Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

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

Request for Comment. Antisemitism and the New testament

Editors are requesting outside comment on the article Antisemitism in the New Testament. Student7 (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

move to delete one of the lists of TC's from Ten Commandments

The three lists called TC's in the OT or in popular conception have been listed side-by-side, stably, for a year and a half. There's now an edit war pushing to delete one of them, which has its own article. IMO, the main article should cover all points of view; if some editors want to cover only the traditionalist POV, then the article should be renamed 'traditionalist account of the TCs' or some such. — kwami (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are only two sets of lists that are commonly called the "Ten Commandments". The Ritual Decalogue is commonly called the "Ritual Decalogue", which is why Talk: page consensus has always been that the Ten Commandments article deal primarily with what is known as the "Ten Commandments", while the Ritual Decalogue article deals with what is commonly known as the "Ritual Decalogue". Of course, the Ten Commandments article does make reference to the Ritual Decalogue article, and no-one is suggesting it shouldn't. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed redirect, from Ritual decalogue to Covenant code

Please see my proposal here and comment/vote. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Meditation

I request that anyone please add their support/oppose rationale to the debate regarding the lede to Meditation, in the following thread;

• Talk:Meditation#Suggested change to lede regarding position of The Catholic Church on meditation

I emphasize my request for brief reasoning. This debate has a history (on the talk page); my role has simply been to try and get things on-track, to form a consensus.

I am posting here, and on the other two project group talk pages which are listed on that pages talk.

I would be very grateful for some help, to resolve this issue. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  19:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Now a second discussion, to clarify; quite a simple suggestion, and it could really do with more input, if anyone can contribute to the discussion, thanks,  Chzz  ►  15:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Economics of religion

I started cleaning up the page Economics of religion and added a religion project template on the talk page. If that's a problem, just take it down, but I thought it in the scope of your project. Thanks!... Ocaasi (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Dean (Christianity)

We are discussing whether the title of the article should be left at Dean (Christianity), moved back to Dean (religion), or moved to something else entirely like Dean (ecclesiastical office). Opinions are welcome! bd2412 T 17:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Religion and sex integration and Sex segregation and religion

Religion and sex integration and Sex segregation and religion need serious revision. I've already cut out a lot of redundant cut-and-paste material, and what is left looks like two halves of a set of notes for an early draft for an essay, rather than an encyclopedia article. I suggest that they first need to be merged, and then extensively revised, to create a single coherent article. -- The Anome (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Origin of sex segregation looks like it is need of similar treatment. -- The Anome (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryukyuan Shinto -> Ryukyuan religion

Wanna talk about moving this back (officially)...I think the word "Shinto" is restrictive and misleading. DaAnHo (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC Ryukyuan Shinto request to move

Since there is at least one editor arguing against the move, it would be good to get more input on this proposed move at Talk:Ryukyuan Shinto. • Astynax ^talk 08:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Christ myth theory page name

Comments would be appreciated at an RfC about the best title for the Christ myth theory. See the discussion here. The article is about the theory that Jesus of Nazareth did not, or probably did not, exist as an historical being. Should it be moved from Christ myth theory to, for example, Jesus myth theory? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Naamah

In the Cainitic line related in Genesis 4:17-24, Naamah is the daughter of Cainitic Lamech, and sister of Tubal Cain, mentioned at Gen 4:22. Most Bible commentators are puzzled at her inclusion in these verses as she does not appear in other accounts. The 16th century theological historian, John Gill, (mentioned on your 'Naamah,' page,) suggests that she is the wife of Ham, and in this he seems correct, for by being a descendant of Cain, and therefore carrying the curse stated at Gen.4:11-12, she would carry the hereditry characteristics of Cain's wickedness. Most Bible commentators are of the opinion that Cain's line ended with the global Flood of Noah's day, however a study of the four sons of Ham, reveals a distinct rebellious, and violent streak, namely, (a)'Cush,' Ham's first son, gives birth to Nimrod an opposer of God and builder of the tower of Babel in Gen.11:4. (b)'Mizraim,' the second son, was the founder of the first World Power, Egypt. (c)'Put,' third son of Ham, was the progenitor of the Libyans, Moors,and the Berebers, of the Barbary Coast, (where the name Barbarians originates.) (d)'Canaan,' fourth son, was cursed by Noah, in Gen9:25-27, and whose descendants settled in the Promised Land, prior to Abraham's perusal by God in Gen.12:5,6. This indicates, that, rather than the line of Cain being destroyed at the Flood, the wicked trait was actually carried through the Floodwaters by Ham's wife, Naamah. To support this, one only has to look at Joshua15:41, which names one of the townships assigned by lot to Judah as Naamah, in the distribution of the land of Caanan to the Nation of Israel. This township, was obviously named under Caananite possession, as a commemorative title honouring the mother of the Caananites, Naamah herself. Additional support is given in Job2:11, which defines one of the three comforters as being 'Zophar the Naamathite.' This understanding, now gives reason for Naamah being mentioned in Gen.4:22, not as an afterthought, but rather as a clue to the trait of wickedness being carried through the Flood waters, on the Ark itself, and subsequently to flourish in the post flood world, and so apparent in present world conditions!

