Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Disambiguations of divinities[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus. More accurate would probably be WP:TLDR, as it seems that many contributors didn't read it all, and several objecting did so on principle, but they clearly did object. (I read it all. May god (deity? mythology?) have mercy on my soul.) I'm leaving SMcCandlish's reboot proposal unclosed, and maybe it will lead somewhere, but I strongly urge not making it another formal RfC until it has been drastically narrowed in scope, to one specific question, not a vague discussion hoping something will coalesce out of the chaos. --GRuban (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

with subsections:

added by GregKaye 13:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

When a divinity from a religion (particularly applying to poly theistic religions) shares its name with one of more other notable topics, then the disambiguation may work in either of two ways, either to: "... (deity)" or to "... (god)" or "... (goddess)". There may be some divinities that are not presented in relation to gender or which may have representations to which gender may be a less than prominent feature of the persona (such as with some divinities in for instance animal form). In other cases I would like to propose that a general move is made towards "... (god)" or "... (goddess)" disambiguation as a general rule but a concerted move in the opposite direction would provide consistency.

I have not done a full survey but from what I have seen I think that there may be a tendency to present male divinities as gods but not present female divinities as goddesses. If this is so then this would not present NPOV and I suggest that an agreement regarding consistent presentation would resolve such an issue. 08:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC) edited GregKaye 16:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Are there topics that disambiguate to (god) or (goddess)? Because I can't find any. They all disambiguate to (mythology) or (deity) as far as I can tell. Except for Hel, who disambiguates to Hel (being), which is a bit odd. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate. Thanks. Take a look through categories such as Category:Greek gods and Category:Greek goddesses. I agree with the baffling oddness of Hel (being), have submitted an RM and would appreciate your comment. In cases in which any of the disambiguations mentioned may be possible, I find disambiguations to (mythology) to be unjustified violations of NPOV. In many cases the article content constituted parts of sincerely held beliefs that parallel elements in currently held beliefs. Arguably religion is either a modern manifestation of mythology or mythology is religion which has fallen out of common practice.
I also think that a more specific disambiguation (such as found for articles such as Eirene (Greek goddess)) may be warranted. GregKaye 09:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it's problematic to disambiguate one group as deities and another as mythological entities. However, these sorts of discussions never seem to go anywhere. There was one RFC a while ago to apply a more consistent naming pattern for creation myths, and that failed spectacularly. For what it's worth, I would support a more unbiased naming scheme for deities. I'm not sure why we have El (deity), Mars (mythology), Hel (being), and Apis (god). But I'm guessing there's probably a long-standing consensus for (mythology) based on its near-universal use. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate, of the two proposed types of disambiguation, which do you think is better: "... (god)" / "... (goddess)" or "... (deity)"? GregKaye 02:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Um, tough decision. Either is fine. If you prefer deity, then I'd be willing to go with that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I just happened upon this conversation. As someone who works on all aspects of ancient Egyptian religion, I strongly favor eliminating the (mythology) disambiguation for deities. I know of at least one editor from the Classical Greece & Rome project who would, too. The convention seems to have emerged from the misconception that the word "mythology" means "dead religion". It doesn't. Roughly speaking, myths are stories, or fragments of stories. If a god was worshipped in a particular religion but never appeared in any myths, then disambiguating it with (mythology) is simply wrong. I personally favor (god) and (goddess), which show up in Egyptian articles a lot, e.g.: Min (god), Nut (goddess). I don't have any logical grounds for that preference, though, so I wouldn't object to (deity). A. Parrot (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


I really don't see why "(mythology)" would need to be used anywhere, since all of our articles on mythologies already have "mythology" in the title, and items or persons from mythology tend to be what other similarly named things are named after. E.g. we do not need to disambiguate Excalibur because anything else named Excalibur is named after Arthur's sword.
"(Deity)" the simpler disambiguation option for figures who received worship or are regularly described as occupying a similar role in a given belief system's cosmology (Hel, for example, is sometimes described as the goddess of the underworld despite, to my knowledge, receiving no worship). God and goddess would be more exacting, but in some cases (Inari Ōkami comes to mind) this isn't quite an option. We could, perhaps have "deity" be the default, grandfathering in "god" and "goddess" and allowing (but not requiring) it where sources adequately establish gender and an editor feels like bothering with it.
Not immediately on hand (though it does appropriately follow this discussion in my mind), but figures who receive(d) no worship, are not described as deities, but are not presented as historical or legendary humans (e.g. Dryads, Belial, Pretas, but not legendary humans such as Adam, Emperor Jimmu, or King Arthur) could probably all be similarly disambiguated with "(spirit)", if need be. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd be in favour of (deity) - not all divinities are mythologised (e.g. Victoria (mythology)) and not all divinities have clear gender. Furius (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
But Victoria is still referred to as a goddess, and in the classical tradition may be identified with Nike. At least in Greek and Latin, gender is never a problem and may be grammatically inferred when mythology is lacking. Libertas is usually described as a goddess, except by those who are uncomfortable with depicting or referring to a goddess because of their own religious beliefs. And our own article notwithstanding, I think most depictions of Justitia may be identified with Themis rather than Dike, unless explicitly stated otherwise by the sculptor. P Aculeius (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd think (deity) was a better disambig than (mythology) for Nike, Dike etc as well - the fact that they're included in a mythic genealogy now and then doesn't change the fact that they're not really mythologised. For that matter I'd probably prefer (deity) over (mythology) even for a god that has a big role in mythology, like, say, Venus or Demeter, because mythology is only a subset of what an ancient Greek or Roman god is - their cultic role is equally important and often distinct from (though connected to) their mythological role. The (mythology) disambig gives primacy to the latter. I suppose (deity) vs (god/goddess) isn't a big deal unless there is a definite trend followed by other pantheons. Furius (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
As I've already expressed my preference for the more definite "(god)" or "(goddess)" over what I feel is the unnecessarily vague "(deity)" this post is directed solely at the clunky (but not necessarily incorrect) use of the plural "pantheons," which is perfectly understandable in context, but which strikes one as both logically impossible, since the concept of a "pantheon" is that it includes all gods, and therefore should not be multiple (yes, I suppose if referring to buildings, multiple ones might still need to be plural; are there many?); and also the equally clunky English pluralization of a Greek word, which is also technically correct since English speakers are unlikely to know most Greek plural forms, and the word is rarely (if ever, see point one) used in the plural; should it be "pantheoi?" As I said, not important points and only tangentially related to the conversation. But "pantheons" simply grates on my senses of grammar and logic, and arouses my sense of rhetoric. Sic semper trivia! Or should I say, heu, vae! P Aculeius (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Ha! I did think about this and my first thought was to go with "panthea", but, as you say in Greek or Latin that would simply mean "temples to all the gods". I figured, if I'm using the word with a sense it only has in English, why not use it with a plural it only has in English. Furius (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that this is probably a combination of continuing long-standing practice and trying to be consistent between articles. Roman gods and goddesses are disambiguated because astronomical bodies have been deemed primary. I think this is a mistake; the deities should be primary, if anything, since they're hardly obscure, and the planets are named after them. But changing that would concern another Wikiproject, if I'm not mistaken, and require changing hundreds of Wikilinks. So at the very least we'd need broader agreement than just here.
My preference would be not to disambiguate gods or goddesses who are clearly primary for their names, which the majority probably are, and to use "god" or "goddess" in other cases. I realize that there may be a few cases where gender is ambiguous, but I think that English combines the masculine and neuter genders, so that the word "god" applies unless the subject is clearly female. But if we can't get agreement on this, "deity" would do for cases of uncertain gender. I don't like the term "mythology" in this case because it's applied in a way that suggests that some gods are real and others fictional, depending on the editor's point of view.
I suppose that "divinity" and "demigod" might have to be kept in reserve for cases of beings who aren't widely considered gods, but are something other than mortals, demons, or monsters. However, I believe in the Greek and Roman traditions, the words "god" or "goddess" would apply to all divinities except heroes who were worshipped as gods after their deaths, who are the only truly ambiguous cases. P Aculeius (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I could easily live with "(deity)" or in some cases disambiguate it with "([country] deity)", like "(Greek deity)" for those cases which probably exist to some degree where the same name is used in multiple cultures. This might be particularly true with shorter names. As some of us know, there are quite a few cases in various religions where the actual gender may be unstated or disputed, although, admittedly, I'm not sure how many such topics we have covered here yet. Rainbow Serpent is however one which I have seen described as both male and female. "Deity" is gender-neutral, and probably on that basis preferable if we are to use one term consistently. John Carter (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems disambiguation to "(deity)" would be the best option, "(gods)" and "(godesses)" is potentially confusing, especially as some deities do not have a clear gender and in other cases, such as Oduduwa among the Yoruba, the gender may actually be controversial. "(Deity)" also has the advantage of being gender neutral.Lozen8 (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of contributions so far, please feel free to edit your own summary to make sure it is representative of your views. Summary for deity

  • NinjaRobotPirate "willing" (support) for (deity)
  • Furius in favour of (deity) noting that "not all divinities have clear gender"
  • John Carter I could easily live with "(deity)" "Deity" is gender-neutral, and probably on that basis preferable if we are to use one term consistently.
  • Lozen8 added late GregKaye 15:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary for (god) and (goddess)

  • A. Parrot favors (god) and (goddess)
  • Ian.thomson God and goddess would be more exacting, (with some exceptions)
  • P Aculeius the more definite "(god)" or "(goddess)" over what I feel is the unnecessarily vague "(deity)" the word "god" applies unless the subject is clearly female. But if we can't get agreement on this, "deity" would do for cases of uncertain gender.
  • John Carter I suppose in some instances the differentiation between male and female might be as useful, and won't necessarily present a problem except in the cases of alleged entities of dubious gender. It might even have advantages in the possibly rare cases of more than one alleged entities having the same name, but not necessarily the same gender. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


  • Furius I suppose (deity) vs (god/goddess) isn't a big deal unless there is a definite trend followed by other pantheons.

No one supports disambiguation with (mythology) in cases of perceived divinities.

