrue.

I am new to Wikipedia so do not know how can I talk to you in WP, I don’t want to hide behind a bunker and attack on your article, I am openly protesting against it.

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) is the last and final messenger of ISLAM, not the founder of ISLAM. If you are ignorant about the fact then I am mentioning some links below, please go through them and edit your article, or I will have to take befitted action against the stated fact.

http://www.institutealislam.com/comparative-study-between-islam-and-hinduism-by-dr-zakir-naik/ CHECK UNDER THE TOPIC MISCONCEPTION ABOUT ISLAM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDDEyJ-YsFg

The Qura’an mentions “When truth is heard against falsehood, falsehood perishes because falsehood is by its nature bound to perish”

Therefore, brother spread Truth not falsehood.

Dear,

I am figuring out as to how can I talk on the page. I also don’t believe in sending personal mails, the moment I learn how to chat on WP, I’ll post all the mails on it. I think you do not believe in the Qur’an and the Hadith, Insha Allah I will quote you certain verse of the Qur’an which state that Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was the last and final messenger and not the founder of Islam.

I will remain as enthusiastic as I am, it’s sad to see that Muslims themselves are maligning their religion, I do not care about the topic and POV or NPOV, I simply want you to change the information about Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). He is not the founder of Islam, if you think he is, then please I would request you to cite reliable source, rather than just stating what you feel like.

Nobody asked you to believe in ZN, you always can verify it from the scriptures. The Qur’an is the authentic source, be logical, do not try to justify points which are not true.

Thanks, you did not disclose my replies. & plz try to put a sign after you post on talk. » nafSadh did say 15:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead on Islamic beliefs

There had been some edits on the sentences about Islamic beliefs in lead involving some editors including me sparked from this edit. In my last edit I re-rephrased these in a way to remove non NPOV clauses except for what is expressed as belief. Anyway, this paragraph is not to assert general NPOV but is to state particular beliefs. We can NOT afford to write as Muslims believes or as Catholic Church says or as per Rabbinic sources in every sentences and overwhelm the reader. » nafSadh did say 16:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@65.186.196.115: "on the basis of" do not mean on "on the authority of" SORRY!
  • When you write “Islamic beliefs included... Muhammad, whose teachings were used as a basis of the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an” it simply means: “Muslims believe that Qur'an is written by Muhammad”
  • When you start a sentence with “Some belief includes” you certainly express nothing other than the POV of that belief.
  • When it is encyclopedia, we do also have to write down POVs (by denoting this is that POV)
  • nonMuslim POV is essentially not equal to generic NPOV.
I hope all editors might understand » nafSadh did say 16:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't written in such a manner as to present it as a belief - (and beliefs shouldn't be going in the introduction of the article - they should be going in their respective faith-headings further down the page in any case - that's why the article has headings: if it didn't, the introduction would be the entire article as Muslims, Christians, Jews, Baha'is, and sundry else moved their personal beliefs in to the introduction) - it was written as fact, and in poor English to boot. And, no, the wording doesn't imply that Muslims believe that Mohammed wrote the Koran: that's something for the Islam section of the article. The introduction is written by the theoretical impartial observer, who will not admit to Moses writing the Pentateuch by the verbal command of God in 1440 BC any more than the Koran being a Holy Book of Perfection sitting up in Paradise with Allah that has never been altered or revised and has strong textual witnesses. It doesn't mean that Orthodox Jews or Muslims don't believe the aforementioned, respectively, but that they are not widely-held viewpoints in the scholarly community, or in the communities outside of their specific faith-groups.

If one insists on the revision as you had it, I must also insist that a thorough exposition of the inspiration of the Prophets, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the purity of the current text, and the infallibility of the autographs be included in the introduction's mention of the Christian Bible. Neutral point of view also means contended with and presenting the neutral, or widely-accepted (i.e. cite-able, and not from an Islamic apologetics site) viewpoint: this means that on articles about the Pentateuch, they will not start with "Moses wrote Genesis directly as it was dictated to him by God in 1440 BC..." - that's a sectarian view, not a neutral view. NPOV isn't just about representing all possible viewpoints, of which there are as many as viewers. As far as the Koran goes, there's no non-Muslim on the face of the planet that believes it is the literal word of God and that Mohammed was taught by the Koran instead of the other way around: it is a minority, sectarian view that is only backed up by partisan sources, and would find no support amongst any Western, or non-Islamic, scholars (the syllogism itself - that the Koran is divine - is begging the question/denying the antecedent). This is like an article on Evolution by Natural Selection, or Astronomy, or Geology: the first words can't be, "Evolutionism is a hoax perpetrated by the atheistic scientific establishment, and it is false because the Bible says, "In the beginning God created...and on the sixth day he created Man," no matter how many people believe that to be true: what is followed is the scholarly consensus, which would say, "The scientific consensus is that geology has provided irrefutable evidence that the world is a little over four and a half billion years old..."