I would be interested in your thoughts on this, Trevor Laidler. E mail;- m.laidler@sky.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superartist (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC

I think people here should have been notified about this RfC. The underlying issue: if we know the religion of a book or article on religion, can we infer from that that the person is expressing the "POV" of his or her own religion? My answer is of course sometimes but not always and we cannot assume. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD discussion page

Please see Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. AFD discussion is at, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC on in-text attribution

Fresh eyes would be appreciated on an RfC about whether, in using in-text attribution for sources on the Historicity of Jesus, we should include whether that source is an ordained minister or similar. See Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#RfC_on_in-text_attribution. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruption at article, "Operation Snow White"

Please see repeated edits by R3ap3R.inc (talk · contribs), replacing the word "Church" to refer to Scientology, instead adding the word "cult".

1. [1], and
2. [2]

• It is likely that I am going to report this user to Arbitration Enforcement, however, in the interim I will not revert the user's edit another time. Perhaps other users would like to see if the word "cult" should remain in the article in the intervening time, to refer to Scientology.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism and Religion Articles

There is demand for a criticism section at Catholicism, but several of the editors have stated that it is against Wikipedia policy. Neither does the article Catholic Church include a criticism section. Other articles about religions, religious groups, and religious organisations have criticism pages, why are the well known controversies of the Catholic church absent?

I don't care which way it goes, but we should do one thing or the other. If it is a rule that the Catholic Church can not be criticised, then no religion, religious group, or organisation should be criticised. If the criticism section for one article is kept, then well known and pointful controversies should be added to all religious articles at some point.

Some have stated that "controversies should be worked into the rest of the article". Perhaps. But the Catholicism article says nothing about child molestation, child abuse, gay marriage, war support, etc. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If there are good references for all sides of a controversy, I don't see how it would violate policy. However, it might better be spun off into a sub-article, especially in an article as long as Catholicism. "Controversy"—whether in a section within an article, or in a sub-article—takes a lot of work to present a balanced representation of the published sources, as well as to maintain against edit warriors, and that might be the real (and understandable) reason other editors are wary of adding that type of material. • Astynax ^talk 21:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think a main article should link to its related controversy/criticism article? I'm pretty sure there's already a Catholicism criticism article, but the main article never links to it or makes mention that the Catholic Church has been criticised. I'm concerned that the article's editors have formed a pact to keep criticism out of the article, because, apparently, several attempts have been made to add criticism; all have been removed with little discussion. I've waited a few weeks now for a reply to my post about the issue, and the many users who have edited the page in that time have not bothered to write me back. I think we need to come to a consensus that can be standardized style for Wikipedia. If there isn't already standard policy for this topic. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest we compile religion articles which have criticism sections and those that don't. Judge whether their inclusions or exclusions are fitting and whether they can be integrated into the articles. Wikipedia:ASSERT#Article_naming suggests that calling an article "Criticism of" is biased. This should, then, apply to sections, but it would make things more difficult. I have concerns about criticism articles being used to launch generalized personal attacks such as "it has been suggest that [religion's adherents] are often violent people" or the like. How do articles that describe racist attitudes and opinions deal with this issue? Would we even bother making argumentative counter points to accusations if they are notable, or do we portray such generalizations as false? The latter seems to go against the spirit of Wikipedia, but the former seems like it could spark legal problems or needlessly offend people. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You said that you were "pretty sure" about there being a criticism of Catholicism page. Here it is. I did post on one of the Catholicism-related talk page that I would be for a section of each religion page concerning controversy or criticism against a given religion. However "Criticism of..." titles could be mistaken as articles actually criticising the religions, which is obviously not the case. One thought of mine is that such articles could be moved to "Controversy of [religion's name here]". It's just a thought, though. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The article which comes immediately to mind is Jehovah's Witnesses, which contains a section summarizing various controversies, plus 2 sub-articles which go into extensive detail. There are also articles on Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Scientology controversy, Criticism of Hinduism, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of religion, as well as Criticism of the Catholic Church and Controversies about Opus Dei. There is even this category. • Astynax ^talk 03:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A short look at religion main articles which include have a criticism page: Kabbalah, Islam, Scientology (has two separate criticism sections in the article), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These are just obvious ones. I'm sure many of the minor Christian groups, Buddhist Groups, subgroups, Hindu groups, etc, etc, etc have criticism pages in the main article. Some very major ones that do not include criticism sections are: Hinduism, Christianity, Bahai, Shintoism, Sikhism. You might think these are too general for criticism, but of course Islam has one. Edit: Buddhism does not have a criticism page in the main article. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Absent? Hardly. How about List of sexually active popes? "Criticism of RC church" already mentioned above.And there is about 50 articles and sub-articles on Catholic sex abuse cases. Crusades, Inquisition. My guess is that Catholicism has more negative pages on it than all other religions put together. Lots of enemies. I wouldn't be surprised if some of it is repetitve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Another problem with negative forked articles (less so with positive ones) is when you have forked something to save space, a new "summary" in the main article becomes the editorial choice of some editors who don't like the subject of the article. The fork becomes semi-ignored, size again becomes a problem. Student7 (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Catholicism page certainly doesn't link to or mention any of those criticisms. I don't see why these articles are floating around by themselves, and not linked to their main article. Having an article on the Crusades and Inquisition is not a criticism of the Catholic church in and of itself, its simply a documentation of the facts surrounding major events.