GregKaye 16:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • My main preference is that there is a consistent presentation and I would prefer admin to add my !vote in favour of any disambiguation that receives most votes. Beyond that, while seeing benefits on either side, I generally prefer (god) and (goddess) other gender neutral description where gender is not clear or where there may be inconsistencies when gender is clear and (deity) where gender is not clear or where there may be inconsistencies. (add I prefer deity for reasons of clarity, that a fixed use of a gender neutral term would be in accord with NPOV that there would be a wide range of application which would be less prone to biases due to assumptions that might be adopted due to familiarities with Abrahamic religions as per comments by Quinto Simmaco at 07:38, 13 March 2015 and 02:41, 14 March 2015 below) GregKaye 15:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC) edited 02:41, 14 March 2015
  • I disfavor the use of "(mythology)", which can suggest a negative connotation even if it isn't always meant that way. As for a replacement, I support the use of (god) / (goddess) (or other appropriate forms, e.g. demi-god, etc.) over a generic term like (deity), at least for cases where gender is not in question. "Deity" is probably okay for gender ambiguous cases, but it seems like a strange way to refer to the gender-identified gods and goddesses. I support the used of gendered terms even though that will make labeling less uniform. That said, I actually think labeling by belief system is the best option, e.g. Ansa (Hinduism), where convenient identifiers exist. However, I'm not sure what simple term might be applied to something like the Roman pantheon, so god/goddess is probably acceptable if no belief system associated label appears natural. Dragons flight (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Supplementary question: in cases in which gender is unclear, should (god) or (deity) be used?[edit]

  • Unfortunate as this kind of is, I think the term I have more regularly seen for the Australian Rainbow Serpent is Rainbow Snake. Admittedly, this in involving translation from languages that don't have much of a history in English one way or another anyway, and I am not in any way arguing for a move of any sort here, at least not yet or until I consult a lot more sources. But, also, at least so far as I know, there aren't many other similar cases. I know of a Gale Encyclopedia of Gods, which lists 2500 or so, and I guess I can try to get together a list of all its articles so that we have a better idea of how many might meet the level of notability for at least inclusion there, but lists of that sort take a freaking huge amount of time. John Carter (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Gods? They're all Greek to me, Face-smile.svg. I did the following searches from the perspective just mentioned:

GregKaye 15:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to comment from John Carter below I have also conducted the following searches:

(judaism OR christianity OR islam OR monotheism) AND god got "About 1,180,000 results" in scholar
(judaism OR christianity OR islam OR monotheism) AND goddess got "About 89,100 results" in scholar
(judaism OR christianity OR islam OR monotheism) AND deity got "About 110,000 results" in scholar

got "About 40,500 results" in 21st century books
(Aztec OR Celtic OR OR Hindu OR Incan OR Mayan OR "Native American" OR Norse OR Rigvedic OR Roman OR Sumerian) AND (god OR gods OR goddess OR goddesses)
got "About 1,210,000 results" in scholar
got "About 10,800 results" in 21st century books
(Aztec OR Celtic OR OR Hindu OR Incan OR Mayan OR "Native American" OR Norse OR Rigvedic OR Roman OR Sumerian) AND (deity OR deities)
got "About 114,000 results" in scholar

The last sets of searches included names of ancient pantheons but avoided names like Greek and Egyptian as these words can also have modern day meanings not predominantly associated with ancient cultural roots.

Conclusion god OR gods OR goddess OR goddesses are referenced far more frequently than deity OR deities

GregKaye 20:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Further suplimentary question: do you want consistency towards one form of disambiguation or are you happy with a mixture of (god), (goddess) / (deity) - (* god), (* goddess) / (*deity) for divinities whose gender is clear?[edit]

Ping:NinjaRobotPirate Furius John Carter Lozen8 A. Parrot *Ian.thomson P Aculeius John Carter

One thing that is clear from this RfC. No one likes the disambiguation (mythology) when applied to a divinity of ancient religions.

Above I have added some search information which, while only applying to one pantheon, may supply add to your considerations. I have also added my comment that:

  • "My main preference is that there is a consistent presentation and I would prefer admin to add my !vote in favour of any disambiguation that receives most votes. Beyond that, while seeing benefits on either side, I generally prefer (god) and (goddess) when gender is clear and (deity) or other gender neutral description where gender is not clear or where there may be inconsistencies."

Do you support the view that it would be beneficial to gain a consistent format either way or are you more happy for there to be a variety of presentations?

GregKaye 15:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In general, I think Deity, as per the content of that article, is probably the preferable term, because God, as per that article, tends to be more frequently used for monotheistic/henotheistic entities, and a lot of the articles here don't deal with such entities. For a secondary disambiguation term, I think we could easily use either the gender ("Female deity") or belief system involved ("Greek deity"). This doesn't deal well with subjects such as Satyrs, or demons or angels or similar sub-divine entities, but I think that is probably a separate discussion altogether, unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks John. Can you think of a pantheon for which you think that the term deity is used more than god and goddess? You will have seen the searches that I conducted on the terms Greek god/goddess/deity and I would like to see confirm whether these results are the exception or the rule. Also at some stage, if you have a view, can you comment re the question posed above? GregKaye 19:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't think I can. Unfortunately, the popular usage of the word "God" and the academic usage have become rather differentiated lately, particularly given the increased prominence in the West of active belief in "gods" who are not the all-powerful creator God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The differences in the philosophy of religion prompted the differentiation in language, and that philosophy isn't as widely discussed, and a lot of people still adhere to the prior usage of the term "god" for pretty much any pantheon being. "God" clearly could be used in this case, but I think it might be more consistent with modern academic usage if we used the term "deity" to describe the non all-powerful gods and "god" to describe the all-powerful or creator gods, given the philosophical differences between their respective levels of power. John Carter (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Full Support of Deity, as per John Carter. It's gender neutral, and while informing the reader, has a wonderfully useful inherent NPOV ambiguity. It could be applied consistently across every category, and be acceptable to any religious tradition, current or historical. I think Google searches are immaterial here. While we would of course would want to keep in mind common usage, it shouldn't necessarily be an overriding factor. We have to remember that search terms when it comes to the subject of religion are very informed by religious systemic bias, education, and a whole host of factors. The problem of using an unambiguous term like "god" or "goddess" becomes apparent, especially when you realise people will sometimes search for "god" (such as in "god of") even when using female deities, and the mess it would create across Wikipedia in the naming of articles. The term wouldn't really affect search results much given Google's algorithmic code, which gives priority to Wikipedia articles. Besides, "god" and/or "goddess" would be in the lede most likely, anyway. Best to go with the academic usage of "deity", which has numerous benefits, and is already 'streamlined', as it were. Plus, it's what the majority of reliable sources say, which I would argue should be more of a guiding factor here.
That being said, I would also object to delineating differential naming conventions for deities based on perceived levels of "power". That's just way too variable and subjective. Deity can be applied consistently, and without much blowback. For example, we could just as easily have "Allah (deity)" or "Yahweh (deity)", as "Ganesha (deity)" or "Ba'al (deity)". In fact, in some cases, we already do. There's no value judgement, subjectivity based on perceived omnipotence or importance, or anything of the sort. Individual articles such as "Conceptions of God in Judaism", or something of the sort, would be unaffected. The issue at hand is article naming conventions, and not defining the deity itself. I honestly don't even see a proverbial can of worms here, if every deity article title had the appellation of (deity) across the board. It's defensible per policy, the word "god" or "goddess", as I said, would likely be in the lede anyway.
There's no issues of undue or anything else, since it's just a qualifier of "what" it is, rather than "who" it is. The only problem we might run into, and that would have to be decided on a case by case basis, are some tutelary deities and spirits. The Hindu "Aspara[s]", and the Roman "Lares" could easily be labelled as (deity), but the Norse "Elf" would be more problematic. Obviously, we'd follow common usage with things like Bodhisattvas and the like. Thoughts? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Quinto Simmaco I find your argument to be significantly compelling although I have always considered the words god and goddess to be synonymous with deity in all aspects bar gender. Can you clarify or justify any perceived difference. It would help if you could cite examples of gender specific entities that you think could be more easily defined as deities but less easily defined as either gods or goddesses. Thanks. GregKaye 21:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. In the examples I gave in the latter part of the comment, for example, a modern conception of a god or goddess would be difficult to apply. This would especially be the case where rather than an individual deity, a "godform" was the subject. The crux of it might be summed up in this statement: ancient civilisations often didn't make the distinctions between "lesser" and "greater" deities, or if they did make a distinction, it was according to a different schema. The Lares of Rome, for example, are indeed deities. We might describe them in a varying ways, from "tutelary deities", to "place spirits". Obviously, they are not gods in quite the same way that Zeus would be, but no distinction was made in terms of a 'dignity of deities' in ancient sources. Rather, the distinction was usually on the emphasis and type of cult, but this too varied. It simply wouldn't be utilitarian to come up with a set of rules for making distinctions of function or form in the article titles; we could simply do that in the body of the article, if we felt it important to emphasise. (It might also be useful to say that lares were often considered to be non-gendered, though often depicted in iconography as male). The same goes with Eudaemonoi, and Genii, on all points; the latter of these could be of either sex, or neither. It was more of a generative spirit, but still considered a deity. It's certainly not accurate to use the descriptor (mythology), as there is little to no mythology them, though they were sometimes used as a plot device in some literature. These aren't just historical concepts either... People do still honour all the deities I just mentioned, especially familial genii, albeit a tiny minority.
As far as deities that wouldn't be so easily defined... The example that comes foremost in my mind is the bigendered Hindu deity Ardhanarishvara. The deity is not typically assigned a gendered pronoun. As you can see throughout the article, the name is used instead, even if it's a bit cumbersome. We can't class Ardhanarishvara as "god" or "goddess" without bias. There are numerous other hermaphroditic and androgynous deities. Some of them are still quite current in parts of the world. Historically, though, often a specific gender pronoun was used, though this wasn't usually due to them being considered a "god" or "goddess". Often it was along linguistic lines (where the language preferred the "dominant gender" be affixed), or based on the prevalence of perceived qualities of conforming to ideas of "maleness" or "femaleness". Or simply based on the genitalia they had. But it would be a disservice to assign (god) or (goddess) and perhaps assign gender where there really isn't such an idea.
Honestly, I think if we were to go for something other than "deity", it might reveal we have a bit of a systemic bias, due to nearly all of us being raised in, or at least influenced by, cultures where Abrahamic religions are present. Whether we realise it or not, we're deeply influenced by that, and the apologetics attached to them. This is fine, but the fact that we're trying to delineate these deities into varying categories is, I would argue, a reflection of that. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I support Greg Kaye's preferred solution. I don't see why using (god) and (goddess) would create a "mess" across Wikipedia. Most articles don't need a parenthetical disambiguation because their titles are unambiguous, so the changes we're talking about wouldn't affect those articles. Nor am I convinced that most reliable sources use "deity" most often, or draw a distinction between "god" and "deity". Right at this moment I'm reading Foreign Cults in Rome (2010), and it uses "god" and "goddess" frequently, with "deity" as an occasional synonym. Sources on ancient Egypt do the same thing, as do the many books I've already read on Greek and Roman religion while researching Isis. A. Parrot (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I should I guess specify that I was referring to the academic sources in the field of the philosophy of religion or religion in general as being the location in which the differentiation between "god" and "deity" is most frequently made. It is in that field that the distinction is also most relevant. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I can understand that. However, most of those arguments in the philosophy of religion aren't made from a global perspective, but a western one influenced by conception of the Abrahamic deity/deities of the most prevalent religions. When it is non-western, it usually conforms to the terminology from where most of the work was published. Which, once again, is what it is. It's fine. But if we're striving to be a global project, maybe it's best to go with the less nuanced view? We are discussing the naming of articles in terms of religious figures anyway. When it comes to the philosophy of religion, or related fields, I'd argue for keeping the terminology that's most often used. Like as in "Conceptions of God in...". But if we're just naming Ceres (deity), then I would think philosophy wouldn't come into it. If it does, that could be covered in the article using the appropriate terms. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Deity (less work), or god or goddess or deity (more accurate), either are fine -- but I do think we should be wary about applying the term deity to lesser spirits if the belief system they are a part of does not refer to them as such. One could easily start mislabeling goblins, satyrs, saints, archangels, and other similar figures as deities if we don't declare that bit. That could mean that we might have to reclassify a number of Buddhist articles, but I think I've seen some Buddhists refer to Bodhisatvas and Dhyani Buddhas as deity or deity-like (even if they are "just" enlightened beings and not creator gods). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
In response to Ian, I think maybe in cases like he mentioned of non-deities, we might use either the name of the belief system or the most regularly used national/regional term to describe such entities. So, for instance "Satyr (Greek)," "Goblin (Norse)," "Rainbow Snake (Australian)," "Angel (Christian)," or similar might be most effective. John Carter (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd be on board with that, if the schema worked across the board. Unfortunately, I'm not sure it does. Many deities are syncretic, or have differing cultural forms. Isis, for example, while originally Egyptian, was technically also a Greek and Roman deity as well. The conceptions and cult varied between these cultures, though it was overlapping. More poignantly, some divinties, like the Gallo-Roman deities would present a significant problem. Being syncretised, and not conforming to the Interpretatio romana, we couldn't parse them easily into "Roman" or "Celtic". Rosmerta, Gobannus, Epona, etc. Gobannus has a specifically Celtic form in Irish mythology as well. The same applies to gods elsewhere, even in present religious practise. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Isis would actually count as "Isis (deity)," I think, given her being more closely fitting the description in the deity rather than god pages we currently hve. The proposals I made above were for specifically what might be called mythic/religious entities which are counted as being of the sub-deity level. And, while I acknowledge that Isis was also, eventually, worshiped in Greco-Roman culture, and that other entities are also syncretized, that wouldn't effect her dab phrase being either "deity" or "god". I still think WP:COMMONNAME might provide an indicator that for subtheistic entities the common description of the mythic system in which they are most prominent or which is most closely associated with them might be the most effective means of disambiguation. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Being a religious studies scholar, I have to say, I've never in my life heard the term "subtheism", and I believe I've only heard "subdeity" once in passing, on the internet... With all due respect, while I'm not positive, I'm fairly sure those are concepts that don't exist much outside this discussion. Deities are simply deities. To be perfectly honest, as I had a bit of a hard time following this comment, I think this illustrates exactly why I prefer "deity" should be used in all cases.
I actually just looked up the terms, and their usage seem to be confined almost exclusively to a few pieces of sci-fi and fantasy fiction. If they are used academically, or even in common parlance, please enlighten me. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
My profound apologies for attempting to use a just-made-up shorthand form of terminology to describe a broad class of mythological entities in a term which might not use the word "myth" which so many find objectionable. However, as someone who has also studied religion extensively, I have to say that in that field or outside it comments on minor points which do not address the substance of the comment made are seen as being generally problematic. I thought it would be obvious in context that the words objected to were intended only for the purposes of discussion in this topic, and that in no way was I attempting to use such terms except as a way to find a single term for the variety of mythological entities which do not achieve the status of deity or god. While I acknowledge that I unintentionally gave someone a basis to make a clearly rather completely offtopic comment, I would appreciate it if perhaps some comment on the substance of the previous comment, rather than a digression on what is rather obviously an attempt to find a single word to describe a broad class of mythic entities for the purpose of this discussion alone. John Carter (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries, my friend. I really didn't mean any offense. I'm sorry if it was taken that way. I was honestly a little confused as to whether that was something that was actually being proposed, but mostly I had trouble following the comment because of the terms. I guess my response is this... In religious studies at least, and especially in the field of Classics (while I work in Native American archaeology, my main interest is classical archaeology), we don't attempt to divide and describe deities in that way. Obviously there's a profound attempt to understand the way the practitioners of that religion see them, and a superficial attempt to describe it to the general public when a publication is meant for their consumption. "Gods" and "goddesses" is generally used more in publications for the general public, while "deity" is generally used more in academic journals. The problem is that most cultures have different terms, with wildly varying theological meanings. Other cultures don't distinguish any difference at all. I would actually say a slight majority of polytheistic cultures fall into the latter category. And in the former category, there isn't usually a direct translation of the terms. My feeling is that because of the complexity and subjectivity introduced in using "god" and "goddess", and / or other terms describing powers or importance, it's best just to go with one all-encompassing term the negates most of these problems, and introduces several benefits... And is usually preferred by academics in these respective fields. Many of them use "deity" specifically for this reason. They don't want to open themselves up to challenges to their research on that basis, or claims of subjectivity from their peers (resulting from a systemic cultural bias). Quinto Simmaco (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with that myself. I also acknowledge that at least in Hinduism, or those forms of Hinduism I am most familiar with, the word "deity" is most frequently used in English to describe the subject we cover in Murti. And, if there were to be sufficient cases where the parenthetical terms "god" and "goddess" could be used for disambiguation purposes between different articles, I wouldn't object to seeing them used in that way. The distinction in philosophy/theology between god and deity is, like I said, so far as I can tell a comparatively recent one, and pretty much limited to those fields. But it does seem to be rather important in those fields, particularly I guess when in relation to topics like ethics. One example I remember seeing some years ago was about what, if any, religious-related fundamental "ethics" can exist in a religion which recognizes multiple deities who disagree with each other on such matters. I suppose the same question can be applied to Christianity and Satanism. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about the quote from Subramuniyaswami. That's a bit of a niche use, and the man was profoundly influenced by the usage in the New Age movement during the counterculture. The more appropriate word in that context, and the one typically used today, is "godhead". The rest of the usages of deity in the article conform exactly to what I've been suggesting. I think the field that's really relevant to this discussion is neither philosophy nor even theology (which is particular to each religion), but religious studies; specifically a comparative or universal model.
The last subject you raised is an interesting one, but more in how people view it. Among academics and philosophers, ethics is treated in an ontological way, and the distinction is made between ethics proper, and systems of contextually dependent, socially conceived morality derived from a religious source, which is what most people think of when they think "ethics". It's really an idea derived from the way practitioners of Abrahamic religions conceive of it, and isn't considered in the secular field of Ethics at large. Most ancient peoples, and polytheists, make this same distinction (between custom-derived social convention and ethical guidance), and don't see religion as having anything to do with it. Look at the discussion and definition of ethics in classical philosophy (specifically "the highest good"; Ethics in antiquity was considered a fundamental goal of philosophy. See the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, Epicurean ethics, and Stoic ethics), and for social convention, the mos maiorum of Rome- which focused mostly on filial piety. In the east, a similar idea applies in Confucianism, with its ideas of Ren, Yi, and Li. LaVeyan Satanism, if that's what you're talking about, is based upon a rejection of Christian conceptions of morality, but still guided by the Silver Rule. Satanism in the popular Christian conception doesn't really exist. In short, the whole idea that ethics and morality are derived from God (or other deities) is a red herring, that's only proposed by the theologians of those religions. Moral philosophers don't typically tackle that conception (except to refute it), and polytheistic religions typically treat it ontologically. That's a completely different tangent immaterial to this discussion though, of course. :-P Quinto Simmaco (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

