Talk:Kemetic Orthodoxy

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 September 2019. The result of the discussion was keep.

Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

Egypt Low‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neopaganism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Complete rewrite

Hello everyone, I and a few others are working on a complete re-write of this page to include the following section: Legal description, The House of Netjer, Membership, Beliefs, Kemetic Orthodoxy and other religions, History, and Criticism. This re-write will also increase the number of links and references. If anyone wishes to help with this, or to make sure that certain statements are made, let me know. IanCheesman (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, would love to give a hand Downix (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For attributional posterity, this rewrite was accomplished at KO temporary. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

new version

Well, here it is folks, hope it is better than it was. Obviously, anyone who wishes to help make it even better, your help is more than welcome. IanCheesman (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

There seems to be one individual who believes this wiki violates the notability clauses. If someone can help me figure out how, I would be more than happy to make changes to the article to help. IanCheesman (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this notable enough for an article? It appears to be a religion started by one woman, who appointed herself as pharoah. All the sources are links to the religion's own site, and there isn't even a number of followers listed, although other sources I've come across put followers at less than 500... I would imagine there are literally tens of thousands of religious movements of this size worldwide... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.201.180.137 (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Notability is always a hard topic to handle. While I agree the number of practitioners of Kemetic Orthodoxy is small compared to some religions, I think it is notable for a number of reasons. Perhaps the best reason is its uniqueness. There are very few groups out there like this one, almost all of which are much smaller (on the scale of 1/10 the size). In addition, a number of those smaller groups were created by breaking off of Kemetic Orthodoxy over the years. If size of a group is the only determining factor of importance, then almost all of the band, sports teams, etc. pages would have to disappear too. As for the founder of the religion, that too is a touchy subject, as almost every religion in existence was created by just one person who claimed a title of some kind.

As for the links, while many do link back to websites owned and operated by the religion, many others link to other sites and books. The links point where they do because most of the time the religion was found to be the best source on the topic. Part of this is simply because they know themselves the best, and partially because they haven't been around for a long time compared to many other religions.

Do you have any specific questions about sections, or even suggestions on ways to make the wiki better? IanCheesman (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, almost a month later and receiving no further info back from the unknown commenter, I have removed the notability tag. I reread through everything I could find on the topic of notability on wikipedia, and feel this is the right move. If anyone else has any other comments, please feel free to make them. IanCheesman (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neopagan vs. African Traditional

With the content changed to African Traditional, I have removed the categories and all other major links to dealing with Neopagan religion, including the ratings info (both here and on the Neopagan assessment page). Unfortunately there is no African Traditional group similar to the Neopagan assessment group, so we will be limited to the assesments from the Egypt and Religion groups (neither of whom have looked at this page yet). IanCheesman (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First review

We have received our first review. Take a look and lets see what can be done. - IanCheesman (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon.com Publication

In light of the fact that it's not possible to prevent an article from being sold wholesale, the article is being tuned up as we speak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmaticmagpie (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Cleanup

I've added some additional tags to the article. All of which are relevant and accurate, to my eyes. A majority of the contributions to the article have been added by proponents and practitioners of Kemetic Orthodoxy. Which is fine, but it's unfortunately resulted in an article that in unbalanced, intricate, overly promotional, and heavily reliant on primary sources. I'm not sure who's watching this page, but I'd love to have some collaboration on doing an extensive rewrite of this article. It is a notable subject, but the article as it is hardly conforms to Wikipedia policy. Anyone game? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kintetsubuffalo, Grayfell, and Quinto Simmaco: we could also ask the AE wikiproject and FTN. Doug Weller talk 21:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded some of the article in order to give it a more neutral and detached tone. There are however some changes I have made which may be contentious:

The religion was previously defined as Polytheistic reconstructionism, however by the definition listed here it deviates from the historical understanding of the Ancient Egyptian religion, therefore is not true reconstructionism.
Material from the House of Netjer site and affiliated sources state that the religion preaches the existence of one "Supreme God" represented using several "Names". The same sources claim that this is an example of Monolatry, however this is incorrect, and the above definition fits the description of an Inclusive monotheism. I have chosen to defer to their description of the religion, rather than the term they use, as there are no secondary sources discussing this.
There was a claim that the requirement that their members respect one another is an example of "reconstructionism", which is uncitable.

Wasechun tashunka (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"KO temporary" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect KO temporary. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 21#KO temporary until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ibadibam (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned user draft

Please would an interested editor assess the material added at User:Enigmaticmagpie/Sandbox, incorporate what is useful, blank that WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 23:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]