Talk:Religion and the Internet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For a June 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Church websites

WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Matrixism is a reasonable attempt to start an internet based religion, this is clearly within the parameters of Religion and the internet. Personally, I think Matrixism should not currently be listed at List of Religions, because for example, they are insufficiently notable to have their own article. Being insufficiently notable to have their own article does not however mean they have been censored from ever being mentioned. In the context of this article, giving them a mention is proportionate. 10:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The link to the Geocities has been considered vandalism and linkspam on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion/Precedents/Deleted#Matrixism and Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages) by tons of people. It is not a verifiable or reliable source by any standard, and is just an attempt to increase the traffic to their website (If it wasn't the main user who adds the link would be happy with the inclusion of the name without the link, which he isn't). Wikipedia is not supposed to be used an attempt to increase their population (see Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines). -- Jeff3000 14:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I have read the various discussions you mentioned. Wikipedia is about writing an encyclopedia, not a committee that decides religious truth. Tons of people may be very rude about a philosophy, that does not mean the philosophy should not be mentioned. Much of the scathing remarks could have been made about Digital Philosophy or Scientology. The fact persons who consider themselves followers of Matrixism are not currently prepared to work inside the rules of Wikipedia, does not prove the concept should not be mentioned. This article is about religion and the internet, I am suggesting they are notable enough for a mention. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting they should have a mention on List of Religions until they have their own article. 15:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, writing an encyclopedia. Please check the Wikipedia:Verifiability. I quote from that page "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research." and "Any edit lacking a source may be removed". Notice the term reliable source. Let's now go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Quotations from that page:
  • "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material."
  • "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher."
  • "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
The Geocities site is not a reliable source accepted by Wikipedia (bullet 3), and even it where, it doesn't pass bullets 1 and 2 as it is a primary source. Thus Matrixism does not pass the verifiability requirement for Wikipedia. I'll remove it once again. -- Jeff3000 15:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, you're absolutely right. Doubtless, you will be very pleased to know that I have taken your advice and changed the reference to a secondary source. 16:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have changed the sentence to accord with the new source. -- Jeff3000 16:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Matrixism is included in the following books about religious movements:

"Religion and Popular Culture: A Hyper-Real Testament" Dr. Adam Possamai, Peter Lang Publishing Group 2005 ISBN 90-5201-272-5 / US-ISBN 0-8204-6634-4 pb.

"The Joy of Sects" Sam Jordison Publisher: Robson Books Publication Date: 7 November 2005 ISBN 1861059051

"In Search of New Age Spiritualities" Adam Possamai, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. 2005 ISBN 0754652130

The two books written by A. Possamai are considered scholarly references written by an expert in the field of new religious movements. Their can be no reasonable argument about their use as a primary source. 18:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing. Although Jeff3000 has a much better understanding of this, I surmise the geocities web site is a primary source, the books are secondary and the newspaper linked to below is secondary and tertiary. Addhoc 18:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You assume that the only place that Dr. Possamai got his information is from the website. Being an expert in the field I believe his conclusions as a religious scholar are a primary source. 01:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't realise that "In Search of New Age Spiritualities" was a PhD thesis and in everyday usage that would be a primary source. However according to WP:RS "A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. Secondary sources produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses are carefully vetted for quality control and can be considered authoritative." Addhoc 14:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting fact: Possamai's works are largely searchable by "Google Scholar", and yet in none of his searchable scholarly papers does he even mention Matrixism. [1] [2]. — Philwelch t 22:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at [3]. Addhoc 16:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Religion and the internet" is a wide issue, we shouldn't give undue weight to a single scholar, much less a subject (Matrixism) that may or may not be a serious subject of study for said scholar. — Philwelch t 19:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that some of the editors here are playing fast and loose with the phrase "not notable". Clearly if "matrixism" is referenced in this many publications it is notable as something. Wether you want to call that something a religion or hoax that aspect is debatable but I say it is notable none-the-less. 22:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:HOAX there must be thousands of persons taken in by a hoax. However, if Adam Possamai considers Matrixism an emergent religion and this is reported in the press, then I would suggest Matrixism is notable enough for a very brief mention. Addhoc 09:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Matrixism Revisited[edit]

Previously, Matrixism was mentioned as:

Recently, there have been attempts to establish religions that are purely based on the internet, for example Matrixism, inspired by The Matrix film, has the central doctrine that The One will bring about world peace before 2199. 1.