To creep in late to this fascinating discussion, I would like to support the idea that good contextual judgement can be used in the case of different articles. I fully agree with Parrot's logic (and furthermore respect Parrot's expertise) regarding the questionable applicability of the term "mythology". In the interest of precision (admittedly a tricky issue given the subject matter) and recognizability, why not 'allow' "god", "goddess" and "deity", not to mention "legendary creature"? Editors may be interested in the origins of the words in question—discussed at God (word) and Dyeus—which may have a bearing on different connotations of the two choices. To my mind, "deity" is a more flexible, abstract term, with less connotation of gender or even anthropomorphism. Thus, I like the disambiguation of Aion (deity) but/and think Mars (mythology) should move to Mars (god). assalaam alaikum, groupuscule (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
groupuscule I don't have any doubt that, following this discussion, a whole raft of titles with (mythology) disambiguations will be manually moved or taken to RM which, in this context, will probably be broached as technical moves. I went to the page of Mars (mythology) and found that the manual move function was missing. In the case of this article WP:NATURAL disambiguation might even be possible with a title such as Mars, god of war which to me sounds better than Mars, deity of war, Face-smile.svg. GregKaye 21:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
A. Parrot Ian.thomson P Aculeius John Carter groupuscule Apologies for pinging again but I thought it would be worth drawing the attention of editors that favoured the god and goddess disambiguations to the arguments in favour of disambiguating with deity as presented by Quinto Simmaco at 07:38, 13 March 2015 and 02:41, 14 March 2015. The arguments in favour of this disambiguation relate to a wider application of the terminology, clarity in definition (not having to decide whether or not a divinity is gender specific in cases where evidence may not be consistently clear) and getting away from god based terminologies which arguably have a systemic bias towards males in that we may collectively speak of the "x pantheon gods". On the other hand it seems to me that divinities of ancient religions are often presented in very gender defined roles but, arguably, this information can be presented in the content of each relevant article and, arguably, may not need to be pushed in a disambiguated title. GregKaye 16:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
If we can't settle on your proposed solution, let's just use (deity) across the board. John Carter's proposal below strikes me as unnecessarily complicated. I lean toward (god) and (goddess) mainly because they feel more natural to me—as Anglo-Saxon words often do to native English speakers—but there isn't a lot of logic behind that preference. As you say, deities often do have strongly gendered roles, but that's probably not true in all cultures. A. Parrot (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I could agree with that, or for that matter (god), for those cases where the words are clearly relevant. It looks like the big problem is dealing with things like Satyrs, which are not necessarily either gods or deities. And, I suppose, in at least some cases, although I thank god/deity that I don't know of any yet extant here, we may also find problems with content relating to for instance certain trees or plants or such which might receive enough distinctive discussion in some belief systems for a spinout article. I don't know of many such, but I could probably find a few if forced. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggest developing a project page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient religions)[edit]

