Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Any Help Would Be Wonderful!

Hi,

I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christian Knowledge Base is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. Empty2005 00:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good idea! Now those non-belivers can see what the LORD can do! ^^ --General456 13:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Help develop Scripture Database website

I've been conceptualizing a Scripture Database website for several years now. I've finally gotten around to publishing a rough draft of the site online. It is wiki-based and would make a good compliment to Wikipedia scripture pages. Please use my dedicated talk page to discuss. --J. J. 19:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Xueta

A mess. See Talk:Xueta#A_mess. I'm pretty ignorant on the topic of the Xuetes. Perhaps someone here is clueful and can help fix the article? - Jmabel | Talk 23:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Help with NPOV

There's currently a bit of an edit war at Mami Wata (an article about a deity of the African diaspora). One user, a member of an organization devoted to the deity, is, in my opinion, pushing pseudo-scholarship and a "voudun is real" POV. I am representing the Western anthropological POV, possibly making my edits also violate NPOV. I have never been involved in a relgious edit war on Wikipedia before, and I'm not at all sure how to proceed. We both believe very strongly in our version of the the article. In short, I would appreciate if cooler heads could stop by and help us iron out the differences we have. -- BrianSmithson 15:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to your Philosophy/Religion WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 06:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Help re:Raëlian Church

The Raëlian Church article is advert like and is clearly being written by them. Only one person seems to be involved in writing it - can anyone help? Secretlondon 13:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not one article, it's an entire series. --Pjacobi 19:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

ACIM

I think the A Course in Miracles article would benefit from more editors with religious knowledge. Please feel free to help out. Not a dog 13:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Help with Gibborim article

I discovered this article Gibborim (biblical) and have been trying to improve it. The problem is I'm having trouble sepparting what is actually biblically based, what comes out of the teachings of Theosophy, and what is more modern new age belief. Any help would be appreciated Stephen Day 04:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion in Asia

This article is VERY stubby. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 08:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


WikiProject Religion Award

Please comment - WikiProject Religion Award. --JuanMuslim 1m 03:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yazdânism

Are Alevi, Yazidi, and Yarsan branches of common religion Yazdânism? Or is this a POV only forwarded by some Kurdish nationalists? --Pjacobi 19:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Membership list

Any project requires two things to be considered "active" and remain ineligible for deletion. They have to have some project-related activity on the project page or talk page in the last three months, and there has to be at least one listed member. Right now this project has no listed members. It might be a very good idea to add one. Thank you. Badbilltucker 17:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy Prepuce

Holy Prepuce is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

End times

End times is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 16:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

religioustolerance dot org

I came across over 700 links to this organization, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. The site has a ton of ads but on the other hand, it has content (and a Wikipedia article).

Normally, such an ad-intensive site with so many links gets attention at WikiProject Spam for further investigation. Even if it's not spam, many links may often get deleted as not meeting the external links guideline. I've left a note at WikiProject Spam asking others to look at some of these and see what they think.

Even some non-profit organizations will add dozens of links to Wikipedia since links in Wikipedia are heavily weighted in Google's page ranking systems. (If interested, see the article on Spamdexing for more on this).

You can see all the links by going to this this "Search web links" page. I encourage you to look at Wikipedia's external links guideline then look at the links in the articles you normally watch. Also, if you don't mind, please also weigh in at WikiProject Spam with your opinions. If you see links to pages that you don't think add additional value beyond the content already in an article, feel free to delete them, but please don't go mindlessly deleting dozens of links. (Per WP:EL, links that don't add additional value should be deleted but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "spam").

Thanks for your help and for providing some second opinions. --A. B. 16:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

What is the Spiritual United nations and when and why was it founded? There is a complete story call it "her story" vs. "history," if you will. In 1994, the White Buffalo Calf Miracle marked the beginning of a new era. The woman of peace returns! After the prophesied Unity Festival with many tribes represented, Dean and i agreed together to start the Spiritual United Nations at the request and desire of the Hopi elders, such as Thomas Banyaca, and all people of peace, who are also considered Hopis. They said to bring peace we must have a spiritual United Nations who would listen to the voice of the poor and fatherless and to the indigenous peoples of the world. There is now a free web page with access to global warming papers that have never been censored by the government, because they were self-published. Check it out at: http://www.angelfire.com/hi3/spiritualun The spiritualUn has no fees, no signup, and is "in the spirit", prays for peace and is based on the white buffalo prophecies. There are links to white buffalo being born near Grand Canyon! Anuradhe 20:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC) anuradhe

Updates are needed to early christianity, numerous errors will need to be corrected.

