Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Religion task force

The religion task force of WikiProject Countering systemic bias exists in order to ensure neutrality in Wikipedia articles that have to do with religion and spirituality.

Any Wikipedia user is invited to join. The sole requirement of membership is dedication to ensuring a neutral point of view in all Wikipedia articles.

If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list there.

Participants

1. Goethean
2. ZappaZ
3. Aquillion
4. Irmgard
5. ≈ jossi ≈
6. Freestylefrappe
7. Solar
8. JFW | T@lk
9. Richard_RDF^talk
10. Uncle Ed
11. Smithfarm
12. igni
13. J. J. 15:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC). Evangelical Christian, but sensitive to bias in interfaith dialogue. Biblical studies emphasis.
14. Itsmejudith
15. LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>}
16. Baristarim 11:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
17. elvenscout742 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
18. Sir james paul
19. Badbilltucker
20. Justanother Scientologist. Sensitive to most belief systems that do not include human sacrifice or having sex with children (though I am not a big fan of animal sacrifice either but "if it works for you", I guess it is at least as valid a reason to kill an animal as a Big Mac).
21. johnalexwood - Scientologist in the UK
22. Vassyana 10:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
23. Misou 18:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
24. Rursus 09:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC) - very-very ordinary Christian anti-Creationist.
25. Demmeis 02:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Evangelical Anglican Christian concerned about Islamophobia. Also a creationist concerned about anti-evolution bias and lack of NPOV in articles related to favorite creationist topics.
26. jackturner3 29 March 2007 - adjunct professor of Religious Studies
27. - thank you Astuishin 19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
28. KnightMove - currently busy to stop massive Bahá'í POV establishment activities. If there were none, I would not have any problem with this religion.
29. unless 21:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC) - Very agnostic.
30. Ganesh J. Acharya I am a Hindu, trying to understand what life is all about.
31. Zoebuggie☺ -interested but feeling my way around Wikipedia
32. Rwenonah (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
33. Jaredscribe I've noticed a persistent bias toward the post-christian secular, sharing many basic assumptions of the graeco-roman christian worldview
34. User:VenusFeuerFalle

All members should feel free to add {{User WikiProject Csbir}} to their userpages.

Goals

This Wikiproject exists in order to facilitate the following:

1. Discussion of exactly what a neutral point of view means with regard to religion
2. To alert members to articles that are biased or that exhibit prejudice for or against religion or spirituality
3. To cooperatively ensure neutrality in all articles that have to do with religion
4. To discuss whether there is systemic bias in Wikipedia in regard to religion and spirituality and what can be done to counter this bias

Projects

Neutralize vocabulary

1. I suggest a project to "neutralize" the vocabulary of religious articles which contributes a lot to POV. Many words in that context, e.g. heresy, apostate, cult, etc. are used mainly by a specific POV. They can be used within NPOV when attributed "Irenaeus thought Gnosticism a heresy" but they should not be used unattributed. Other words are frequently used in a generalizing way which usually also contains a POV (e.g. calling all conservative Christians fundamentalists). --Irmgard 13:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that Hindus have myths and sects, but other religions have stories denominations. Andries 20:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I found out that the word sect has a different meaning in an Indian context. See sect. Andries 16:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Such a clean-up would consist of

1. • collecting not-NPOV words - best in subproject-article explaining why for each word
   • linking this article to other articles regarding NPOV so it is accessible to the community
   • cleaning up - article by article during article cleanup or word by word using word searches

Assessment

The department to assess articles with which this project deals, and, if required, draw attention to articles which are in need of attention.