This would potentially be a short page but would be able to be available for reference at Category:Wikipedia naming conventions. Perhaps any additional content could also be developed here. GregKaye 21:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. I note that we already have a naming convention for Norse mythology at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology), and its basic rules could I guess be broadened out.
My own basic idea would be to follow the standard of article titles, where appropriate, in the more recent English language encyclopedias, and only add parenthetical qualifiers in cases of needed disambiguation. For basic order of preference of qualifiers, I might suggest:
1) where appropriate, (god) be added as qualifier for religious entities which basically meet the "creator god" standard discussed at our existing God page. There are at least a few of these that I know of. Not many, admittedly, and in some cases they tend to be more or less little attention by the adherents of the religions that believe in them, but there at least a few. It might be particularly useful where the name of the god itself is also the word in that language used to describe that term, if that word ever is used in any other contexts.
2) where appropriate, (deity) be added as qualifier for religious entities which are described as "gods" in popular literature and academic literature independent of the recent academic literature in the area of philosophy of religion where the distinction between "god" and "deity" has been most significantly made. I acknowledge that there may not be a real need to insist on this being a separate usage from that of "god" above, but think it makes sense to have articles titles consistent with the content of the articles named by that term.
3) where needed for disambiguation purposes, add a descriptive word to the parenthetical term in 1 or 2 above to indicate the specific religion with which the entity in question is most frequently and commonly associated, probably either the specific name of the religion in question, if it has a broadly recognized one, or whatever descriptive term is added to "mythology" or "religion" to indicate that specific group in modern academic literature. So, for instance, Greek deity, Egyptian deity, Aztec deity, etc.
4) for entities which are neither gods nor deities covered by these proposed conventions which are also not already covered by other naming conventions (thus ruling out objectively extant topics like Julius Caesar, which is covered by other naming conventions), where disambiguation is required, add first whatever term is most commonly used to address item 3 above. This would include articles on angels, demons, satyrs, vampires, werewolves, banshees, and or any other religious/legendary/mythological entities which for disambiguation purposes require some sort of disambiguation. If further disambiguation is required, deal with that on a case-by-case basis, because I honestly don't know it will happen that often, and it would probably be better to try to formulate guidelines on such only after sufficient examples of the problem are clearly found and recognized. John Carter (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the specific proposal "Mars, God of war," above, I wouldn't necessarily mind that in some cases, where the phrase itself is used enough to indicate that the term itself would be a "common name." Unfortunatey, in that particular case, I just ran a Google check and found that there is apparently an old pinball machine by that name. I doubt very seriously that pinball machine will ever get a separate article, and would in no way necessarily mind not seeing a separate article on it, but that is perhaps an indicator that in at least some cases those phrases themselves might have been hijacked by some other broadly "cultural" objects which might at some point merit encyclopedia articles. So it might not necessarily resole the issues totally, even if it might reduce them. I am particularly thinking maybe of statues, paintings, books, poems, and such as that, where I tend to think that such names would be most likely to be used. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I think a recommendation of the use of links such as [[Religion in ancient Rome|Roman religion]] in articles where the topic is religion related. Again I think that it would be non-NPOV to present links such as Roman mythology when mainstream modern beliefs are classified as religions.
If a project page such as this is to go ahead I would suggest a title Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient and present day religions). I think that a pp on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (religion) might see ancient religions overlooked. However a pp with the wider sphere would, IMO, get ancient and present day religions more on a level playing field. I do not like the term "modern religions" on the view that, for the most part, they aren't. GregKaye 08:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
As many articles I've authored were recently moved, this page has only now come to my attention and, stemming from this discussion, this includes the article Hel (being) moved to Hel (deity). This move occurred despite the talk page discussion where those of us with background on the topic have rejected such a move. The primary reason for this reject is that Hel doesn't seem to fit in the "deity" paradigm and could just as easily fall into one of the other categories for powerful female supernatural beings in Norse mythology (jötunn, dís, valkyrie, norn, etc., etc.). As a result, while I'm sure it was well intentioned, this move was inaccurate and went against consensus and needs to be returned to Hel (being). :bloodofox: (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I actually just read the discussion, and it didn't even seem to be the consensus. Most everyone, with the exception of you and one other (if I'm reading it correctly), seems to be against using "being". One person wanted to use "entity", but everyone else seemed to prefer "goddess". I'm not certain, but it seemed you were primarily using translations of the Sagas (primary) as sources, and thinking that Aesir and Vanir was simply equivalent to "gods". That's only in popular parlance, so far as I know. We rely upon secondary sources, primarily academic, to make this distinction. And the terms used by them are "deity" and "goddess", when not contextually referring to usage of various classes of gods and spirits in the Sagas, which they do for clarity. The argument seemed to rest largely on that Hel didn't have a cult; a deity of course isn't just something which is worshiped (OR?). The only other argument against the more suggested (goddess) was synthesis, where Hel is described as "not having a drop of godly blood" (which aside from being synthesis itself, is equating the Aesir and Vanir, once again, "with" god (though not 'deity') ). Across the same categories, the argument also applies to Ereshkigal (sometimes called Irkalla), and especially "Hades". This discussion is meant to unify all such articles, and so far as I can tell, the Hel article is the only one anywhere on Wikipedia that uses the convention "being", contrary to the naming conventions of all similar articles and what sources say. Just an observation. I actually see that elsewhere on Wikipedia, she's referred to as a goddess. In most academic literature on religious studies, Hel is referred to, rightfully in my opinion, as a deity. I'm actually really glad you brought this to our attention. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see the Hel (being) talk page for further discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm so glad I stumbled across this discussion, because it's been irritating me for years that articles on deities are disambiguated with "(mythology)" even if we have absolutely no mythology about them (Telo being the first example that comes to hand). Deities can be found not only in mythology, but also in iconography, in cult practice, in inscriptions, in theology, etc. Imagine we were dealing with a rugby player, say Dai Jones, and we named his article Dai Jones (scrum) instead of Dai Jones (rugby player). This would be wrong, because what Dai Jones is is a rugby player. The scrum is just one area where we might find that rugby player, but we can also find him in the line-out, running with the ball in hand, in the ruck, etc. Disambiguating with "(deity)" would be perfect in most situations because it refers to what deities are, not one domain (among several) where we find them; it's also gender-neutral (and not all deities are gender-determinate) and does not presume anthropomorphism. (On the other hand, there are figures in Welsh mythology who might plausibly be taken to be gods, heroes, or humans—these might plausibly be given the "(mythology)" tag.) I think it would also be helpful to have a WP:Naming conventions page so there's somewhere users can refer to. Q·L·1968 19:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Further question re: titans should (deity) or (titan)/(titaness) be used as disambiguations? At this stage I will leave Atlas (mythology) un moved. Wouldn't want to upset the guy. Some big girls have already had disambiguations changed. also Hyperion (mythology), Iapetus (mythology) GregKaye 07:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In this case, I'd be for Atlas (titan). He's a hugely familiar figure in artwork, but not so high-profile in mythology. Q·L·1968 19:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

a similar question relates to daemons relating to such figures as Corus (mythology). GregKaye 07:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In these cases, I think it's wise to stick to simply whatever the sources say—glosses are inherently inaccurate and we don't have to use them, nor do we need to impose "deity" where there's any ambiguity (of course, the term "deity" is about as complex and confusing as the "mythology", but that's another can of worms...). I prefer "deity" over "god" and "goddess" for disambiguation. I also don't like "mythology" for disambiguation and I think we should generally avoid it where possible. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

de natura deorum[edit]

I am strongly opposed to the name changes being considered here. First, I simply don't think it's necessary or good to have a convention that applies across so many time periods, places, and cultures; far better to let the editors of individual articles or subject areas figure out what the articles ought to be named.

Second, the suggestion that "(deity)" is the best disambiguator grates on my ears. In scholarship on the period I know best, ancient Greece, the gods are called gods. I don't think this requires illustration, but if you look in the Oxford Classical Dictionary at the entries "theos" (that's the Greek word usually translated as "god") you won't see "deity" anywhere. In the entry for "religion, Greek", "god" is the most common term, with "deity" used to with no apparent difference in meaning, probably to avoid repetition. Nor do I know of any systematic distinction in classical scholarship between "god(dess)" and "deity". So if a disambiguator is necessary, it's better to go with god/dess, as it's more common and what more readers would expect. (Not that I really think it's necessary to change from "mythology" anyway.)

I'm especially opposed to reserving "god" for creator gods and "deity" for other powers as suggested above. This is a hierarchy, and it's implicitly Christianizing; under this scheme, Greek popular religion has no gods, only deities; in other words, the Greek gods are not *true* gods, just "supernatural powers" (as the deity page has it). This seems like a much more serious POV problem to me than any pejorative sense of "mythology". --Akhilleus (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

While not necessarily disagreeing that the use is "Christianizing," or maybe more specifically acting on a bias based on the Abrahamic religions, from what I can remember of the article in the most recent Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, maybe the best current reference work on the subject of religion, part of which is reproduced here, the distinction between god and deity does seem to be consistent with the current academic usage. I also acknowledge that WP:RECENTISM might apply, but I suppose the same thing might be said about some of the now outdated "sciences" as well. I wish there were a simple and easy solution available to satisfy everyone, but I honestly doubt we will find one. And, FWIW, although I guess I hadn't thought of this before, I think "(mythology)" might well be perfectly appropriate for articles in some instances somewhat like Judgement of Paris where the subject is in fact a story from some religion whose title needs disambiguation in some way. And, also, I have no doubt both the god and deity articles here need a lot of work, like a lot of other articles on terms related to religion in general do. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Extension to RfC[edit]

subtitle changed from "Extension to RfC on "Disambiguations of divinities" to involve "History and geography" contributors" when i realised that the discussion wasn't originally set as an RfC

This RfC was originally mistakenly started with notification only being made to the "Religion and philosophy" group. It too a discussion that, in acknowledgement of a limited number of editors being contacted, unanimously dropped support for the ".. (mythology)" disambiguation. Prior to the close of the RfC I made moves to ".. (deity)" with the intention of developing the lists (presented below) of articles potentially at issue so that further issues might be incorporated here. Moves were contested at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Request to revert a whole bunch of undiscussed moves and, with the exception of a handful of titles presenting technical difficulties, 500 moves have been reverted. I now hope that an appropriate route forward/stance on this issue can be developed. GregKaye 09:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If interested please join a long and involved discussion on "Disambiguations of divinities"

GregKaye 13:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Britannica based research

Here is the Wikipedia listing as presented at Pantheon (religion) with examples from various pantheons as they were disambiguated/categorised/subtitled (I don't know which terminology may or may not be used) by the Encyclopaedia Britannica with the opening sentence of each article .

  • [[African deities|African pantheons]]
  • [[Armenian mythology|Armenian pantheon]]
  • [[List of Aztec mythological figures|Aztec pantheon]]
Quetzalcóatl Meso-American god - Quetzalcóatl, (from Nahuatl quetzalli, “tail feather of the quetzal bird [Pharomachrus mocinno],” and coatl, “snake”), the Feathered Serpent, one of the major deities of the ancient Mexican pantheon. (The word myth appears once in the fourth of eight paragraphs)
Baal Ancient deity - Baal, god worshiped in many ancient Middle Eastern communities, especially among the Canaanites, who apparently considered him a fertility deity and one of the most important gods in the pantheon. ... (words based myth* are used three times in eight paragraphs).
in large part involves many adopted xxxs
  • [[Celestial bureaucracy|Chinese pantheon]] > Primordial Divinity (Tai Di)
Shangdi Chinese deity - Shangdi, ( Chinese: “Lord-on-High”) Wade-Giles romanization Shang-ti, also called Di , ancient Chinese deity, the greatest ancestor and deity who controlled victory in battle, harvest, the fate of the capital, and the weather. (no reference to myth in four paragraphs)
Ra, Ra, Ra - or
Re Egyptian god - Re, also spelled Ra, or Pra, in ancient Egyptian religion, god of the sun and creator god. (no reference to myth in the three paragraphs).
  • [[Common Germanic deities|Germanic pantheon]]
Wōdanaz > Odin
Thor Germanic deity - Thor, deity common to all the early Germanic peoples, a great warrior represented as a red-bearded, middle-aged man of enormous strength, an implacable foe to the harmful race of giants but benevolent toward mankind. ... (no reference to myth is made in four paragraphs)
  • [[Twelve Olympians|Greek pantheon]]
Zeus Greek god - Zeus, in ancient Greek religion, chief deity of the pantheon, a sky and weather god who was identical with the Roman god Jupiter. (myth is used once in six paragraphs).
  • [[Guanches#System of beliefs|Guanche pantheon]]
Shiva Hindu deity - Shiva, ( Sanskrit: “Auspicious One”) also spelled Śiwa or Śiva , one of the main deities of Hinduism, whom Shaivites worship as the supreme god. (myth is used twice in four paragraphs with one instance being in relation to earlier mythological figures).
  • [[Inca mythology|Incan Pantheon]]
Inti Inca Sun god - Inti, also called Apu-punchau, in Inca religion, the sun god; he was believed to be the ancestor of the Incas. (myth is not mentioned in the two paragraphs).
  • [[List of Japanese deities|Japanese pantheon]]
Amaterasu Shintō deity - Amaterasu, in full Amaterasu Ōmikami, (Japanese: “Great Divinity Illuminating Heaven”), the celestial sun goddess from whom the Japanese imperial family claims descent, and an important Shintō deity. (myth used once at end of three paragraphs).
Amitabha Buddhism - Amitabha, ( Sanskrit: “Infinite Light”) also called Amitayus (“Infinite Life”), Japanese Amida, Chinese Emituo Fo, in Mahayana Buddhism, and particularly in the so-called Pure Land sects, the great saviour buddha. (no mention of myth in the article).
  • [[Mayan deities|Mayan pantheon]] >List of Maya gods and supernatural beings
Itzamná Mayan deity - Itzamná, ( Mayan: “Iguana House”) principal pre-Columbian Mayan deity, ruler of heaven, day, and night. (no mention of myth in two paragraphs).
  • [[Native American deities|Native American pantheons]] > List of Native American deities
  • [[Norse mythology|Norse pantheon]]
Odin Norse deity - Odin, also called Wodan, Woden, or Wotan, one of the principal gods in Norse mythology. (myth mentioned just that one time in two paragraphs.
subset of Hinduism
Indra Indian deity - Indra, in Hindu mythology, the king of the gods. (myth used 5 times in four paragraphs).
  • [[List of Roman deities|Roman pantheon]]
Jupiter Roman god - Jupiter, also called Jove, Latin Iuppiter, Iovis, orDiespiter, the chief ancient Roman and Italian god. (no reference to myth in 5 paragraphs).
  • [[Slavic mythology|Slavic pantheon]]
Svarog Slavic deity - Svarog, also called Zuarasici, Slavic deity, divine smith and instigator of monogamous marriage. (no mention of myth in the single short paragraph.
  • [[Sumerian religion|Sumerian pantheon]]
Anu Mesopotamian god - Anu, (Akkadian), Sumerian An, Mesopotamian sky god and a member of the triad of deities completed by Enlil and Ea (Enki). (myth mentioned three times in two paragraphs)