If you are in favor of not including criticism sections in articles, I find that acceptable to an extent. But there should not be bias; fervently not allowing criticism sections on one article, and then adding criticism to another, or vice versa. Has any work been done on this at all? Have we even come to an agreement now that Student7 has joined the discussion? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD discussion page - The Most Hated Family in America

There is an AFD for The Most Hated Family in America, which is a television documentary film that was written and presented by the BBC's Louis Theroux about the family at the core of the Westboro Baptist Church (info from lede of article).

• AFD is located at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible task force

Yeah, I know, like we need another one, right? Anyway, I have noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Islam and Controversy task force has been kind of dead lately, but think that maybe having a specific group of editors who would be actually interested in weighing in on articles related to religious controversies, whether the religion itself is the controversial aspect or some part of it is. So, in effect, if we could get together a group of editors who would be willing to work on the topics which are controversial. There are a lot of articles relating to religion, whether scandals associated with religion, controversial beliefs, sometimes controversial practices, and in some cases just some groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses about which there seems to be a bias toward negative outside comments, with little positive internal comment existing. Some topics, like Satanism, Scientology, some of the other NRMS, and others, are even entirely under existing arbitration rulings. Improving these articles, and finding objective editors willing to work on them, can be difficult, as a lot of us know. I acknowledge my own weakness in a lot of this material, but I would be willing to help gather some of the materials to be used as reference. And, of course, if other subprojects become inactive, or if problems regarding certain topics are (temporarily, at least) resolved, this could be used as a merger subproject which could help ensure that the articles don't get degraded. Anyone interested? John Carter (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this might be useful. In particular, I've seen editors trying to adhere to Wiki policies who have been driven off by people dedicated to constant PoV pushing, WP:IDHT, and other destructive editing. This is frustrating and makes it wearying or impossible to maintain, let alone improve, some articles. My impression is that RFCs currently attract few comments, and thus do little to resolve disputes when it comes to religious-themed articles. A task force would be valuable if it could be called on to send several editors to comment and achieve consensus in articles where the active editors are at an impasse. The ability to follow-up on editors who refuse to get the point might also help discourage these endless arguments.

On the other hand, any task force is going to have to have some response to those who contend—and they will—that the task force itself is dedicated to pushing a particular PoV, rather than Wiki policies. So some pre-packaged answers, and a policy for involved editors who are members of the task force to recuse themselves from voting might help there.

Sources are another problem. Attacking references and insisting on undue weight being given to fringe authors seems to have become a popular way to push PoV the last few years. Not all books on religion are widely available, and I'm not sure that the current RS boards are equiped to handle Religious references. Some references for religious subjects are indeed cited by scholarship, but do not always come up in a cursory search of Google Scholar or other online databases. So that sometimes gives the impression that there are no, or fewer, reliable sources than is the case. A pool of editors with access to references on religious subjects would be very welcome! So, that's a long-winded way of saying that I think it is an idea that has real potential. I'm not sure how much help I could be, but I'd sign on. Hopefully many others would also, since it will live or die by the level of participation. • Astynax ^talk 18:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I work on some religious articles and would feel intimidated by a "task force" which has agreed on some pov. (already mentioned above). Bad enough to have to argue with one person on a pov; impossible to argue with several who have "previously agreed". This might seem like "soliciting" if the task force's attention were called to a particular problem in an article. I suggest that normal channels be used for disagreements. They often work, though it is sometimes painful and takes time. At least it seems unbiased.

Or wording it another way, won't the task force be "summoned" when someone has lost an argument and wants to start it up again. In other words, mighten a task force be used to prolong arguments rather than allay them? Student7 (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any taskforce should "agree" on any PoV, other than to uphold Wiki policies. My only point was that this is a charge that will be raised by PoV-pushers, and that the emphasis on Wiki policies should be made very clear on the task force's pages. I also was suggesting that the charge of lobbying might be addressed if, when the task force is called on, interested editors who are also task force members abstain from voting on the issue at hand (though of course they should be able to comment). Long-time editors who reject consensus and keep arguments going is the situation we have now in many articles (major and minor). For some of those articles that lack much participation, this is a roadblock to improving (or restoring) article quality. • Astynax ^talk 22:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Student7, I think you might be getting some of the ideas involved wrong. The idea would be the group would be not "called in" (necessarily). If ArbCom rules a topic is controversial to the degree that they place restrictions on editing, that might be one time they might be "called in", if the subject is that contentious. And there would be no prior agreement among participants, that I necessarily know of, anyway, other than perhaps that any of those that might involve themselves in a particular subject be able to be neutral to the greatest degree possible. Certainly, no one can agree until all the evidence is seen. This would be more like an attempt to get people together to find out everything they can about a subject, preferably based on reliable sources, and then use that information they discover, as neutrally as possible, to develop the articles. In some of the case above, like maybe clerical sex abuse charges, for instance, there might be a lot of not particularly reliable sensationalist media reporting used as references, when more reliable evidence (statements of parties involved, court evidence where it exists, that sort of thing) might be "pushed" by POV pushers to the side. Or like in Islamic terrorism, where there might be a tendency of some media to paint with a broader brush than the circumstances merit at times. So there wouldn't necessarily be any sort of "agreement" between those involved, other than, maybe, that they will do their best not to go against policies or guidelines and not to over- or under-emphasize one opinion over another. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Religion articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Religion articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD - The Bridge (2006 drama)