WARNING

Be aware of manipulations by cultic groups or sectarian organizations in order to take the appearence of respectfull religious beliefs: For example, Sri Satya Sai Baba, or other false hindouists, Scientology, Theosophical society (Blavatsky was a friend of Thulé society which originated Nazism), and many other groups referenced as religions!? No this is abusing WIKIPEDIA free project. It is (especially for Sai Baba) like saying Marc Dutroux is a kids' defender... or Himmler being freedom activist!

Please only refer to real Religions, not business cults or manipulative so called spiritual beliefs.

Links for preventing further abuses: www.miviludes.org www.ciaosn.be www.prevensectes.com www.videosectes.fr.st www.icsa.org www.hemerosectas.tk www.ais-sectas.org www.culticstudies.org www.freedomofmind.org www.xenu.net www.antisectes.net www.unadfi.org www.sectes.net www.infosectes.com www.pseudo-sciences.org http://charlatans.free.fr

Comment - There is a problem with doing as the above unsigned-statement requests. Specifically, it would very likely be a violation of NPOV if we, outside editors, were to seek to impose our own opinions about what is and is not "true religion" (in any sense of the phrase) upon wikipedia. Also, unfortunately, there now are people (I know a few) who honestly believe the Necronomicon is a real book, even though it was clearly invented by H. P. Lovecraft. The lines between fiction and reality dim over time, and on that basis I think we are best served by neutrally applying ourselves to all articles which appear to relate to religion, whether or not we personally consider them to be legitimate religions. Badbilltucker 18:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Names of God in Judaism

Names of God in Judaism has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" from featured status. The instructions for the FAR process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Religious leaders

The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. I posted on general proposal for cleaning it up at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. I didn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Mairi 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Shakers FAR

Shakers has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 18:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible task forces

There is a possibility that, given the number of creeds that this project covers, we might create a few work groups or task forces (I'm uncommitted about the name) for various of the religions which this project now directly encompasses. I'm thinking right off the top about Baha'i, Iglesia ni Cristo, and maybe a few others. Would any of the members be interested in establishing such task forces. For creed which fall within the scope of any of our daughter projects (like Lutheranism, the Baptist church, Methodism), we'd probably want to check with their direct "parent" project (in these cases, Christianity), to set such up. Are there any work groups which people would like to see created? Badbilltucker 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

At least one of the Judaism wikiproject editors has objected to the use of an [:Image:7BrahmanMH.jpg] which could be considered to be idolatrous as being on the banner set for Judaism related articles. It would not surprise me if other people from Abrahamic faiths have similar objections. I suggest the use of a different image on the banner so as to minimize problems. [:Image:ReligijneSymbole.svg] might be a good one. JoshuaZ 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Being nice works both ways

When we want people to be civil to us, it's important to be civil to them (assume good faith, giving the benefit of the doubt, and all that jazz). The change to "See also" was a logical one, since the links are tagged to show only "Buddhism", etc. instead of what they should show "Buddhism project", etc. The heading "Related projects" is correct (well, one could still argue that point - are any projects really "related" in any way other than being on Wikipedia?). At any rate, the person who made the change while adding an interest to join the group simply made a change that seemed resonable to them and was certainly not vandalism in any stretch of that term. Nightngle 20:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly haven't been following all of this ... but my observation is one long standing editor (Beit Or) edited the section heading from Descendant WikiProjects to See also with the edit summary this is the most that I can conceed. Later, another long standing editor (Badbilltucker) edited the section heading from See also to Related projects, and in their edit summary made a reference to previous vandalism (try to at least provide context next time you decide to vandalize a page). The new members (Nightngle and Kkrystian), if I'm not mistaken, have not made any edits to the names of sections. At least that's my take on the sequence of events. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 21:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah! P.S. -- Welcome to the new members! :-) Keesiewonder 21:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've actually seen the "descendant projects" on other project pages, even when the project listing them as descendants actually came after the project listed in the section of descendants. On that basis, I chose to copy what seemed to me at the time to be the standard procedure in such things. Clearly, this is an issue which may well be more of a hot button issue than others, and my own relative lack of tact for the past few days may have played a role, for which I sincerely and wholeheartedly apologize. However, as I have posted to the instigator a clear record of at least one guideline and two official policies which he clearly and explicitly broke in the instigation of this matter, I expect I shall return to my normal, sweet, loving, only vaguely homicidal (joke) :) self shortly. Badbilltucker 22:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and history. I think that some issues are more a matter of opinion than willfully breaking the "rules" - one of those problems where folks are expected to both "be bold" and follow all of the policies. But hey, we've got that cool "re-vert" feature to fall back on! It's all good. :) Nightngle 23:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How to become a member?