Further comment

I have long contested that Wikipedia has an obsession with WP:CONCISE so as to over apply a guideline that only says: "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area." In regard to the current topic area I think it would be quite appropriate to add adjectives such as Norse, Roman of Ancient to words like goddess, god, (or deity) titaness, titan, sprite, nymph etc. although perhaps disambiguators such as titan may be sufficiently culture specific on their own. GregKaye 13:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I further think that Wikipedia editing has presented an obsession with mythology and the use of its terminologies. The unfortunate fact for agnostics and sceptics is that there is no way to prove whether a religious account of things is either a mere traditional story or whether it has a divinely inspired content.
The words myth and mythology have unavoidable connotations of falsity and I think that they are best avoided.
A major point mentioned above is that it is proposed that there is WP:SYSTEMICBIAS between present day faiths and previously practised faiths. If a disambiguation was, for some reason, required for articles such as Allah, Brahman, Jehovah and Krishna, my conjecture is that they would be given disambiguations such as ".. (god)", ".. (deity)" or similar would be used. I do not think that article title for figures of present day belief would ever be allowed along the lines of:
Reasons for objections to these titles would certainly include POV. Please also see articles such as Holy Spirit (Christianity). Should this be renamed Holy Spirit (mythology)? Even as a now non-religious person, I would object. The second pillar of Wikipedia is NPOV. In the context of this guideline how can this discrepancy be allowed?
  • Wikipedia articles related to modern religions include El (deity). comment added late
I do not see that there is balance in such contents as Wikipedia and I think it opens doors wide for abuse. As I also said at the Gaia RM, at the extreme people bulldose ancient archaeological sites. This all happens in a context in which certain contents such as Wikipedia endorses the view, in various people's thinking, that their modern beliefs have validity while everything past is presented in terms associated with fallacy.
Respect for culture can be absent and can be replaced by systemic disdain. People may regard this as WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but why not? Various divinities can fairly be categorised within "religion" without prejudice. My argument is that all this does is level the playing field.

Ping contributors to related discussions: NinjaRobotPirate Furius John Carter Lozen8 A. Parrot *Ian.thomson P Aculeius Egsan Bacon Wbm1058 Parsecboy DePiep Amakuru Paul August <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> Bkonrad Akhilleus QuartierLatin1968 Dragons flight Apuldram Nicknack009 bloodofox ·maunus PBS Maunus