• The Bridge (2006 drama)

Relevant AFD, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bridge (2006 drama). -- Cirt (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Article class of Catholic Church

User:Afterwriting has reverted my rerating of Catholic Church to "Start" class for its projects. I have said before there that "B" was probably untenable in the current state of the article, and seeing what has become of the lead section recently this is now clearly the case. Apart from the history and doctrine sections, the other parts of the article are, apart from anything else, much too short to be anything but "start" for a subject this size, and, as people are constantly complaining, many important aspects of the church are simply not mentioned. I'm happy to see what others think, especially those not involved in recent editing, but a start rating seems inevitable at present. Please comment at Talk:Catholic_Church#Article_class. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Mary

There is discussion at Mary (mother of Jesus) about merging the article Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) into the article. To note,t here was an article Blessed Virgin Mary that was already merged into Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). The question is whether or not each denomination should have there own article for religious figures, for Catholics, protestants, Lutherans, Anglicans, Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians and so forth. And if Mary receives this, then surely Jesus, God and Moses, to name a few, will follow. If you would direct your attention there and comment as to whether or not the article should be merged or if each denominational branch should be allowed to receive there own article, it would be much appreciated. 173.24.117.126 (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. There is no need to separate out the Catholic view of Mary. The article Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is a POV content fork that focuses almost exclusively on the veneration of Mary by Catholics and purports to show that Mary and images of Mary are worshipped. This is entirely against Catholic doctrine. The content as a whole is redundant of multiple articles. Nearly all of it can be deleted and then merged to Mary (mother of Jesus) where there is already a heavy emphasis on Catholic views of the subject.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Would some one here Close and Summarize this RFC?

Talk:Judaism and violence#Rfd thoughts It just closed yesterday. Thanx The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem

There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Jerusalem over how the article should word certain issues. Some editors want the word "proclaimed" to be added to the first sentence of the article to describe it as the "proclaimed capital" of Israel as the international community does not recognise it as the capital of Israel, others disagree and think the status quo which has existed for about 3 years should remain (something that has been debated many times over the years but retained), and several compromises have also been suggested. The issue has now also spread to other matters, with some editors wanting it to say "proclaimed flag", "proclaimed mayor" , "proclaimed coat of arms" etc, to also highlight the fact the international community does not recognise the status of Jerusalem. This matter could have implications for other articles if changes are made and a similar pattern followed. So input from other editors would be helpful. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Need help cleaning up and organizing

Discussions at Mary (mother of Jesus) has shown some messy article making. There are apparantly several similar and overlapping articles that exist, such as Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), Catholic views on Mary, Roman Catholic Mariology and so on. We need to round these up and prevent repetitive and redundant articles.

Mary (mother of Jesus) needs to be moved to Mary, and the disambiguation at Mary be moved to [[Mary (disambiguation).

Each religion or denomination should have a subarticle in the form of "<Name of religion or denomination> views on Mary".

Could this be accomplished? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Could you propose a merger? (Request for merge). Editors will need to vote on this. Let us know when the voting has started. I assume the other articles need to be moved to "Mary (mother of Jesus)" as a recognizable generic, non-controversial title. Having said that, I suspect that "Mariology" is a distinct topic, separate from a mere biography. They may cross link or even "fork" from each other, perhaps, but this would be pro forma. Can't really lump a bio with a spiritual topic, per se.

May not be that easy. Perhaps with a bio,separately, then another topic, "Views on Mary (mother of Jesus)." Not quite sure about new/merged topics. Like the basic idea though. Student7 (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible reorganization of some related projects

I am posting this here for the purposes of basically centralized discussion, although I am linking to this discussion on the talk pages of all the projects and groups being discussed.