Tasks

1. I propose renaming of Separation of church and state to Relations between religions and states, and Separation of church and state in the US to Secularism in the US or Relation between religions and state in the US.. Have a look at the relevant talk pages.. I am proposing the renames to counter the systemic bias and to make these articles have a more global approach.. Baristarim 11:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Also, within the article currently entitled Separation of church and state it would be better to list the countries in alphabetical order and not try and classify them into those which have or do not have separation. There are just too many complex cases. The detail is in the text relating to each country, for those who are interested. Itsmejudith 17:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this; the term Separation of Church and State is used so frequently that it practically is a proper name; it's also qualitatively/conceptually distinctint from 'relations between religions and states' as it implies a certain kind of relationship betweeen religion and states. It's a philosophical concept found in the works of numerous political philosophers as well as in the writings of the 'founding fathers' of the United States. --The Way 06:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The phrase is a widely-used term of art that is quoted in practically every legal decision which involves the relationship of government and religion (in the US). Putting it in quotes, perhaps, but PC'izing the phrase is unnecessary. Izaakb 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Asian Lunisolar calendars and holiday cycles

New moon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

+1 Gender balance, +1 Global perspective, +1 Asian religions and philosophies, +1 natural philosophy

Trying to make +1 for addressing systemic bias in academia: Talk:New moon § Separating sections: Lunisolar Calendar and Lunar Calendar

Today is the second new moon of spring. We don't know this, because they refuse to feature this kind of content on the main page, accusing people like me of POV promoting a lunar religion, and suggesting that I'm WP:NOTHERE. We need to find points of intersection in this struggle. Lets get the new moon on the main page next month.Jaredscribe (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese Calendar, Hindu calendar, and the Hebrew calendar are all Lunisolar calendars, as was the ancient Babylonian calendar. Civic and Religious holidays in all these Asiatic traditions are based on different days than the ones we use. Trying to more adquately represent Asian cultures in wikipedia. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-solarian religions and lunisolar religions are WP:1DAY. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I would never use such a coinage as non-Solarian religion or its opposite in mainspace. This is for discussion, and feedback, not for publication. If you had a legitimate grievance against my description of your own bias as Solarian religion due to your use of the Egyptian and later imperial Roman calendar system and astrology, you could have suggested alternative names here, per WP:DISCUSS to which I would have been amenable in the spirit of scholarly discourse. What I am describing is perfectly clear if you bother to examine the context.

I'm responding to meta-wiki edit-war you've declared, against "lunatic charlatans" on your own User page, @Tgeorgescu, and have been prosecuting through WP:CHOPSY in an overly broad manner, and have WP:Hounding my for the last two years over my contributions here. I wasn't aware that you were taking this so personally or I would have upgraded the diction earlier.

Jaredscribe (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I've also now complied with your earlier demands to remove the charge of solarian religion from from my user page, which I had predicated of western christianity and post-christian academic scientism.

I am not without right to make the the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredscribe (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DEMANDS of ACADEMIC-bias POV-pushers at WP:CHOPSY

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

c/o @User:tgeorgescu et al

1. Take the equally unwarranted, vulgur, unscientific and unsourced pejorative of

lunatic charlatan off your user page.

2. Deprecate the userbox that you and your colleagues use to signal their membership in your systemically-biased "CHOPSY-cabal", and please locate in your vocabulary a different pejorative to refer to the pseudo-scientists whom you are your actual targets, not us.

3. And stop allow @AndyTheGrump to declare "bullsh--" on your WP:Academic bias page - he makes you look like a useful idiot by association. appeal to ridicule is not acceptable in academia, and neither is verbal abuse. Please teach him that lessson, since he refuses to learn from my corrections. Your essay and your other editorial work are likely to improve considerably after these unreliable absurdities or expunged.

4. If you will not do this, you will have to give reliable sources, and explain and demonstrate some serious matters to all of us who inquire from Asia, Africa, the middle east and beyond.