Suggested revision as follows:

There have also been attempts to establish religions that are purely based on the internet, for example Matrixism, inspired by The Matrix film, which started as a hoax, claims to have over 500 followers. 1.

The reference is a Scotsman newspaper article that reviewed a book The Joy of Sects, which mentioned Matrixism. Could persons who disagree with including this, explain their concerns... Addhoc 13:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Matrixism is not notable enough to be mentioned in the encyclopedia, and this is pretty well established by now. It's not even a notable hoax, and there's no evidence it's grown to anything beyond a hoax anyway. — Philwelch t 17:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
What does pretty well established mean? Do you want me to list all the arguments used and detail them? For example, evidence against inclusion was on a Google search, the primary source is listed first. As it happens that applies to Partenia and probably any other similar "internet based religion". What I said higher up the page was that many of criticisms apply to Scientology, which has been described as having the characteristics of a pseudoreligion. Also, how is Matrixism less of a Religion than Join Me? Why don't normal Wikipedia criteria apply in this case? The reference is from a reasonable newspaper, about a published book, that mentions Matrixism as a Sect. Addhoc 18:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Why isn't the normal Wikipedia criteria being applied to Matrixism?
It is. The existence of Matrixism isn't verified. A passing mention on one page of some book does not constitute verification. There are thousands of people who openly declare their adherence to Scientology as well as Scientology organizations around the world--it's easy to verify that real people are actually Scientologists. Not so for Matrixism. — Philwelch t 03:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for replying. Neither of us have read "The Joy of Sects", however we agree the book references Matrixism. Also the newspaper article references Matrixism, so we have two reasonable enough references. Could you indicate whether you understand there is a Wikipedia policy that requires three references for a single sentence. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, but usually two references for a sentence is ok. I mentioned the Babi faith earlier, they also have (according to Jeff3000) about 500 believers. I don't know how many followers Partenia has, but it could be similar. Have a look at List of religions#Other NRMs, most of these are fairly small. Addhoc 13:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Come on. There's a big difference between the Babi religion and Matrixism. The Babi faith at its height had 20000 followers in Iran, was a large part of Persia's history in the late 1840s early 1850s with the large scale persecution, battles, etc. These historical events have been documented. Also, they were, and in many ways still are, a very controversial group for the majority Shi'a population. Matrixism is a hoax, that through constant pressure and effort, as we've seen on Wikipedia, has gotten itself mentioned in a couple books (which we still can't verify, see Talk:List of religions, where some editors say that the Matrixism in those books is not the Matrixism mentioned by this editor). There is still no proof that anyone except this editor, is a follower of Matrixism. -- Jeff3000 13:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Jeff if by "this editor" you are referring to me you've got it wrong. I am not a follower of Matrixism. 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, I fully agree there is a very big difference between the Babi Religion that has survived for over 150 years and Matrixism and there is no question the Babi Religion is more notable. There is another reference that answers your comment regarding one of the books 2. So we now have two books and two newspapers. I would consider that sufficient. Addhoc 14:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (previously 80.189.???)

The problem with all these sources is that they are all based on the Geocities site. Notice the word claims in that newspaper article. They have done no independent analysis to see if Matrixism has any followers. It's as if I started a website, wrote that I have 200 followers, linkspammed tons of forums, blogs, etc (which Matrixism has done, search the internet, most mentions of Matrixism are in blogs in almost the same manner as this one editor does), and because of that it gets noticed, and gets reported on. The Matrixism has successfully been able to use the internet to build up something that doesn't exist. There is no hard proof. -- Jeff3000 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, in terms of what sort of compromise we could be realistically agree on, what about rephrasing the sentence to be about the academic research into emergent internet based religions? Addhoc 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been religious movements, which are mostly internet based and this has been studied in the sociology of religion by academics such as Adam Possamai. According to Possamai "Matrixism" is an emergent religion based on the Matrix trilogy and has a tenet of belief in the prophecy of "the One". Similarly, the Jedi Knight movement is based on Star Wars of the Force and includes yoga practice. Also, the neo-pagan network of the Church of Old Worlds is connected to Star Trek and the science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein. [4] Addhoc 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As soon as I have more free time, I'm going to the library and checking out this damn book. You'll all see. — Philwelch t 22:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother, Matrixism in 'Religion and Popular Culture: a Hyper-Real Testament' by Dr. Adam Possamai: "At the time of proofreading the manuscript, I received an e-mail from the acting secretary of Matrixism letting me know of this newly emergent religion. It is based on the motion picture trilogy The Matrix and is claimed to have a history that goes back nearly one hundred years. Through an exchange of e-mails, I was told that Matrixism started at the end of July 2004, and since then, over three hundred people have joined this religion. Aside from people getting together, Matrixism takes place on the Internet. Surfing their Web Site at, we can discover a link with the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies and Matrixism’s influence from Huxley’s Doors of Perception. There are also parallels with the Baha’i Faith to validate the religious aspect of the trilogy. This clearly relates to the possible expansion of hyper-real religion in our society." Addhoc 20:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah. So the hoaxers hoaxed Adam Possamai, and as the supremely qualified scientist he is, he didn't even bother trying to verify their claims. Exactly as I'd suspected. — Philwelch t 21:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. Have a look at [5]. Addhoc 10:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Why insult Dr. Possamai? He is the past President of the Australian Association for the Study of Religions, the Vice-President of the Executive Board of RC22 (Research Committee for the Sociology of Religion) from the International Sociological Association, and an editor of the Australian Religion Studies Review. From all accounts he is a eminent scholar in the study of new religions. 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Adam Possamai is an expert in the study of new religions. Also, his quotes at [6] indicate he considers Matrixism a religion. Matrixism is the probably the only internet based religion and therefore in my opinion, should be mentioned in the same way as Partenia, the only cyber-diocese. Addhoc 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad Faith Reverts[edit]