I would like to suggest that the scope of the following groups and projects be altered as follows:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject King Arthur be expanded a bit to include the topic of Celtic polytheism, most of which is directly related to some degree with the subject of King Arthur and the legends surrounding him.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat be expanded a bit, and maybe renamed, to include Sant Mat.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Taoism be expanded to include the closely related topics of Chinese folk religion and Confucianism.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Zoroastrianism be expanded to include Iranian religions in general
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Mythology task force be expanded to include the native Religion in Japan.
• This is being suggested for the purpose of making it easier for individuals interested in the topics to be better able to keep track of all the related material, and to also make it easier to develop the content. The expansions are all based, for what it might be worth, on the organization of the various religious groups in the Encyclopedia of American Religions by J. Gordon Melton or the second edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion.
• I would also like to suggest, if this is agreeable to all, the possibility of a group whose specific purpose is to deal with religious topics which have been placed under Arbitration Committee sanctions. This would probably function less like a group in some ways than the others, but perhaps be more a place where editors who are dealing with articles which have a history of contentiousness to find editors who have not been involved in the previous disputes and perhaps more quickly and expeditiously resolve the problems, many of which are very likely going to be related to the placement of the ArbCom restrictions. Anyway, any opinions? John Carter (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how well that would work with Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Mythology task force and Shinto (which seems to be what you are proposing). There is a fair amount of Japanese mythology which has nothing to do with Shinto. Also, I don't know that this project can just hand down an edict telling other projects that their scope has been altered. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, I don't think that this would be trying to "hand down an edict", and I wasn't actually referring to Shinto, which already has a separate dedicated work group, but the other religions of Japan. This was being proposed, basically, like I said, to make it a bit easier to organize all the relevant material into a dedicated group, and the topics were chosen by what are counted as being the "main articles" on the subjects as per the Encyclopedia of Religion, to basically make organization and development easier. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Refining (and hopefully simplifying) the way things are organized is good. Chaos does not make for a useful encyclopedia and is intimidating to potential contributors. I would also support a group to deal with contentious articles on religion, provided that its guidelines were clearly stated, i.e., how Wikipedia Policies apply to disputes in articles falling into Religion categories. • Astynax ^talk 18:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have knowledge of the Prem Rawat project, which I helped create. After it was started I realized that it would contain the article for Rawat's brother, who teaches in the same Sant Mat tradition but who has been estranged for 35 years. It also contains the biography of his father. There are a number of Sant Mat articles with no project. Broadening the scope of that project is logical on several levels. I am not as familiar with the other topics, but I think it'd be beneficial to extend projects to cover existing articles in closely related fields.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Seriously question The main Prem Rawat article has been stable except for small tweaks for upward of two years now, and the stated aim of the Project "to create a more hospitable editing environment" seems pretty much redundant. Does it need expanding? Also the idea of connecting Prem Rawat with "the Sant Mat tradition" when sources used in the Wikipedia Sant Mat article point out that the Sants appear more as a diverse collection of spiritual personalities than a specific religious tradition seems simplistic and unfair. The "tradition" appears to not exist. Sources for his brother are rare, but a comparison between Prem Rawat's speeches and Satpal's show very few similarities. His brother speaks from an entirely Indian cultural perspective, while Prem Rawat uses current, international references. Can you explain how this project expansion might help the articles? Rumiton (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Seriously question Prem Rawat had some notability as a teenage guru in the 70s, but since the 80s there are very few reliable sources on him, and most of those focus on his initial fame in the 70s. Satpal Rawat is notable within the Indian political sphere, but not otherwise. If Sant Mat warrants its own project, then more notable proponents, if they exist, should be used, rather than the Rawat brothers. If Sant Mat does not have more notable proponents, then it doesn't warrant its own Wikipedia project. --John Brauns (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• Object The Prem Rawat series of articles would be better suited to be included in a Wiki project entitled New Religious Movements because that is how it is described in the scholarly literature, not strictly as Sant Mat. It is also described in scholarly articles as having similarities to the Radhasoami, Advait Mat, and other Indian traditions, so to pigeon hole this group into one Indian religious tradition would be quite difficult, if not impossible. Prem Rawat, a/k/a Guru Maharaj Ji, now Prem Rawat/Maharaji, has also been described as a cult leader in scholarly literature. Additionally, Prem Rawat is not a notable person in today's world. He was briefly famous in Europe and the United States when he was known as Guru Maharaji in the early to late 1970s when he was a teenager. Now he is virtually unknown to the general public. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Clarification: The proposal above has nothing to do with creating a subproject for Prem Rawat—it already exists. Unless I'm mistaken, all that was being asked is whether related topics might be given a home there. Whether the Prem Rawat subproject should be deleted and its associated articles be merged into NRM or some other project should be discussed on its talk page. I don't see how the proposal affects placing related subjects into the project that we now have—if the existing subproject is renamed or if it is deleted/redirected to NRM (or whatever), then its associated content can move along with it. • Astynax ^talk 17:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The only reason the Rawat articles were placed into Wikiproject was because of the extreme contentiousness of all the articles. I would vote to remove it from Wikiproject altogether. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And I see User:Astynax has used the term "related topics" twice in his clarification. This would be one of the biggest problems...getting agreement on what topics might be considered related. Sources disagree on Prem Rawat's philosophical lineage, and Sant Mat is a blanket term, something like Protestantism. To add to the problem, many of what were once called Sant Mat concepts have become a part of mainstream Hinduism, and others are common to Buddhism, Jainism and other modern Eastern religions, educational systems and artforms. The Guru-shishya tradition is widely accepted in India, in a secular as well as a religious sense. So pointing up this connection isn't really helpful to anyone looking for information on Prem Rawat. Rumiton (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that the apparent dispute betwen the above editors is that soundly based. The proposed restructuring was based on the way that all the religions mentioned are "categorized" in J. Gordon Melton's The Encyclopedia of American Religions, which is considered one of the better standard sources for a the discussion of religions that exist in the Americas. Granted, it doesn't have much to say about groups which aren't particularly notable within the Americas, and that is a problem, but not an insurmountable one. Also, there is no necessary intention of limiting any articles to only one related group/project, if there is evidence that those articles do fall within the scope of multiple groups. WP:MILHIST, probably the most successful project out there, allows for specific articles to fall within the scope of multiple related groups, and I don't see any reason why we wouldn't at least potentially be able to do the same if there is cause for it. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You see, the point...and it is an important point...is that there is no dispute between involved editors. These articles are among the most stable on Wikipedia. Based on all sources, we agree that facile characterisations of the work of Prem Rawat and his brother, whether pro or con, are unjustified. It almost seems now that a Wiki-industry exists, bent on counselling editors and resolving issues, whether they exist or not. To just pick one source (like Melton) and ignore the years-long discussions that have revolved around these issues is, as we say in Wikipedia, unhelpful. Rumiton (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, one thing I see from the above is that there are a lot of statements of less than substantive support, like saying he is no longer notable, which seems contrary to WP:N. Having said that, I do note that in the most recent edition of Melton's book, whose table of contents can be found here, the Sant Mat subheading seems to have been removed. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the book itself, so I can't know exactly what group heading the Prem Rawat based groups are included under. And, for what it might be worth, I have only seen those editors who have commented here indicating there is no dispute, not necessarily all involved editors. But, given the apparent reclassification, I agree that that specific proposed change might not be supported. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding notability. The comments made about Rawat's notability (or lack thereof) are based on the Biography of Living Persons definition for people who are "relatively unknown." See WP:NPF. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