I see it has been correctly reverted to the original version before either the Muslim (it's obvious) or I edited it. As the saying goes, I was trying to polish a turd. The original version is far more neutral, and of correct professional and encyclopaedic tone, than either of ours were. I was the one who originally edited the section on "Monotheism" months ago (as 75.190.XXX.XXX) to give representation to the Jewish and Islamic and non-Trinitarian views (if you look at the revision, it gave no point of view other than the Christian one, and then said, "Jews and Muslims disagree with this"), even though I myself am a Trinitarian Christian - Wikipedia isn't a place to try to force my theology on the reader, but a place where the reader can learn about the religions in an objective sense (in this case, the NPOV is best represented by the non-partisan or mainstream scholarly consensus [i.e. not Ahmed Deedat, Zakir Naik, Pat Robinson nor the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the Pope of Rome] or the theoretical weak agnostic), unclouded by sectarian and denominational doctrine and beliefs. And in any case, even in the proper section, under the proper heading, beliefs should not be referred to or implied as fact - indeed, they must clearly be marked otherwise, outside of articles such as "tawhid" or "tahrif" or "trinitarianism" or "substitionary atonement" - or else the page is clouded, obscured, and denigrated with bunches of conflicting "facts", the encyclopaedia loses its encyclopaedic and professional tone and begins to read like a couple of apologetics books from different religions with the pages cut out, shuffled, and re-bound in to a single edition. 65.186.196.115 (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your last few edits (following mine) are better than what you did on the one before. Good work! It is more comprehensive and neutral for all three major religions. And I enjoyed reading the whole LARGE paragraph. Why don't you start maintaining an account?
But, what seems to be a problem to me is, it is overly detailed for intro.
I'm a fundamentalist (meaning I adhere only to Qur'an and Sunnah) Muslim but am also a strong adherent to Wikipedia Policy of NPOV.
What you have added on the comment before is already what I believe as my editorial POV.
When you worked on my previous partial quick fix with summary interpreting on basis of as "on the authority of the Quran" tempted me to over-react on talk! sorry for the offense. But, I managed to throw away the POV part and was looking forward to some addition on Judaic part. » nafSadh did say 18:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OH! I still disagree with you on the wording and argue that, wording CAN imply that Muslims believe that Mohammed wrote the Qur'an
For reducing the length of intro, I suggest removing have moved parenthesized notes to footnotes section » nafSadh did say 18:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lede was too long, and does have too much detail, particularly regarding things like names for God, details of Trinity, etc. As another example, while the Samaritans have historical significance, there are perhaps 700 of them in the world, so they certainly don't belong in the lede of this article, which barely mentions them elsewhere. I've tried to clean it up, and combined what were 7 paragraphs into 4. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks better now - no offense taken at Mr Nafs, none implied. If any offense was seen, I am a forceful, brusque individual devoid of the normal social graces and too highly idealistic: this has nothing to do with anything but my native personality itself. I believed the detail to be necessary (as it's how I would like the article to read if I was myself, having never heard of Wikipedia, stumbling across it and reading it), but, I'm a professional academic, so I may not represent either the mainstream Joe Public or the Wikipedia policy or consensus. What does matter is the introduction seems to be much more neutral now. I will be going over it with a fine-tooth comb shortly to see if there are any additional revisions that are required, but through the collaborative editing, it seems that most bias in favour of or against any specific religion, or even theism itself, has been removed: the introduction looks much more like it was written by the "theoretical impartial observer" or "weak agnostic" that I mentioned above, than written by the partisans of several religions smashing their theologies together. Good work.
I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005 or 2006 and never got an account - I always figured by getting an account I would lose too many of my edits and talk pages, etc., but since I have recently moved and received a new IP address (65.x.x.x instead of 75.190.x.x) I may take you up on that offer and register. I'll take a vote on it. All in favour of my registration? All in favour of my continuing as four blocks of decimal digits? Yea, Nay respectively. 65.186.196.115 (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think you should get a userid, there are many advantages to having one. Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got an account (65.x.x.x/75.190.x.x), as signed below: is there any way to transfer/merge my edits, &c. from my numerical accounts to this named one? JohnChrysostom (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there isn't. Jayjg (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article mixes BCE/BC usage; per WP:ERA only one style per article is recommended

This article presently uses both the AD and Common Era notations. Per WP:ERA, only one of the notations should be used in one given article. I understand that the subject of this article is all three Abrahamic religions, so maybe some will feel that Common Era is appropriate, but I prefer to use AD/BC personally. What are some community thoughts on this issue?. — CIS (talk | stalk) 04:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abrahamic_religions&oldid=443293678"