Jaredscribe (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

About lunatic charlatan: tell that to Jimmy Wales, "lunatic charlatans" is the message he has broadcast to the public and was dully noted in mainstream media. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Dully? Or duly? Or both? EEng 04:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Duelly but undue. Levivich (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related articles

See also NPOV items, etc., on {{Spirituality tasks}}

NPOV

• List of purported cults
• Rajneesh
• Psychic detective - This article has been an ongoing target for attack by those who do not accept NPOV policy, as you can see at Talk:Psychic detective. If there is anyone here who has a good knowledge of this area, please help out the article needs a lot of work. - Solar 11:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Guru - unlike other articles on concepts in religion, this article contains a large section of "criticism" by Western scholars, some little-known. Talk page discussion has been polarized for many months. One editor claims he "has a problem to distinguish between good and bad gurus". Other editors (including myself) claim that this is original research. — goethean ॐ 17:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Cult apologist - Currently a cleanup is underway. Please feel free to add your input. --Justanother 14:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Cessationism could use some serious attention from any interested editors and/or experts. It is currently heavily biased with a huge Charismatic/Pentecostal focused bibliography and similar POV. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Vassyana 06:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• The Promised Land (sculpture) The article for a statue in Portland Oregon. The statue itself expresses a POV: Supersessionism, implicitly asserting that Oregon is the Promised Land and that the white American Christians depicted therefore have a divine right to possess it and dispossess its indigenous inhabitants. The article assumes this as a false neutral, and tenant editors have refused to allow acknowledgement of it into the article. I've begun to challenge this on talk Talk:The_Promised_Land_(sculpture)#Meaning_and_interpretation_of_the_statue but have been accused of harrassment in a related dispute over the inscription (which I deny), and must now back off to avoid a block.Jaredscribe (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge

• Brainwashing

Other, no tags

• Apostasy
• Cult
  • Cults and governments
  • Destructive cult
  • Opposition to cults and new religious movements
• Divine Light Mission
• Human - currently, Humanity and Homo Sapiens redirects to Human, where human beings and humanity are treated as primates. Some editors (including myself) believe that the article implies that human beings are nothing more than primates. Discussion page has been polarized for years. Along with others, the conflict has resulted in an Arbcom case against one religious editor, User:Sam Spade — goethean ॐ 17:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The same dispute occured 2400 years ago, and was resolved when Plato and Aristotle defined human as a "rational animal". The definition as "bipedal" was considered by them and rejected by them as a nonessential differentia, along with "hairless", and "having opposable thumbs". This article makes the error of treating bipedal, hairless, opposable thumbs MORE ESSENTIAL than intelligence. Another ignorant and retarded prejudice of mainstream "scientism", enforced here as Academic bias according to the WP:CHOPSY test. Thanks Goethean for bringing this to our attention. You can cite Aristotle Mortimer Adler on this. I'm going to attack address points in that article in the coming months. WP:ENC Jaredscribe (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • So, what solution do you advocate for:
    • State that humans are body, soul and spirit, according to the New Testament [1];
    • State that humans have seven bodies, according to Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov;
    • State that humans have nine bodies, according to Rudolf Steiner;
    • State that humans have an immortal soul, according to mainstream Christianity;
    • State that humans don't have an immortal soul, since between death and resurrection their soul ceases to exist, according to Seventh-day Adventist Church and Jehovah's Witnesses;
    • State that the soul of humans is simply the result of having a biological body of a human and being able to breathe oxygen, and if one is no longer able to breathe the soul ceases to exist, according to Seventh-day Adventist Church;
    • State that humans don't have souls, selves or atmans at all, according to Buddhism;
    • State that humans may become God after death, according to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints;
    • State that humans will resurrect in flesh on Earth;
    • State that humans will resurrect as spiritual beings in heavens;
    • State that humans will become angels after death;
    • State that humans will reincarnate till they vanish forever;
    • State that humans will reincarnate till they become part of the chosen people, and only then they may get to heavens? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I advocate for exactly what I stated: Man is a RATIONAL ANIMAL, according to Plato, Aristotle, and at least one notable philosopher from U. of Chicago who happened to be general editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica. WP:VERECUNDIAM. I made no predications about the afterlife of the rational soul, and that is not what this dispute is about. This editor should stop projecting his religious caricatures. Straw men abound in the "arguments" given by defenders of the status quo, and ridicule is not an argument. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Except rational animal is not what they said. They said speaking animal. Rational animal is the specific Roman interpretation of those Greek statements. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
        • To spell out the problem: science reached a consensus about what humans are, while all non-science academic fields either didn't reach any consensus thereupon, or rubber-stamp the consensus from science. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
        • I took two courses on ethics, and therein rational animal wasn't mentioned even once. Nor was mentioned any holy book, not even for criticizing it. Such definition is pedantic, and rarely used. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Intelligent Design
• List of new religious movements
• Prem Rawat
  • Criticism of Prem Rawat
• Sant Mat
• Sathya Sai Baba
  • Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Organisation