GregKaye 12:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

For some reason I did not receive a notification for the ping above, and assume others may not have also. Retrying with: NinjaRobotPirate Furius John Carter Lozen8 A. Parrot Ian.thomson P Aculeius Egsan Bacon Wbm1058 Parsecboy DePiep Amakuru Paul August Some Gadget Geek Bkonrad Akhilleus QuartierLatin1968 Dragons flight Apuldram Nicknack009 Bloodofox Maunus PBS GregKaye. Please could someone tell me if these pings generated notifications? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I did not get a notification from either ping. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Darn, what do we have to do to get that thing to work? Maybe have to notify all users on their talk pages. Additionally, I wonder if we can get some clarification whether this RfC is an appropriate place to work through this issue. If successful, it might yet again lead to a large number of moved pages, which, again (in my opinion) should be passed through WP:RM for the full treatment and scrutiny through that process, and to ensure that each and every page gets a notification of what is about to happen. This may be tedious, but it's a big big change being proposed. To be transparent while I'm making this procedural comment, I am currently opposed to moving Pluto (mythology) to Pluto (deity) and all similar moves. I don't believe it's necessary, and moves us away from usage in reliable sources. But either way we need to ensure the process is transparent and rigorous. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I can say that I pretty much agree with you completely. I do not believe this is the proper venue for this discussion, as is presupposes that this is a religious issue when that is certainly in dispute, and would second a desire that all moves of this nature go through the regular RM process. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Amakuru which reliable sources and within which disciplines? GregKaye 12:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    @GregKaye: an example would be the very first reference used on the Pluto (mythology) page, namely "William Hansen, Classical Mythology: A Guide to the Mythical World of the Greeks and Romans". This uses the term "mythology" in the title of the book. I'm not a world expert in this field, but it is my impression that "mythology" is the most commonly used term to describe the universe and scope of these entities. By that token this idea of "taking offence" on behalf of the ancient peoples, (i.e. that their deities are not regarded with the same respect as Allah, Jehovah, etc, or that readers may infer an unintended assertion of falsehood from the word "myth"), is either WP:OR, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, or both. However, if I'm wrong about that, and reliable sources do not generally use refer to this as mythology, then please let me know. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Amakuru My concern is that Pluto (mythology) has been written by the same editors that have presented the same comparatively high rate of references (perhaps both in text and citation) to "mythology" in other articles, at least, that is in comparison to Britannica. Many books can be cited and it would be easy to mention a number of titles on ancient Greek religion or Roman religion could also be found. I think that it is also relevant that this is not a polarised issue and that sphere such as "culture", "society", "belief" etc. also come into play. In whichever area of interest and study the common reference to a perceived entity such as Zeus would be "Greek god". I am not suggesting that such an article any article should be entitled Jupiter (Roman religion) which would soley focus on the faith aspect of the content and dismiss cultural and other influences and references. However, Jupiter (Roman god) would fit usages of all fields.
Again Britannica presents: Jupiter Roman god - Jupiter, also called Jove, Latin Iuppiter, Iovis, orDiespiter, the chief ancient Roman and Italian god.
Accessible references to gods, goddesses and deities in the Classical Mythology book just mentioned there are a many include: "the god Ares", p101,265; "the god Atlas", p20,236; "the god Dionysos", p42; "the god Eros", p106; "the god Helios", p21,193; "the god Hermes", p4,137; "the god Kronos", p135; "the god Ouranos", p28; "the god Pan", "the god ploutos", p147; "the god Poseidon", p167; "the god Thanatos", p49,95; p175; "the god Vulcan", p186; and "the god Zeus", p18,47,174,199,200,366. The common terms, from everything I have seen, for the male entities is "god" and "deity" An example of the second use is "Aries is a war deity", p113 but I won't go through the whole search. As far as I am aware such terms are in universal use and are common across WP:RS. GregKaye 14:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: sorry for replying late to this, even after your talk page message. Yes, you're right there's no doubt that they are described extensively as god and goddess and deity (although perhaps this term is used much less than either god or goddess). But equally the subject matter is commonly called mythology, and I don't think it's wrong to use that title. Maybe I'm just thinking this is better because it's always been this way, and I'm applying a WP:BROKE mentality to it. Even back in 2006, when we were first discussing where the new dwarf planet articles should reside, the other contenders were always something with a "(mythology)" disambiguator on the end. So ultimately if the community decides it's best to move to "god" or "goddess" or "deity" then I wouldn't argue with it, because it's not inaccurate according to the sources... but then again I don't think we *have* to make that change, and I don't think the current scenario carries the implication that the gods aren't real. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Amakuru I appreciate your reply and I would interpret it as partly being representative of several editor responses. You say that, "the subject matter is commonly called mythology". The subject matter of divinities has, amongst other things, a vast quantity of masonry attached to it. Even in regard to Greek religion there is an impressive set of buildings presented in: Category:Temples in ancient Athens. I also think that articles such as ny times Greek Myths: Not Necessarily Mythical are potentially quite illuminating. Discovery of a mammoth scull might be taken as evidence of Cyclops and evidence of fossils in general might be taken as evidence of petrification. I am sure, just as today, they had justifications for their beliefs. Areas of the subject matter that pertain to areas such as belief and religion are not classified within mythology at least this is not what is done with modern religions. In the case of the Genesis creation narrative a move to ".. myth" was rejected with such arguments as "Since myth has a non-neutral meaning in common English, it must not be used where it will cause offense to many readers."
There is POV both within the presentation of the subject matter and in the comparative presentation of matters relating to past and present religions. The entirety of the subject matter cannot be labelled as mythology without prejudice. GregKaye 07:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
"Disambiguation (sentence). (sentence) For example, the word "Mercury" can refer to a chemical element, a planet, a Roman god, and many other things.
There are three important aspects to disambiguation:
In description Mercury is here described as a "Roman god". In the article he is disambiguated with ".. (mythology)"
The unique title requirement would be very well met by the disambiguation "... (Roman god)" Mercury is and element and a planet but, to make a small point, he is not a mythology.
GregKaye 14:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I've already said in three other venues (one two three), this is not the religious issue you are perceiving it to be. I am not alone in this; I would say it is the prevailing opinion in all three of those other discussions. While you might dispute that, certainly the opposite position of this being a religious issue does not hold consensus in any of them, and it is not close. I really do not think a fourth discussion is necessary, especially when so much of your comment in this new section is simply a repeat of comments that you have already presented at the Gaia RM which have already received responses there. (The Allah and Jehovah issue was responded to by Akhilleus here, and the systemic bais and comments about bulldozing artifacts by myself here and Paul August here.)
Your position only works if you start already holding the premise that mythology is a religious issue and only a religious issue, but this is not so. Many people, including myself and quite a few other editors that have responded to you at those previous discussions, consider it to be a cultural issue or literary issue or a historic issue. By trying to treat it solely as a religious issue, you are introducing your own point of view.
Just as an example, look at Hebe (mythology). It discusses many things about Hebe - her role and relation to other figures in Greek mythology, how she is depicted in ancient art, her appearance in ancient Greek literature (Euripides), the etymology of her name, her appearances in 18th and 19th century European art. It only devotes two sentences to how one part of ancient Greece worshipped Hebe. It really does not make sense to say that such a subject should be treated, not just primarily as a religious subject, but solely as one.
As for comments about abuse and artifact destroying, proposing changes in order to effect social change is attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and trying to connect not going along with your proposal to destroying ancient artifacts (presumably like this sort of thing) is the most audacious kind of slippery slope thinking.
The kind of people who come to an encyclopedia do so because they want to learn. If they have misconceptions, like about what words like "myth" and "mythology" mean, we should endeavor to make sure the articles are such that they will learn that such is not correct. We should not respond by surrendering to a misunderstanding of those words any more than we should do with the word "theory" when discussing scientific concepts because of "Evolution is only a theory!" types. We should not give in to the lowest common denominator. Those artifact destroyers you're so worried about? They aren't interested in learning at all. They aren't going to respect those other cultures no matter what we or anyone else have to say about them. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Egsan Bacon "Quetzalcóatl Meso-American god", "Baal Ancient deity", "Shangdi Chinese deity", "Re Egyptian god", "Thor Germanic deity", "Zeus Greek god", "Shiva Hindu deity", "Inti Inca Sun god", "Amaterasu Shintō deity", "Amitabha Buddhism", "Itzamná Mayan deity", "Odin Norse deity", "Indra Indian deity", "Jupiter Roman god", "Svarog Slavic deity", "Anu Mesopotamian god" - are all principle characters in ancient/historic/present day religions. They were all the first characters that I found when researching the names of the divinities of the various pantheons listed in pantheon (religion) when looking in Britannica. In every case they are there described as gods or divinities (the one goddess is described a deity). GregKaye 15:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I do not feel that the proper response to multiple people telling you in multiple venues that there is more in play here than religion and explaining, in detail, why that is, is to continue to just repeat that this is simply a religious issue and nothing more. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Egsan Bacon Are you now saying that my argument is "that this is simply a religious issue and nothing more"? Of course it's not. The ancient societies in which these beliefs were held were rich in culture and literature and all issues, (inclusive of culture, religion and literature) would have had profound effects on one another. However, my conjecture is that most if not all of the topics started primarily as a topic of religion and I would argue that this forms their primary reference.
We are dealing with issues of both culture and belief. In all topics of research and study (inclusive of religion and mythology) in whichever discipline the study is conducted (whether through archaeology, textual analysis or any other means) the common description for a character such as Zeus "Greek god". This terminology is common to all.
(You continue to misrepresent. You previously started a thread entitled Request to revert a whole bunch of undiscussed moves noting a list of moves ... with this link. Every edit summary (except in a rare case of error) contained the edit summary "as per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Disambiguations of divinities" and, thankfully, the immediate response of another editor was to point out: There is a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion § Disambiguations of divinities, which was used as justification for the moves in the edit summaries. This is not a fourth discussion but the first and it is yet to be concluded. It is also the only discussion with a focus on its stated topic.)
In this context I would like to ask whether you have an agenda in pursuing this issue? Why is labelling a character such as Zeus with "(mythology)" important to you?
I have presented results to indicate that references such as "goddess" and "god" are by far the most commonly used terms of reference for the related subjects. I have demonstrated usage in our widely esteemed parallel encyclopaedia Britannica. I have presented arguments related to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS AND WP:NPOV. As far as I have seen you have presented nothing but protest. Why?
Despite a request on your talk page you continue to canvass for support through selective pings you continue in this practice. GregKaye 18:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose any sweeping change. I essentially agree with Egsan Bacon's comments above, with the caveat that my area of interest and expertise (such as it is) is primarily in the area of ancient Greek religion and Greek mythology. Whatever consensus is formed here, please do not repeat the systematic renaming of articles as was just done, such renames need to be done on a case by case basis (and by someone who understands the nuances involved). In the case of Greek mythology for example, for the Olympians, "god" or "goddess" would be an appropriate disambiguator ("deity" sounds wrong to my ear). But for many other mythological figures, though even though related to the Olympians, and so might be considered "divine" in some sense (and whose Wikipedia article might be, wrongly or rightly, in Category:Greek gods), but who have say little or no religious aspects, no cults, temples, sanctuaries, rites, or religious practices, "mythology" would probably be the better disambiguator, over say "god" or "goddess". These might include, many minor "gods" and "goddesses", the personifications (e.g. Gaia), the Titans, the Gigantes, the monsters (e.g.Typhon), the heros (e.g.Heracles), and many many others . Paul August 18:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm sympathetic to GregKaye's dislike of the (mythology) disambiguator, but I think Egsan Bacon is right—Greg isn't listening. Think of religion and mythology as two circles in a Venn diagram. Mythology is an important component of most religions, but it also has a major presence in literature, art, and (in modern times) other media. I do not think of it as pejorative to use "mythology" in that sense. And many deities (and broadly similar beings) that show up in mythology had virtually no presence in religious ritual. The point I want to get across to people other than Greg is that not all deities (or other beings) that were worshipped in ancient religions have a presence in myth, and even for those that do, the (mythology) disambiguator does not cover all of what they are. And using the word that way implies that all elements of a dead religion can be described as mythology. That is pejorative.
I initially supported Greg's proposals partly because I didn't think about the non-religious components of mythology, but also because proposed moves for Set (mythology) have been stymied by the supposed precedent that all deities should be disambiguated with (mythology). Based on some of her past remarks, I believe User:Cynwolfe, who specializes in Roman religion, has had the same problem. I want to break that precedent. (Mythology) may well be an appropriate disambiguator for beings like Hel or the Greek titans who may not qualify as gods (however the scholars who study the relevant culture define the term). But for deities like Jupiter or Set who were widely worshipped, it doesn't make sense. A. Parrot (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
A. Parrot, I appreciate your input. What you're proposing is something I don't mind. My objection all along has been with a sweeping pan-cultural change based on the idea that "mythology" should be treated as inherently pejorative and other reasoning I consider flawed, treats issues outside religion as unimportant, and was conducted outside of the normal process for discussing page names. And the not listening. I object to that too. However, if someone, such as yourself or the mentioned Cynwolfe, wanted to start move discussions about specific deities based on what you're saying about Jupiter and Set, discussions based on the deity's relevant culture that focuses on their treatment by that culture, I think those kind of discussions would be worthwhile discussions to have. (Speaking of Set, his talk page seems to have gotten sort of lost. His article's at Set (deity), but his talk page is at Talk:Set (mythology) and clicking on "Talk" at Set (deity) doesn't get you there.) Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose any sweeping change. This involves theology and anthropology, history and art and literature, and it varies across cultures and history. We shouldn't even try to herd all those cats down the same path. (In passing, @Paul August: I'm surprised worship - cult, temple, tites etc - is required to be a god. Didn't the Romans, to take another nearby example, "know" that each city, river, cross-roads or home had a god regardless of whether any worshipped the god, knew any stories about it or even knew its name?) NebY (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
No, i didn't mean to imply that no cult, ritual etc. means not a god. Paul August 19:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Paul August NebY Please note that following valid responses on the talk page for WP:RM I am certainly not proposing a sweeping change to a single format. I am mainly questioning the regular use of ".. (mythology)" disambiguation whose use I have contested has presented not only an academic but also gender bias. After further consideration my personal view was that this disambiguation might at best be minimally applied.
There are 81 articles in Category:Goddesses by culture and 54 articles in Category:Gods by culture that have been given the disambiguation ".. (mythology)"
(In my [opening post I expressed the concern that while, "I ha(d) not done a full survey but from what I have seen I think that there may be a tendency to present male divinities as gods but not present female divinities as goddesses." Now the survey has been done (and can be confirmed by hitting edit in either of the "the moves" sections below and page searching "mythology") I do not believe that WP:SYSTEMICBIAS necessarily affects this issue in only one way.
My comment at #"Female divinities", the moves was that, "My personal interest in compiling this list was partly to see the difference between the treatment of "gods" and "goddesses" in terms of the ratio between (mythology) and (god) / (goddess) etc. disambiguations." Yhe results are hardly proportionate.
The bigger issue is the actual use of (mythology) as a default disambiguator. Thank you A. Parrot for raising the very relevant issue of venn diagrams and I am quite agree that written narrative / myth is a big part of all religions. Religions also have other aspects such as Worship and Religious offering/Sacrifice and these also take up sections of Venn territory.
Wikipedia has a category Category:Religious texts. These texts relate to various potentially overlapping subject areas such as: narratives relating to a deity; methods of worship relating to a deity; and the offerings and sacrifices related to a particular deity. Its not all myth and an unbiased venn diagram analysis of the deity related texts will show that the contents, inclusive of their largely religious stories, predominantly pertain to religion, thus the title of the categorisation. Perhaps you might take a look at these searches on: "worship of the Egyptian gods", "worship of the Greek gods", "worship of the Hindu gods", "worship of the Roman gods". Also see the Wikipedia article on Worship. The topic is ultimately placed in categories Religion, and. It isn't placed in Category:Mythology because that would be inappropriate.
A great majority if not all of the stories pertain to religion or were of a type where they could have been used in a religious context. The worship was religious. Issues such as Worship are primarily defined as being of religion. That is my interpretation of some of the issues relating to the venn system but whatever interpretation is taken, religion (rightly or wrongly) has its own claim to territory.
However, as things are, information relating to, say, the "Worship of Zeus" may be less likely to be fairly added to an article such as "Zeus (mythology)" because the article has been, I think, unfairly categorised ".. (mythology)" despite the fact that "Greek god" is the common term of reference as used elsewhere.
I have listened to the arguments of "myth" as being a term that should be simply used to describe narrative but disagree with any views that the word does not have other connotations. Egsan Bacon just because someone does not agree does not mean that they have not listened.
My suggestion was: "I think it would be quite appropriate to add adjectives such as Norse, Roman of Ancient to words like goddess, god, (or deity) titaness, titan, sprite, nymph etc. although perhaps disambiguators such as titan may be sufficiently culture specific on their own." My proposal here is to move away from the disambiguator ".. (mythology)" but, perhaps following the example of Britannica, a range of other references would also do.
Atlas Greek mythology - Atlas, in Greek mythology, son of the Titan Iapetus and the Oceanid Clymene (or Asia) and brother of Prometheus (creator of humankind). In Homer’s Odyssey, Book I, Atlas seems to have been a marine creature who supported the pillars that held heaven and earth apart.
A possible rare exception to this is:
Cronus Greek god - Cronus, also spelled Cronos or Kronos, in ancient Greek religion, male deity who was worshipped by the pre-Hellenic population of Greece but probably was not widely worshipped by the Greeks themselves; he was later identified with the Roman god Saturn. ... became the king of the Titans... but fair enough, if the titans were not significantly figures of religion then a ".. (mythology)" or ".. (Greek mythology)" disambiguation can fit. All the same I also think that titles such as Dione (Titaness), Pallas (Titan) and Perses (Titan) fulfil the requirements of WP:disambiguation with WP:precision.
Seth Egyptian god - Seth, also called Setekh, Setesh, or Set, ancient Egyptian god, patron of the 11th nome, or province, of Upper Egypt.
Hel Norse deity - Hel, in Norse mythology, originally the name of the world of the dead; it later came to mean the goddess of death. Our content is similar.
Mars Roman god - Mars, ancient Roman deity, in importance second only to Jupiter.
Hades Greek mythology - Hades, Greek Aïdes (“the Unseen”), also called Pluto or Pluton (“the Wealthy One” or “the Giver of Wealth”), in Greek religion, son of the Titans Cronus and Rhea, and brother of the deities Zeus, Poseidon, Demeter, Hera, and Hestia. All the same, please note that the opening sentence reads ".., in Greek religion,.. while the opening text of the wikipedia article Pluto (mythology) emphasises the point so as to read: "in classical mythology". Even in this case I think that bias is still evident. The example of Pluto was seemingly chosen at random.
GregKaye 11:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural note: I have closed the RM at Talk:Gaia (mythology) with no action, because the results of this RfC are still pending. The RfC closer may want to account for comments made there. Sunrise (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
TY Sunrise and, as far as I am concerned, I would be happy for this thread to be closed at any time and I am sure that a closer may also take into account the other related threads mentioned. I am happy with the view expressed about sweeping changes although, following the above content, it took me by surprise and am happy to propose moves pantheon by pantheon and, if those RMs are successful, may make further requests to cover disambiguations of more than one of the less populated pantheons. GregKaye 08:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Opposed to one-size-fits-all, and to verbose disambiguations (plus a few other points). Religion, myth, and mythology are not synonyms. Not all mythological figures are deities. Not all things Westerners classify as deities are of the same character, even. Such concepts vary widely by culture. On the conciseness question, it's uncalled-for to label WP's preference for brevity in article title disambiguations "obsessive". It's simply practical. Article titles generally, and especially parenthetical disambiguators tacked on to them, are not meant to be informative (that's what the article content is for) but simply precise enough to distinguish, e.g., Mars the deity from Mars the planet. A disambiguation like "Mars (Roman god)" implies that there are other articles on gods named Mars from other cultures. That's a nasty disservice to our readers, and this problem is one of several reasons we keep disambiguations as concise as practical. Besides, some sprawling but poorly attended discussion on a WikiProject talk page backwater cannot change our site-wide disambiguation guidelines and naming policies (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). If there's a problem with naming policy, take it up at WT:AT. Another problem with titles of the form "DeityName (CultureName god)" is that many religious and mythological figures cross cultural boundaries.