AFD relevant to this project - Jessica Feshbach

• Jessica Feshbach

Ongoing AFD deletion discussion for this article, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Rodriguez (3rd nomination). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Weakness of basic articles

If you look at the Proposed workgroups at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion#Potential work groups, you will first see a list of what the 2nd edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion classifies as its most basic religious articles. Some of them are currently redlinks, and others are redirects to other articles. So, for a lot of material about what one of the most reliable sources out there considers the basic religious content, we have fairly weak content for a lot of the most basic religious content. If anyone would be interested in developing those basic articles, or creating them if they don't exist, the quality of our content would probably benefit dramatically. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So, for a lot of material about what one of the most reliable sources out there considers the basic religious content, we have fairly weak content for a lot of the most basic religious content. John, everyone is allowed a bad-syntax day occasionally, but would you care to rephrase that? Rumiton (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge the repetition, which actually arose because I thought the latter statement would be put better earlier, but there is very clear evidence that a lot of what some of the most reliable sources in the subject of religion is at best poorly represented here. The source cited indicates that those articles are, as it were, the "core" subjects of religion. Granted, a lot of them may have little impact beyond their own immediate area, but even then I think that a reasonable case could be made, and probably is made in those articles, that later religious developments in those regions are influenced by the earlier traditions there. Of those articles,

• Indian religions, Proto-Indo-European religion, and Mesopotamian religion and Relationship between religion and science are at B-class, and actually fairly good,
• Slavic religion is a redirect to the B-class Slavic mythology,
• Mandaeism and Native American religion, and Miracle, the redirect of Religious phenomena, are at C-class,
• African traditional religion, Afro-American religion, Religions of the Ancient Near East, European religions, Religion in Greece, Hellenistic religion, Religion in Korea, Mesoamerican religion, Prehistoric religion, Religion in Ancient Rome, Sacred art, and Sociology of religion are all currently at Start-class,
• Altaic religion is a redirect to a three-sentence stub on Altaic mythologies, Australian Aboriginal religions is a redirect to the Start-class Australian Aboriginal mythology, Inner Asian religion seems to be primarily discusses in three paragaphs at Central Asia#Religions, and Southeast Asian religion is discussed primarily in a few paragraphs of the Southeast Asia article, while Thracian religion gets a paragraph or so in Thrace and Tibetan religion gets a few paragraphs in Tibet,
• Germanic religions is a dab page, and
• Arctic religion, North American Indian religion, South American Indian religion, Uralic religion don't even exist yet.

Particularly taking into account that, like I said, the regional variations on many religions are often influenced by the earlier religions in those areas, we probably need to do a bit of work on each of these. I will try to do so myself, as time permits, but would appreciate any assistance with them anyone sees fit to give.