Articles on Freedom of religion

• Freedom of religion

Votes for deletion

• Votes for deletion (Article deletion):
• Votes for undelete (Article undeletion}:
• Templates for deletion:
• Categories for deletion:
• Images for deletion:
• Redirects for deletion:

Requests

2006-12-04

Indian Buddhist Revival and Kherlanji Massacre

As much as I'd love to do battle with Hkelkar and his fellow editors, I have a job and have to work.

This is the way the article Indian Buddhist Revival (now redirected, with no request for input, to a page called Dalit Buddhist Movement)looks today:[[2]]. The page history (briefly interrupted by an editor who futily tries to protest named Pkulkani)is here:[[3]].

The Kherlanji Massacre (which, believe me, is truly horrific by any human standard) looks like this [[4]]. This is it's page history:[[5]].

Hkelkar is working in concert with an Editor named Ambroodey, who was apparently called out of retirement by an editor named Dangerous Boy (or D-Boy). It appears I have a new "friend".

NinaEliza 02:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't BEGIN to enumerate the various flaws in both these articles, but here's just one example. The repeated rapes of these women is not "alleged", it's a fact. The murders (followed by the public parade of their bodies) are not an "alleged" crime.

By all accounts India is a Country brimming full with excellent examples of culture, architecture, botany, art, religious icons, as well as a phenomenally rich history. Furthermore, I assert that it's a Country fair to bursting with incredibly smart and compassionate people. But unless something happened that I'm not aware of recently, The great Nation of India still considers rapes and murders to be crimes.

You've simply let this go on to long. I appreciate that everyone is busy doing other things, or perhaps you sincerely did not know. But you must, must, start dealing with this. I'm copying the Hinduism project and the Indian Caste System project as well. I'm also copying my own projects. I know there's wonderful editors here, and wonderful people. I'm showing my hand, and asking for help.

NinaEliza 04:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that these articles weren't part of WikiProject India, and I know that Hkelkar was never a member. I apologize for sounding so shrill, and for bringing up a painful subject. But now that you're aware of what's going on, I would dearly appreciate it if you take these articles into your care. Thank you.

NinaEliza 04:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, there's a lot of background, but basically the Indian Buddhist Movement(which isn't the best title) concerns Indians of Hindu descent classified as "dalits" converting to an extremely new form of Buddhism in an attempt to escape their caste, among other things. The Kherlanji massacre doesn't exactly fall into the purview of this project - the family that was murdered were dalit. I'm not an Indian, and am in fact an American Nichiren Buddhist. I would appreciate any and all assitance. If anything, just put them on your watchlist.

Please don't doubt my desire to join your project. I joined a few nights ago, and never thought I would be asking for help so soon. If there is anything I can be of assitance with in your own Wiki-World, please let me know.

Sincerely, NinaEliza 05:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There are so many wikipedia WP:NPOV violations in the post above that it truly boggles the mind. Look at the following NEWS SOURCE (remember that little annoyance, sources? Remember those little things called news sites? FYI, they're very reliable) that states the rapes as "alleged" (exact words)[6]:

Two of them - Surekha and Priyanka were allegedly raped before they were killed.