A bad faith revert is defined as "reverting most or all of a legitimate edit to an older version without explanation in the edit summary or anywhere else". All editors are expected to explain reverts and reverts with no edit summary are suspicious. This applies to everyone, except Jimbo of course, including admins for example, mentioning no names. Unless the last revert is justified, then I suggest that in the context of no counterargument being produced, I should reinsert the proposed change. Addhoc 13:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You know exactly why it was reverted. Stopping vandalism and hoax perpetuation do not need to be explained. You have been (rightfully) blocked once for this, so you should know better by now. — Philwelch t 18:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith reverts are considered vandalism and the description of a bad faith revert isn't mine, I was quoting. You are required to explain all your reverts. As I have already said, I would obviously make an exception for Jimbo, but not simply because you have admin rights. I have never engaged in any form of vandalism as I have already said on your talk page, to which you have reluctantly agreed. The situation is that an internationally respected academic considers Matrixism a religion and you don't. You have not explained why Matrixism is a hoax but other religions such as Jediism or Join Me are not. You are required to produce reasons, not just block anyone who disagrees with you about content. Addhoc 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've explained myself multiple times already. I don't like to repeat myself, so until you learn that certain behaviors are acceptable on Wikipedia and certain behaviors aren't, I suggest you err on the side of caution. — Philwelch t 19:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It would appear that Philwelch is personally engaged in some sort of witch hunt and has been using unauthorized tactics in order to pursue it. 04:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I confirm that you are not an exception to rules including the requirement to explain reverts. While I acknowledge that you do not enjoy repeating yourself, regardless you are required to explain each revert. You do not appear to be contesting my statement that I have never engaged in any form of vandalism. I acknowledge that in your opinion Matrixism is not a religion, which you have said more than once. However, an internationally respected academic does consider Matrixism a religion and this has been reported in the media. If the situation is that you disagree with an expert, then ok, you are entitled to your opinion. However, in this case, I would be justified in reinserting the proposed change, provided this was supported by the references. Addhoc 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Note, that verifiability isn't the only reason for inclusion in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. -- Jeff3000 01:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Jeff I am assuming that you are against reinserting the proposed change. If so this curt and cryptic comment about Wikipedia policy isn't much of an explanation as to why the proposed change should not be reinserted. 04:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Jeff, your link gives the following indiscriminate collections of information: lists of frequently asked questions, lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, travel guides, memorials, news reports, genealogical entries, directories, instruction manuals, internet guides, textbooks and plot summaries. Was this intended to be cryptic or did you have another link in mind? Adam Possamai is an expert in the study of new religions. Also, his quotes at [7] indicate he considers Matrixism a religion. Matrixism is the probably the only internet based religion and consequently should be mentioned in the same way as Partenia, the only cyber-diocese. If the situation is that you disagree with an expert about whether Matrixism is a religion, then ok, you are entitled to your opinion. However, in this case, I would be justified in reinserting the proposed change, provided this was supported by the references. Addhoc 10:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The link I provided provides examples of things that definitely should not be in Wikipedia, but more generally indicates that not everything that is verifiable should be in Wikipedia. I would read the essay WP:Notability. As PhillWilch has commented on many times, Adam Possamai does not seem to have done any independent analysis of Matrixism, and has just regurgitated the geocities info. -- Jeff3000 11:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we appear to agree there are several criteria for inclusion, which include notability. The essay WP:Notability is fine, but possibly would be of slightly more interest if this was a discussion over a Matrixism article. In the terms of the essay the fact that Matrixism is the probably the only internet based religion could be worth mentioning. I am prepared to entertain the argument that Sam Jordison author of "Joy of Sects" is a popular author instead of a serious researcher, which appears to be hinted at by [8]. However Adam Possamai is a world renowned expert and User:Philwelch isn't. If Philwelch disagrees with a leading expert in a field of research, then ok. But this is about verifiability not truth, "articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false". The references clearly support mentioning Matrixism. In this context, I would be justified in giving Matrixism a very brief mention, possibly noting that Matrixism is the only internet based religion. Addhoc 12:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