There is also, I think, a bit of a question about how to differentiate between "religion" and "mythology". I am leaving a note regarding this question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology and hope to get some response shortly. I think maybe, for some of these, the best alternative might be something like "Arctic religion and mythology", but would welcome any other opinions. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that you've gotten much response to this more than a month later. I'm somewhat unclear about your inclusion of Religion in ancient Greece, Hellenistic religion, and Religion in ancient Rome. What is it you're proposing? I'm only thoroughly familiar with the last of the three, glancingly with the first two, but I assure you that the article on Religion in ancient Rome is well-developed, well-sourced, and makes careful distinctions between "mythology" and "religion." You might want to look at it. Roman mythology, however, is weak, and is on the "to do" list of the dynamo editor who developed Religion in ancient Rome and Imperial cult (ancient Rome) (that would be User:Haploidavey), as well as on my own to-do list. Many articles deal with Roman deities who have no known "mythology" (if by "mythology" we mean a system of narratives represented in literature and art) but who appear only in the context of cult, ritual, and prayer; these are often misleadingly identified with the phrase "in Roman mythology" instead of "in ancient Roman religion", and I correct these labels when I find them. For Roman deities who were Hellenized, the phrase is generally "in [[Religion in ancient Rome|ancient Roman religion]] and [[Roman mythology|myth]]" — for gods such as Jupiter, who had native Roman and Italic cults and played a major role in state religion but who absorbed narratives (and some practices) pertaining to Zeus that were primarily literary, poetic, artistic, and "mythological". Other main articles pertaining to ancient Roman religion are Glossary of ancient Roman religion (a massive undertaking bursting with info) and List of Roman deities, the latter of which is under construction with the hope of producing something more meaningful than and in addition to an alphabetical list. If you have suggestions on the Greece and Rome articles and how they address scholarly questions from the perspective of religion (as distinguished from classical studies), you could leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, where a core of dedicated editors is likely to respond. I admire your diligence in approaching coverage of this area as a whole, and best wishes, Cynwolfe (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing

I have noticed that on articles like Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, and Gospel of John, some editors are pushing a POV. They define a set universe of "mainstream scholarship" and used that to define what the "scholarly consensus" is. No evidence is ever given that this is what the "mainstream" is, it is just assumed and requests for evidence are ignored. Not only that, but this fake-mainstream is even often described as the "consensus". This universe just so happens to include and be personified by skeptics and atheists like Bart Ehrman or the ultra-controversial Jesus Seminar. Actually Ehrman and Jesus Seminar members are often the most heavily cited sources. Any scholars who deviate from this view are labeled "fringe" and their views dismissed. Most scholars actually deviate from what is defined by certain editors as "mainstream", but this nice little definition allows the majority to be dismissed as "fringe". Evidence that these people represent the "mainstream" is never given, editors just demand that one accepts it because "that's what everyone knows". With this, direct quoted evidence that they don't represent the mainstream is dismissed and never taken seriously. If they make claims that are well cited, these claims are deleted outright for no reason other than they don't fit in with this artificially defined universe of what is "mainstream". Wikipedia is ruled by what the majority of editors on a given article think about a topic, not what the "correct" or "mainstream" view is. These edits don't represent the "mainstream" view, but a heavily skewed POV. As such, these articles are badly biased on certain points, especially authorship.

I would like some non-involved editors to take a look at these pages and the talk pages to see what they think.RomanHistorian (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Help requested: Articles on Muhammad and Ali in the Bible

Could I have some help please, on the articles Muhammad in the Bible and Ali in the scriptures? English is not the first language of the articles' creator, and he has asked for help on what appear to be good-faith articles. I've tried copyediting a bit, but it's difficult to tell which of the claims the articles make of references pointing to the arrival of Muhammad and Ali in the Bible are mainstream Shi'a theology as he claims, and which are original research per WP:NOR. Muhammad in the Bible in particular contained a line beginning "I have found...", which points to WP:NOR, if I'm reading his English correctly. All help and advice will be gratefully received. Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuals Anonymous

Homosexuals Anonymous is a new article about a 14 step program which I think falls into the category of conversion therapy. The article contains essentially no information on the scientific / medical views of attempts to alter an individual's sexual orientation / identity, and I consider it unbalanced and (at present) unencyclopedic. It has recently been nominated to appear on the main page under the DYK project - nomination here. I am posting here to invite comment on the article or the nomination, or editing contributions. I have posted a similar notice at the Psychology WikiProject and the LGBT Studies WikiProject, and am willing to notify any other projects that might have contributions to make. I don't mean to violate WP:CANVASS and I would welcome any contributions from any editor, irrespective of whether their views on the article or the nomination are in agreement with mine or not. EdChem (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Need help with Pious fiction

I just created a stub article Pious fiction, and it could use a lot of editing. I know WP is not a dictionary, but pious fiction seems to be a fairly significant concept that could be helpful to readers of the encyclopedia. WP does have articles on Trope (linguistics) and Deus ex machina which are articles that also fall halfway between a dictionary and an encyclopedia, so articles on terms like pious fiction are not unprecedented. --Noleander (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've asked that it be speedily deleted, as an article declaring the Holy Bible and the Book of Mormon, as well as any other book with millions of religious adherents such as the Quran, Lotus Sutra or Bhagavad Gita to be "pious fiction" is about as far removed from our NPOV policy as it is possible to get. One thing you'll learn quickly on wikipedia is that not everybody else in the world shares your point of view, especially on religion; that's why we strive to be as strictly neutral as possible. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Help needed at Christianity and violence

Fresh eyes are needed for an RfC at Talk:Christianity and violence#Should article be limited to material related to violence?. Thanks . --Noleander (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD

This AfD might be of interest since the parent article, Discordianism is a part of this project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discordian calendar (2nd nomination).Jaque Hammer (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Annual meeting?