See that? Allegedly. Ever hear of edits reflecting sources?Might want to read up on some wikipedia policies. Whether the Kherlanji crimes were atrocious, brutal or a Sunday afternoon barbecue is beside the point. We must adhere to NPOV. If articles on the holocaust (at least 6 million dead, and that's just us Jews) can be written in a neutral narrative why the hell not this? We are editors, not politicians. We should not use loaded words and distort the known facts unless we are certain that the sources reflect them. Memorize that please. Hkelkar 06:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• NDTV.COM (New Delhi Television Ltd)[[7]]

• AsiaNewsItaly (For a more worldwide perspective) [[8]] (actually not so much a news source as Christian Missionary Site - it's quite hidden)

• CNN-IBN News (it's the India division of CNN)[[9]]

• Diligent Media Corporation [[10]]

Or, of course, you could do what you were going to do anyway and GOOGLE these events. You'll find neutral sources a plenty. NinaEliza 06:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lady you need to check your refs a bit more carefully. My NDTV article is more recent than yours, listing the rapes as alleged. Your NDTV article dates Nov 4th. Mine dates December 4th. Now, I don't know how dates work in Shangri-La or wherever, but here on planet Earth December comes AFTER November. Since the most recent NDTV article says "alleged rape", the most recent source of information is that the rapes are NOT established facts as far as NDTV is concerned. Understand?

Now, as far as that Bible-thumping rag "Asia News Italy" is concerned. Well, their partisanship is obvious.

And guess what. The CNN article, is an op/ed by Asim Khan, also dated prior to December 4th, and it doesn;t even mention the alleged Kherlanji rapes, only the murders briefly in ONE sentence (the murders, of course are not alleged but fact, there are dead bodies to prove that). Please learn to do some research before making transparent attempts to reduce wikipedia to the level of a political soap opera. Hkelkar 07:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar, I humbly apolgize for the terribly things I wrote above. It was offensive, irresponsible, and awful thing to bring up.

To all who read this request, please disregard it. I posted this request without discussing it with the editors in question, which is the worst form of bad faith. My hurtful and incredibly stupid remarks were aimed at the very faiths I said I would help, which is simply unforgivable.

It's also the worst way to introduce myself. Again, I am very sorry. I have posted unique apologies to both the WP:INB and WP:HINDU pages should you want to know in detail why what I did was so very wrong. I only hope to be able to regain the good faith that I have lost in time.

Sincerely, NinaEliza 07:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

2007-02-13

Baha'i Faith

I would appreciate some views on an old dispute I had regarding the article Institution of the Counsellors - detailed on the talk page - as to whether the names of members were suitabel for inclusion under the WP:N and WP:RS policies. Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 19:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Lot of distorted and bogus information

This article Vishwakarma_(caste) does not consider views and opinions from any of books written by the 18 crore Vishwakarma members and is purely relying on Non-Vishwakarma members? All the sources chosen are either from Christians writers or from Non-Vishwakarmas members? This is like editing articles on Christianity but choosing the views and opinions of Muslims and Non-Christian writers? Hopelessly written according to me. Request to check the same. On continuously trying to explain I get threats of getting blocked. I belong to this community Vishwakarma so I know the information here does not follow my belief systems. When I try to question I am being shown wiki guidelines like Wikipedia:NPOV etc. While will a non community member know more about a community? Will a article on Physics be better justified by editors who do not come from physics background? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason to point this out is also to make readers and editors realize that Vishwakarma_(caste) has an entirely different customs and practices when compared to other Hindu communities. There are differences with regards to initiation of the yagnopaveetham and its practice there after, practice of the Vedas, marriage ceremony, ... the list goes on ..., and finally the death rituals. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Vice and Lust

I've marked both of these pages for NPOV review because of blatant religious bias, but unfortunately no one has made any positive contributions yet and I am not knowledgeable enough in either subject to make positive edits on my own. Could someone with a bit more background take a crack at them? unless 13:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

