Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Religion outline

Additional material

The one section which I believe be to be lacking in the existing structue which might merit inclusion is "Demographics." That section would perhaps describe the geographic locations of the groups followers, as well as any other relevant and discussed material, such as ethnic, social, cultural, educational, gender, and other factors. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good to include, and is often given in sociological references. Demographic stats aren't always available and are sometimes woefully out of date, so that sort of information would best be used with some kind of qualifier (e.g., "sourcex in 200x says..."). • Astynax ^talk 21:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

I think it worthwhile to distinguish between endless criticism/counter-criticism that is sometimes waged between opponents and supporters, and outside observation. Observation tends to get dragged into these arguments and be labeled (by one side or another) as being part of "criticism" directed against their views. Those involved in partisan disputes often do not seem to notice, or care about, the difference, which can result in misplaced edit-warring.

For some subjects, a large percentage of the article gets consumed by a criticism section, and getting too bogged down in this topic can be a bar to advancing an article's quality. Most religions are not primarily about criticism. In some cases article quality might become more balanced by a tighter summary of criticisms (appropriately sourced) and—if the the topic of various criticisms is indeed notable—moving a more detailed explanation into a sub-article. Any criticisms, and responses to criticisms, need to be sourced to secondary sources—i.e., rather than to primary materials, such as partisan websites which too often offer an endless stream of point-counterpoint (another hinderance to advancing article quality). • Astynax ^talk 21:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "Academic observation" or something similar would, to my eyes, probably be a better and clearer statement than "criticism". John Carter (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Proposal

This is a proposed guideline for the main overview articles on religions and religious groups in wikipedia. Input of any sort is very strongly encouraged and welcomed.

In addition to the existing sections, I believe that, where such is relevant, a section dealing with the religious texts or traditions of the specific group would be relevant. So, for instance, while the Bible itself is not necessarily going to be stressed in every article about Christian or Jewish groups, the more specific texts or tenets of the group, like for instance Martin Luther's writings for the main article on Lutheranism, would reasonably be included. John Carter (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]