does the source note that Matrixism is the only internet religion? -- Jeff3000 22:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I would have to say one of the first internet based religions or something. Addhoc 10:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Adam Possamai's opinion is not based on scholarly research, but rather on taking an unsolicited email at face value. Possamai's scholarly work does not contain any study of Matrixism in any depth or detail--only passing comments. Maybe you've never been to a university. I have. A scholar mentioning something in passing is different from a scholar publishing a well-thought-through conclusion after conducting research. All we have from Possamai is a passing comment, and citing passing comments from a single scholar in this article is undue weight. Mentioning Matrixism as if it is a bona fide religion will be treated as a hoax and will result in blocks. I guarantee it. — Philwelch t 00:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, verifiability not truth, "articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false". I appreciate that you genuinely consider the material to be false. Again from verifiability not truth, "verifiability in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia". There are two references that you dispute 1 and 2. However, your role is not to start your own investigation into academic research findings or a press article. Also, this is a content dispute and consequently, I don't consider blocks to be appropriate, provided we assume good faith, avoid personal attacks and explain our reverts. You could be interested that I have recently signed up to the Harmonious Editing Club and hence am limiting myself to 1RR. Addhoc 10:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Prod and overall quality issues[edit]

I prodded this article earlier, and if the prod tag is removed without discussion I'm more than willing to take this article to AfD. Why? Simply put, the overall quality of this article is so low that if this article were deleted, the project wouldn't lose any usable content and we might be able to start over again on a better footing. An interesting point was made on the mailing list a few months ago that Wikipedia has proven to be an incredibly powerful engine for generating content—powerful enough that instead of holding onto crappy content and hoping to make something good out of it, perhaps it would be better to delete it, since keeping around poor content encourages more of the same.

What makes this article a poor article?

  • Arbitrariness: This article goes into deep detail about a couple of small, arbitrary issues, with little concern for proportion. Maybe 1/5th of the article, for instance, covers the scholarship of Adam Possamai, who by all appearances is a promising young researcher, but his work seems to be given undue weight. Are there really no other researchers of this topic who are important enough to name? Are their findings so insignificant as to not merit inclusion at all, while Possamai's take up a fifth of the article?
  • Citations: This article is not properly cited, and at best gives inline external links to a couple of random web pages.
  • No summary or organization, just an arbitrary collection of facts.

If this article can be cleaned up I welcome any attempts to do so, or any suggestions as to how I can help. (Personally I think doing so would be a magnificent distraction from the pettier issues we've faced with regards to this article.) — Philwelch t 00:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:PROD says that "Articles that have been previously undeleted or discussed on AfD are clearly contested and are not candidates for {{prod}}." As there is a VFD discussion linked at the top of the page, I have to remove the prod tag. Give me a few minutes and I'll get the AFD nomination done. GRBerry 13:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten this article, cutting a lot of extraneous stuff, in the hope of keeping it here. This is clearly an area that needs an article. DJ Clayworth 04:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Philwelch, you ask how you can help. Try and flesh out the places I've started. I-church should be susceptible to a google search. Is there an Islamic equivalent? Here are some references: [9] [10]. Try googling for "internet evangelism day". DJ Clayworth 04:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