    Another concern is that a title like "Hel (being)" is a serious WP:NPOV problem, since it asserts that Hel is an actual being, not a religious or mythological figure. We can't have names like that. It's the equal-but-opposite inverse of a name like "Jesus (mythological figure)", which we all know would not be tolerated.

    Oh, another is that titles like "Dione (titaness)" raise the same problem as the sportsperson article title mentioned way earlier, "Dai Jones (scrum)": It uses a term that will be meaningless to people not already deeply familiar with the topic's context, such that some are likely to think it can't be an article on the topic they're looking for. I even spent four years in England, yet only learned the word "scrum" about 6 months ago, and had already forgotten that it had anything to do with rugby in particular (the only reason I even retained it at all was because I learned it's related to scrimmage, in turn derived from skirmish, and etymological trivia like that tends to stick in my mind for some reason). I don't think I've ever seen "titaness" more than twice in my life, despite being well-read in mythology. For WP's intents and purposes, the word might as well not exist. Only someone already familiar with Greek mythology and the titans, and also a fluent English speaker who fully understands how the suffix -ess is used in English and distinct from -ness, would intuit that it meant a female titan and that this in turn tied it to mythology. "Deone (mythology)" is a much more useful article title.

    Next, I really don't think we're in a position, when we're writing about ancient mythological figures, to bend over backward to excessively respect the stated religious beliefs of people who have picked up some ancient religion or mythology, and modified it in an attempt to "revive" it. If modern neo-pagans have started a new cult of Zeus, I don't think WP necessarily has to care about this. If it becomes notable, I submit that as a factual matter this modern Zeus worship would have to be treated in a separate article, since it is not the same topic as the ancient Zeus, however he might have inspired it, any more than modern "druids" have jack to do with the ancients who were called that. Note carefully that Druid and Neo-Druidism are separate articles here, and the former barely mentions the latter. It's also noteworthy in this context that many figures the neo-pagan groups of various sorts call gods and goddesses were, from a historical perspective, known only as mythological or legendary figures. Untidy facts like this make coming up with some one-size-fits-all solution like "never use 'mythology' but always call it a deity, god or goddess if there are any alleged modern worshippers at all" impractical. We have been and should continue to address these articles on a case by case basis.

    Finally, we have a problem that even in ostensibly reliable sources, sometimes things are "conveniently" labelled deities when there is no actual evidence for that supposition; a name carved in a tablet found near a Romano-British well isn't necessarily that of a supernatural figure, and even when it is one we can't be sure it was a god, per se. We should be careful to avoid perpetuating dubious points of view on matters like that.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish Can I please ask that you might have another look at issues on verbose disambiguations? For a start I consider a four syllable word like ".. (myth-o-lo-gy)" may be considered comparatively verbose in comparison to for instance ".. (Az-tec god)", ".. (Cel-tic god)", ".. (Chi-nese god)", ".. (Hin-du god)", ".. (Greek god)", ".. (Norse god)", ".. (Ro-man god), ".. (Shin-to god)" and ".. (Sla-vic god)". All of these are just two or three syllables long. Afew longer title formats that might be used could include ".. (E-gyp-tian god)" equalling mythology at four syllables and ".. (Meso-pot-a-mian god)" and ".. (Meso-Ame-ri-can god)" stretching into five syllables. I also do not think that this is in any way excessive considering that Wikipedia also permits comparatively verbose clarifications such as Leeds North West (U-K Par-lia-ment con-stit-u-en-cy) and M-185 (Mi-chi-gan high-way) even though Leeds North West and M-185 require no disambiguation whatsoever. I also think that only in Wikipedia and perhaps only amongst Wikipedia editors would a view be taken that "A disambiguation like "Mars (Roman god)" implies that there are other articles on gods named Mars from other cultures." I do not think that people would regard that Britannica does this when it presents "Mars (Roman god)" or "Zeus (Greek god)" or "Anu (Mesopotamian god)". In some ways I also think that this is good practice in that we might present "X (Roman god)" as most clearly being distinct from, say, "X (my god)". Although, in these cases the word "god" clearly uses lower case, I think that there are parallels with mention of "the Islamic prophet Mohammed" rather than a less qualified "the prophet Mohammed". While I would not say that I "label WP's preference for brevity in article title disambiguations "obsessive"" I think that this obsession is, IMO and in cases, evident at WP:RM. Again this is opinion but, contrary to the views of the likes of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, I do not necessarily think, in every case, that "less is more". I think we both experienced arguments regarding a seemingly obsessive regard to concise when various editors used this argument against various of your proposals to add clarifications like ".. cattle" or ".. sheep" on the end of various titles. While not advocating that we go anywhere close to the example of Britannica, please take a look at this partial list of Britannica Johns. The Britannica titling system, I think, has a richness that, in comparison, Wikipedia can lack. GregKaye 14:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Conciseness and verbosity relate to numbers of words terms, not of characters used to spell words terms in English. There is no policy or guideline that suggests we choose the shortest feasible character string in titles. Such a proposal failed and got user-spaced, in fact. We certainly don't go this route at the expense of accuracy or neutrality. Use of "god" and "goddess" themselves may even be unnecessarily provocative to monotheists. Where we have reliable sources that the figure of our article was a deity, not some other kind of mythological figure, to disambiguate with "(mythology)", we can use "(deity)". We don't need to (and generally do not) make gender distinctions in titles the way using "(god)" and "(goddess)" would. "Titaness" is just downright sexist. Britannica does have a disambiguation system, but it is not ours, and their title-creation rules are not ours. Features you think we should import from them are probably a good topic for WT:AT. Re: the animal breed articles (which raised entirely different naming issues), they're not illustrative of much here other than how small a concern the disambig character string shortness is: There was a long series of mass-RMs, most of them about WP:NATURAL vs. parenthetic disambiguation (where my proposals made disambiguation shorter, not longer), and a second issue, whether certain articles should be disambiguated at all (i.e., a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue, to make titles longer by adding disambiguators). Neither really had much to do with whether the disambiguation word chosen was too long compared to some other word. In the first kind of case, I was arguing against names like Siamese (cat) when Siamese cat will do, a WP:NATURAL issue, the basis of which is readability, not shortness, though it also incidentally results in shorter names usually. The second kind were almost all arguments about disambiguating (i.e., making longer) animal breed names that coincided with something else we might have an article about at some point. (We don't normally pre-disambiguate, but these were special cases).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
SMcCandlish In regard to your contention that "Conciseness and verbosity relate to numbers of words, not of characters used to spell words in English", do you really consider New York to be less concise than, for instance, Maryland‎, Massachusetts‎, Michigan‎, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri or Montana? At a greater extreme would you ever suggest that, "Llanfairpwllgwyngyll" (or in long form "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch") was in any way less concise than, for instance, "Menai Strait", the name of the stretch of water the town overlooks? Seriously I would appreciate an answer. You say, "There is no policy or guideline that suggests we chose the shortest feasible character string in titles." Please cite the policy in which the number of words is specified. If you think that an article title such as Dione (Titaness) is in some way "just downright sexist" then I suggest that you propose an RM but please tell me, how in the world do you think that this is sexist? Of course the animal moves are relevant but surely you realise the flagrant misrepresentation of mentioning the the utterly irrelevant red herring example of Siamese (cat) to Siamese cat when well over 90% of your RMs were of the American SableAmerican Sable rabbit type - 96% according to the listing at your provocatively titled Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 52#Minor tweak to end pointless confusion between WP:NATURALNESS and WP:NATURALDIS. In the vast majority of cases a title such as "American Sable" required NO disambiguation and all we were doing was providing a clarification for the reader as to the topic. Were we providing "a nasty disservice to our readers"? Were we implying "that there are other articles" on topics named "American Sable" that aren't about rabbits? By your presented logic above surely yes. We were adding additional information which, by your rules, is desired in regard to animal breeds but forbidden in regard to ancient religious practice. This makes no sense to me. GregKaye 19:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I probably should have said "terms" not "words"; "New York", being a unitary proper name, is a single term. My point was that "(mythology)", a one-term constructions, is more concise than "(Aztec deity)", a two-term construction. I'm fine with "(deity)" for any cases where RS are certain it was a deity not some other kind of figure. I've suggested nowhere that any policy specifies any number of words/terms or characters. You appear to be willfully misinterpreting whatever I write, just to engage in time-wasting "sport debate". I'll pass. My obvious point is that we have no rule requiring titles be as short as they possibly can be made, and if you want to bend over backwards to try to spin that observation off into an absurdity no one will believe I intended, have fun, but I have way better things to read and respond to. I've already covered why "-ess" terms and the like are increasingly interpreted as sexist. We don't refer to a woman pilot as an "aviatrix" any longer, either. There are pointless debates that can be forestalled by avoiding such constructions. WP has already been over this several times, with regard to page titles like Actor. I don't need to personally pore over that history with you. I have no idea where you get your "90%" thing. The majority of my breed moves were to remove parenthetic disambiguation (several hundred were in a single RM), and only a small fraction were to add any form of disambiguation. You're simply looking at the wrong RM discussions. It doesn't matter anyway; there were lots of both kinds, so either sort can effectively be used as an example as needed, with plenty of RMs to point to where consensus was reached. The only thing that's a "flagrant misrepresentation" here is you trying to make something significant out of nothing. no one could reasonably give a damn about such editing history trivia. I sure don't. I am past the point of caring what you hyperbolically and sarcastically say makes no sense to you. I am not responsible for your reading comprehension and retention. Finally, there's no such thing as "my rules" with regard to anything here, so there's nothing more among this noise that I need to respond to here. Look, I know we had a tense argument a couple of weeks ago, but it's time to let that tension fade, not light new fires. There was no need to post an inflammatory response to something I posted way back on April 20. That was well over a month ago.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am sorry I come late here. I have many times observed that the use of the myhtology category heading is misleading as it reflects a non scientific and non encyclopedic POV. I discussed this issue with user Haploydavey who concurred but said it would be a cumbersome job. Certainly it is absurd to treat ancient Greek and Roman religions as mythologies even though the ancient themselves did not refuse the concept of myth. From a modern scientific standpoint there is no justification for the use of the term mythology for the ancient religions of no matter where. So I support in full the move of every entry to the new categories Ancient Greek / Ancient Roman religion.Support total change.Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This sprawling kinda-RfC mess has run for a long time and clearly come to no consensus on anything. I'd like to suggest that we identify specific, narrow questions/problems/issues to address, and tackle them one at a time, or at least in practical, problem-solving order.