File:Philbar 2.png

Only contains Western philosophers
I was around checking for more bias. I notice only pictures of Western philosophers. Philosophy has both Western and Eastern contributors. [11] The current pictures are of Plato, Kant, Nietzsche. All three are Western philosophers. Currently the entire Wikipedia is almost leaned towards the western world. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC) This bias is a persistent problem in university studies as well. I suggest Solomon, Patanjali, Lao Tzu, Maimonides. Jaredscribe (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Jehovah's_Witnesses_beliefs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I can't believe that after all this time there is bias in these articles and twisting of the facts and truth. I start reading and right in the second paragraph some one has added a note about some dissemination of some news. This isn't some news that no one else is talking about that can be glossed over like that. There are bible translations out there that use the very phrase " The Good News" because it refers to The Gospel, that every Christian denomination refers to. So I changed it to what it should be and even added and internal link to the article for "The Gospel" which says in the first line, also referred to as "The Good News." These are the diffs. And I am worried that this twisting of the facts by omission is shows a glaring bias. And I request that it be observed for a period, placed on a watch list, or whatever is official done at this project. Thank you. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems as though you may be over-reacting. You added a wikilink to the article, which was uncontested. It is not clear how the previous absence of that one wikilink indicates any 'twisting of facts', nor is it clear what other 'glaring bias' you're alluding to. You have not attempted to engage anyone at the article's Talk page regarding your concerns.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There he is, the man himself. I would want a second opinion on absolutely anything you have to say. As I wrote, I expect an attempt to be made to wipe away the internal link I added. The fact that I had to make that edit to the wording after all this time is a real concern. I'm glad you're here to minimize that point, which also vindicates my concern. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

And if the hypothetical boogeyman you've invented shows up, you can discuss their objections on the article's Talk page. The absence of a single wikilink that was overlooked because the context was already clear is not the conspiracy you imagine it to be. Apart from your pointless rhetoric here, there is no problem at all with the change you made to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The term "good news", without a wikilink, was first introduced into the text of the original article Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses by AuthorityTam (talk · contribs), a pro-JW editor, on 2 April 2009[12]. Elements of the subject relating to beliefs were split to Beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses on 14 August 2010, with the same wording retained, and the article was renamed Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs later the same day. The context of the statement apparently seemed obvious to the editor who added the phrase and subsequent editors. At no point was a wikilink added to the term in question and then subsequently removed due to any supposed 'bias'.

If you have any legitimate concerns of bias to discuss regarding the article, please start a section at the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I have reviewed every change made to the lead of the article in question. Apart from occasional section or page blanking by vandals (some being JW supporters trying to redirect traffic to the denomination's website[13][14][15][16][17][18][19]), the only change made to the term "good news" in the lead was one removal of the quotations marks around the term on 23 December 2014,[20] which was reverted the same day.[21] But if the IP editor won't take my word for it, they are welcome to review the history of the article themselves and point out any instance where the absent wikilink was supposedly added and then removed due to some imagined 'bias'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

As I've already said, when I came across the article, the term "The Good News" (as a reference to Gospel's purpose, of every Christian denomination) was NOT there. What was there was written as some diminished less maybe local joke of a new, which is a smear and a slight on this religion. No proverbial wheelbarrel full of distraction you bring into this can change that. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

More than happy to hear whether other contributors here, or at the article’s Talk page where you should have raised your objection, agree with your novel reasoning on this matter.—Jeffro77 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I would also add that Jehovah's Witnesses do not capitalise the term "good news" (even when referring to the gospel). Additionally, the original editor who added the term included an extended quotation (which is still present 12 years later) in the supporting citation showing the use of "good news" explicitly in the context of Christian "proselytizing" (and the cited source explicitly explains that no negative connotation of the term "proselytize" is meant). The wikilink that has been added (which the IP editor imagines will be attacked for some bizarre reason) is entirely appropriate, but its absence was by no stretch of the imagination any attempt at 'smearing Christianity'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.