PhilWelch, you have deleted any mention to Adam Possamai, but not Gary Bunt. Could you explain... Addhoc 21:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't provide an in-depth summary of Bunt's work, but rather cites him as a source for one very general claim. The Possamai information was basically a vague summary of things about Possamai's specific research that you have gathered from reading the internet. In other words, the Bunt reference is about Islam, the Possamai references were about Possamai. — Philwelch t 23:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the New Religious Movements paragraph could be trimmed, reducing the emphasis on the ideas of Possamai:
There have been various religious movements that have used the internet for a source of religious inspiration, as well as a forum for religious expression. This has been studied by academics in the field of sociology of religion such as Adam Possamai, who has termed these movements "hyper-real religions". [1] Examples cited by Possamai include the Church of All Worlds, the Church of Satan, and Jedi religion (Jediism, see also Jedi census phenomenon).[2] [3]
Addhoc 12:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not reducing the emphasis at all. — Philwelch t 14:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, its shorter and mentions Possamai less. Could you more specific? Addhoc 14:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
No, proportionally speaking it mentions Possamai just as much. The only reason it mentions him less overall is that it's shorter. — Philwelch t 14:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
That's because this is the first paragraph of New Religious Movements. Your argument would apply to virtually any first paragraph. Addhoc 14:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
That said, it's probably just easier to write another paragraph or two. Addhoc 17:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I have read A.Possamai appears to be one of the most prominent of a very few leading authorities on the subject of internet based new religious movements. In this context Addhoc's mention of him andhis work seems well proportioned. 08:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


In order to avoid this being a very boring article, I think we need to agree that there are things we don't need to say here. One is that "there are a lot of websites that talk about religion on the web". Or maybe we should say that, but then stop. There is no point, having said that, in saying "There are many websites about Hinduism, some talking about Hinduism in general and some about one part of it". I think it's a given these days that any subject worth discussing has hundreds of websites.

The place we should be focussing is unusual web initiatives, such as virtual communities, or very different ways of using the internet. DJ Clayworth 14:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, also the approach of "this a web site and this is another" doesn't help. The Hindu section would be improved if there was discussion of a vitual temple, for example. Addhoc 14:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There are also neo-pagan virtual temples, i'll see if i can find any good links and stuff.Hypnosadist 23:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's one from an OLD religious movement, the catholic church no less does what it says on the tin.Hypnosadist 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's the Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth's online temple THEE SIGIL GARDEN Hypnosadist 23:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Its so popular even Atheists have virtual temples!?! Temple to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. OK its more of a links site but it has "Holy Books" for you to read.Hypnosadist 23:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but to avoid original research we shouldn't use the temples themselves as sources or citations. The point is to summarize academic work that's already been done on this issue. — Philwelch t 03:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Philwelch could you please put up for us a list of books that you feel are good academic sources on this topic, as i see a lot of debate above about that?Thanks!Hypnosadist 14:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Could I suggest Religion and Cyberspace? Addhoc 15:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Addhoc, any more anyone?

Could have a look at [11]. Addhoc 14:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

AFD result - keep[edit]

Robert 14:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Addhoc 14:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


What about religious concerns about the high amount of pornography usage on the internet. Potamus hotamus (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


The article should probably mention the Pastafarianism, the church of the flying spaghetti monster, grew largely with the aid of the internet. Similarly for it's sects such as Reformed Pastafarian Church. (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That would fit in better in the articles Bigotry Intolerance etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

New AfD, or change article focus?[edit]

Most of the incoming links to this article seem to be from articles about The Matrix, a subject apparently contentious among its editors in the past, which may explain its current blandness. But I came across this article from one about The Matrix, so I was expecting to be reading about how the Internet has influenced religious practice and thought, with an emphasis on stuff like virtual church services and possibly even significant discussion relating to posthumanism; rather than a sort of generic essay about the web presence of various religious groups, which could just as easily be about the television or print presence of said groups, and could be deleted based on WP:WHIM, as suggested earlier in an AfD discussion for this article. I guess I'd like to nominate this a second time for deletion as unencyclopedic, but in good faith, I'd rather invite discussion on changing the focus of this article as I suggested above. B7T (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing about the internet's impact on religion?[edit]

I've seen a number of articles that attribute -in part- the decline in religious affiliation to internet usage. (Paid) (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Morris, Linda (2005, May 19). "They're all God Movies". NPR. Retrieved 2006-08-05.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Adam Possamai (2005). "Religion and Popular Culture, A Hyper-Real Testament". Peter Lang. Retrieved 2006-08-05. 
  3. ^ Whibley, Amanda (2005, November 18). " Preaching the Word in a consumer-driven world". University of Western Sydney. Retrieved 2006-08-05.  Check date values in: |date= (help)