While I !voted above against a "one-size-fits-all" approach, we clearly do need some consistency improvements, for starters. Why are we using "deity" in some cases but "god" or "goddess" in others, when that level of hyper-disambiguation isn't usually necessary? Why are the article and category names so at odds, even within the same culture? Maybe we just need a list of issues to tackle, and then can prioritize it (in a logical, stepwise order, not a "I want my pet issue addressed first" order). I'll take a first step and start one below.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

[Draft] list of terminological and naming problems to address
Anyone may edit this, and if we use it as a to-do list, we'd probably move it to its own page.
  • Some deities and other religious figures are named with "(mythology)" disambiguators, or otherwise referred to as "mythological", especially if ancient.
  • Some subjects that are not mythological (or religious), but legendary or folkloric, may be mis-disambiguated with "(mythology)"
  • Deities are being hyper-disambiguated with "(god)" or "(goddess)" instead of "(deity)" when this is not necessary.
  • Categories are inconsistently named things like "{{Var|X} deities", "Y gods", "{{var|Z} religion", etc.
  • Articles are inconsistently named things like "{{Var|X} mythology", "Y pantheon", "{{var|Z} religion", etc.
  • Article titles and their corresponding category titles are often inconsistent with each other.
  • Categorization is sometimes incomplete or confused (e.g. Ancient Egyptian deities is in Category:Egyptian deities but not Category:Ancient Egyptian religion, which does contain Ancient Egyptian religion)
  • Disambiguation styles are being applied in ways that are inconsistent within the project's scope, and with usage outside of it.
    • It's typical (albeit not quite universal) for articles on people to be disambiguated by a descriptor not a topical category ("Pat Smith (biologist)" not "Pat Smith (biology)"); should we prefer this also with religious, mythological, etc., figures?
    • There's a trend away from gender-specific disambiguators when not necessary, since they raise sexism concerns with some readers and editors. Should we thus dispense with unnecessary and obscure ones like "(Titaness)"? Should we avoid "(god)" and "(goddess)" on this additional basis, when "(deity)" will suffice?
  • Some disambiguators may be confusing. While "(mythology)" clearly implies a topical category, "(legend)" for example, may not, and could imply that the title of the article is the name of the legend, so something like "(legendary figure)" may work better despite being less concise.
  • Some other disambiguators than "(mythology)" present WP:NPOV problems, e.g. "(being)", which implies real-world existence.
  • Should we have a list of standardized disambiguators?
  • Do we need to address the fact that some neopagan movements have reified various religious and even legendary figures? (The "is Asatru's Thor the same topic as the ancient Thor?" and "Is Merlin a god now because some neo-druidry group prays to him?" problems.)
  • How do we address groups that are nearly universally identified in sources as "cults" in the modern sense?
  • [Add more at will.]

Best moves[edit]

Beyond the content of the "designation of divinities" discussion, I will develop a list of suggested moves for comment:

Crow (Australian Aboriginal mythology)Crow (hero) or Crow (Aboriginal cultural hero)

→ maybe Crow (culture hero)? Q·L·1968 22:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Kumari (children)Kumari (Nepali religion)

This one needs to be considered carefully, since it concerns living people, and there could also be POV accusations whether the title accepts the kumari's divinity or reject it. I'd lean towards Kumari (devi) or Kumari Devi, but maybe the discussion should be taken to talk:Kumari (children). Q·L·1968 22:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Q·L· Thanks for the comments, I wanted to leave time for response and have just put RMs for Crow and Eridanos. Would it be possible, if you so chose, for you to put the RM through for Kumari as you may have a better handle on the arguments. thanks GregKaye 20:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Finnish mythologyFinnish folklore as current title presents a POV prejudicial against Finnish neopaganists

I don't think it does. "Folklore" (apart from being a false friend in so many languages) could be seen as even more belittling than "mythology". Q·L·1968 22:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It also, unfortunately, seems to overlook that there are a lot of items of "folklore" which are not necessarily "mythological," and such a move would, seemingly, force the two into one article, or prevent the other content from ever developing. I at least get the impression from the numerous Google returns here that Finnish folklore independent of mythology is probably a demonstrably notable topic in its own right, even if the relevant article hasn't been created yet. John Carter (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Eridanos (mythology)Eridanos (river of Hades)

Sounds fine. Q·L·1968 22:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye 08:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Describing beliefs[edit]

How should religious beliefs be described? I can’t find anything about this question here on the WikiProject page or at WP:RNPOV. Should we say, for instance, that the Earth was created by [deity], or that adherents of [religion] believe so, or that it happened according to [religion], or what? — (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If it matters, this question was prompted by the second sentence of Obatala. It just seems off to state a belief as a matter of fact—“human bodies were brought to life by Olorun’s breath.” — (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)WP:RNPOV says:
NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as Rev. Carlin) believe This and That, and also believe that This and That have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days; however, influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work) certain sects — calling themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists — still believe This, but instead of That now believe Something Else."
In other words, the second option, "adherents of [religion] believe so." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Followup question: What is the word for belief in, or people who believe in, Orishas? Edit: Answered my own question, I believe. Yoruba religion. — (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Religion and mythology[edit]

See this category discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible "Library" project subpage[edit]

I think one thing that might be useful for a lot of the religious and mythic traditions with which we deal is maybe making available to interested editors a sort of "basic list" of sources which are useful on the topic. This might include any particular "sacred texts" of a given tradition, or foundational texts of separate systems or subsystems, and, maybe, where possible and appropriate, some other well regarded "reference" type sources, preferably in the public domain. It might where possible also be very useful to have files of these sources added to commons and/or wikisource, where the information from them can continue to be readily available to all editors, including newer editors. Would any of the other editors here be willing to maybe help do some of the groundwork to establish such a list, and, maybe, place files on commons and/or proofread texts on wikisource? John Carter (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"Library" page[edit]

I am in the process of going through the most recent edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion and getting together a list of those works in the various article bibliographies there for inclusion in a new project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Library that are currently in the public domain. Considering that the works included in that list are considered significant enough to be included in the generally shortish bibliographies of articles in that work, I think that they might, generally, be of some use in developing our content here. Eventually, I hope to add links to versions of the items listed at or elsewhere, and, maybe, include some of them at commons and/or wikisource for possible transcription there. Transcription would probably be most useful for those items which are only part of a given file or book, such as, for instance, encyclopedia articles. There are quite a few of those included in the bibliographies, however. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone up to any "missionary" work?[edit]

Considering that there is, or could be, a lot of content in the other WMF entities relating to topics that fall within the range of "religion," like tourist attractions for Wikitravel, books for wikisource, quotes for wikiquote, images for commons, definitions of terminology at wiktionary, and wikibooks, wikiversity, and even the Simple English wikipedia, among other entities, and it appears at least to me that a lot of the material which could be reasonably added there isn't being done, and/or we might in some cases be experiencing duplication of content across entities, I was wondering whether there might be any purpose in maybe starting a project subpage listing current efforts or requested future efforts at those other entities, and whether any of you might be willing to be involved? John Carter (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


If anyone wants to weigh in on calling the Ahmadiyya a sect, please weigh in: Talk:Ahmadiyya#"Sect"

Articles with definitions, religious tracts, etc[edit]

I am not sure where to ask for assistance for well intentioned editor who is in danger of breaking our rules, all unknowing. They have generated multiple ill advised copes of an external mediawiki powered site in the mistaken belief that this is ok, and have been corrected. Currently they seem to be embarking on what I judge to be non notable articles with less than optimal referencing.

I am not discussing their behaviour, nor do I wish to. They are early in their career here and simply require guidance, so I am asking for a guide for them, one experienced in articles on religious matters, and ideally one whose knowledge includes Islam. If the knowledge does not include Islam then someone versed in the rules for this sector of Wikipedia will be fine. The editor is Ali.shakeri.1987 and I am about to tell them on their talk page that I have placed this request here. Fiddle Faddle 08:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Religion and mythology part 2[edit]

Category for discussion. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_20#Category:Religion_and_mythology. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infoboxes of individuals that have no religion.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Call for help on Lay preacher[edit]

Newly created short stub Lay preacher needs some content. I personally cannot help more since I know so little about religion and have no good sources. --Pitke (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

GAR Jainism[edit]

Jainism, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Rahul (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Gods of Egypt[edit]

The usage and primary topic of "Gods of Egypt" is under discussion, see talk:Gods of Egypt (film) -- (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Islam and antisemitism to be moved to Islam and Judeophobia. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Masjid al-Haram listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Masjid al-Haram to be moved to Sacred Mosque. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sam Harris (author) listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Sam Harris (author) to be moved to Sam Harris. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

List of people with the most children listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of people with the most children to be moved to Lists of people by number of children. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Haus der Religionen listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Haus der Religionen to be moved to House of Religions. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration[edit]

Eyes are needed here, in regard to NPOV, OR and appropriate sourcing. This has been the subject of a recent Arbitration Request, where ArbCom remanded the issue to the community. BMK (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Ayurveda RFC[edit]

A Request for Comments is now in progress at Talk:Ayurveda concerning whether [[Category:Pseudoscience]] should be added to the article on Ayurveda. Participation in the RFC is encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Would there be a way of categorising religions which believe in creationism?[edit]

I think it's important to categorise religions that believe in creationism. Opinions would be appreciated.... The reason being of coruse, is that I've found with many discussions with atheists and religious people alike, people want to know whether the religion in question believes in the literal creationism or not. I've found that most religion pages do not state whether the religion believes in these things or not. In Citer (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Attempting to categorize religions by whether they believe in a particular thing sounds like a bad idea. For one thing, followers of a religion can be different. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi PrimeHunter, well, we already have categories such as religious groups with 'annihilationist beliefs', 'Restorationism (Christianity)' and 'Nontrinitarian denominations'. All these categories are related to the beliefs these religions have. Why not have a Creationists category too? I think it's an important point whether a faith believes in creationism or not. I take your point on the fact that people may differ within a religion as to their opinions, but they wouldn't be included in the category. Only faiths whose adherents (all) believe in creationism should be included in the category. I've had many discussions with religious people and atheists alike and I've found it would be helpful to both to have a creationist category. In Citer (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Need more editors in discussion of Religious views of masturbation[edit]

Question: How much due weight is appropriate for promoting a view, that mention of seminal emissions in Leviticus (Hebrew Bible) includes intercourse and wet dreams only, while "remaining silent" specifically on masturbation?

This is the question I would like editors especially more knowledgeable about the Torah to respond to at Talk:Religious views on masturbation as there is an editor I feel may be giving undue weight to such a rationale. I am unable to participate as fully as I would like as I am doing so by a phone. Thanks, (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC) (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project[edit]

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)