There are a lot of issues relating to religion which cross denominational or faith guidelines, as well as a lot of stories and developments that do. It is sometimes hard to get together editors to determine how much, if any, content regarding these issues should be added to articles, or which articles it should be added to, or whether some separate multi-religious article should be created for the idea as a whole.

Also, there are, honestly, a lot of religious topics and Wikipedia groups which would benefit from the input of additional editors. Also, right now anyway, I see only one FA, Bahai Faith, which is the main article on that religion. That could definitely bear improvement. And, of course, there are a few articles and topics which are the topic of seemingly unending argument and discussion, with much of that discussion being less than productive. Maybe finding some ways to, maybe, temporarily resolve those discussions might be of benefit.

I was wondering if there would be any interest, maybe around the first of the year, to hold some sort of meeting on some page or other around here, where we could discuss new sources on religious topics, any concerns some of us might have regarding some articles or topics we think would benefit from additional input, how to, maybe, get some of the other main articles up to FA, and any other issues that might arise. Then, maybe, if there is interest, we might be able to come up with a few plans to address these concerns.

Anyway, any interest? John Carter (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that this could be useful, especially if a list of discussion topics could be in place (new sources, articles needing attention, new directions, ways to move beyond edit warring, etc.). I'm not certain that the first of the year would be best, as many people are recovering from holidays. Perhaps the end of January would work better. Regardless, a forum for sharing ideas and developments would be welcome. • Astynax ^talk 19:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I was originally thinking, maybe, having it run over two months, the first to gather information on sources, proposals, concerns, etc., and the second to discuss strategy and implementation. Having said that, if a delay would be preferable, I would have no objections. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just so I understand this accurately, are you guys talking about having this discussion on Wikipedia or having like a meet up in person? Ltwin (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

On wikipedia, maybe on one dedicated page for the purpose, which might expand to multiple pages depending on the amount and variety of comments. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a bright idea. This could be used (as I understand it) to extract similar descriptions on a topic in multiple articles and put them into a single article which is then considered a "fork" from all those higher level articles.

The problem is that a number of religions see "antiunicameralism" differently, picking away at wording so it could be a real challenge coming up with common subarticles. Might create more arguments than it solves. And we may be duplicating what ecumenical groups are attempting to solve as we speak - a common language. But why not try? My thought is to confine discussions within a specific religion, such as "Christianity" (or maybe something simpler!  :) and not try to extend general topics to other religions unless it cries out for linkage.

Anyway, basically a good idea. Student7 (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Developing articles which pertain to all religions would certainly be part of it. Another part of it might relate to certain beliefs and projects which haven't gotten much attention lately. Another might be about finding out what new encyclopedias and overviews of various religions might be available and relevant to particular religions. Another might be to maybe get a little more attention, and hopefully neutral attention, to problems and articles relating to religion or religions which haven't gotten much attention lately. And the list goes on. I don't think the group would preclude existence of meetings for Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, NRMs, or other faiths - in fact, I would welcome seeing the main discussion also serve as a springboard/base for such discussions. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I like it, the Wikipedian Academy of Religion meeting, Its an interesting thought The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving "Tutelary deity" back to "Tutelary"?

I suggest a move back, in order to avoid defining saints and djinns as "deities". Comments are welcome at Talk:Tutelary deity. JoergenB (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

www.truthaboutscientology.com usage in BLPs

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.truthaboutscientology.com_usage_in_BLPs. -- Cirt (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Historians of religion and 'historians proper"

There is an ongoing discussion that needs expert input. There are editors claiming that historians of religion, unless employed by a department of history specifically, are not really "historians". The same is true, evidently, regarding ancient historians, who again, are do not have appointments in departments of history. The dispute arose when editors began to claim that Paula Fredriksen is not a proper "historian". I was under the impression that she was one of the most renowned living historians of ancient Christianity, but apparently I'm wrong because she is a "historian of religion" without an appointment in a department of history. Any input would be helpful. See Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#NPOV_tag. Thanks greatly.Griswaldo (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment posted, for better or worse. If third-party references describe an author as "a historian" and/or cite their work, then they can be described as "a historian" here. No amount of wrangling citing only personal opinion to synthesize a more restrictive definition is going trump policy, which demands we rely on sources. I'm sure editors are aware of this, but it doesn't hurt to state, and restate, until the point is taken. • Astynax ^talk 00:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian eschatology

• Christian eschatology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is obviously written with a particular point of view in mind. It is filled with original research. It needs to attention of a few savvy editors with good sources. Due to the current POV and structure, it may be necessary to rewrite entire chunks and make some drastic changes to the current structure. Any assistance and improvement would be appreciated! Vassyana (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)