What should I do in order to become a member of WikiProject Religion? Kkrystiantalk 23:18 (UTC+1) 21 Dec 2006

Presumably, just sign up. - Jmabel | Talk 20:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Shakers: Featured article review

The featured article Shakers is currently undergoing featured article review. In the course of that, User:Rjensen took it upon himself to make a massive and (in my view) ill-advised cut. Not particularly my area of work, so I thought I'd draw attention to it here in hopes of getting someone involved. See Talk:Shakers#Massive deletion. - Jmabel | Talk 20:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

New WikiProject?

How do I go about starting a new one? Specifically to concentrate on the Satanism articles. They're controversial and need some attention (positive rather than "Hey this isn't MY belief"). WerewolfSatanist 18:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Omar khanah

Sorry, I can't seem to find this wikiproject's "to do" list, if any. Omar khanah needs some educated fixing up, as right now it seems to be very inflamatory and POV. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why does this article strike you as a religious one? Personally, I think it should be deleted, since it doesn't seem to be about anything. Nightngle 16:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems to be one faction's nasty opinion of another faction. Certainly it's a horrid article, but I don't know enough about the subject to honestly say it's just non-notable nastiness. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It's confusing to me as well. Personally, I think it should be deleted. The content could be added to a "Middle Eastern slang terms" article is such a thing exists, but on it's own, I don't think it's notable or worthy of being of a stand-alone article. I tagged it for deletion, so we'll see what happens. Thanks for clarifying. Nightngle 17:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fictional religions?

I don't want to take responsibility for removing the Wikiproject Religion template from D'ni, if the particpants in this project think it appropriate that it be there, but perhaps it should be pointed out that the D'ni are a fictional culture in the Myst series of computer games. (The D'ni are monotheists, worshiping a god named Yahvo, who may or may not be identified with the Judeo-Christian YHWH.) Are other fictional religions going to be a part of this project? Cactus Wren 06:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge the question you raise, and, in fact, it was a question which I considered when placing the banner there. I decided to include the banner on that page, and in fact on those of all the fictional religions, for the following reasons:
  • (1) The majority, if not all (I forget) of those articles had yet to be assessed. Given that the scope of this project is the Category:Religion, of which the Category:Fictional religions, is a subcategory, I perhaps presumptuously decided that any relevant assessment would be better than no assessment at all. Certainly, any article can benefit from having a greater number of editors focusing on it.
  • (2) Any well-constructed fictional religion, which I believe from the article this one is, reflects the personal beliefs of the creator of the religion on the general subject of religion itself. As the scope of this project is intended to deal with religion in all of its forms, we would be remiss if we did not pay attention to these written discussions of the subject as well, particularly because:.
  • (3) As a former religion student of the school of Mircea Eliade, I am aware that several of the "fictional religions" are created by individuals who are allowed by the nature of their work to engage in rational speculation about the subject of religion which many of the professionals in the field are obligated by their professional standing to avoid. Certainly, Robert Holdstock's Mythago Wood series, particularly the novel Lavondyss contains a very clear, punchy summary of what could very well have been one of the early influences in the development of the religious impulse. Having said that, I'm not sure exactly how to include that particular idea in any articles, but I believe we may be able to reasonably do so somewhere down the road. If not, a link to that article from some other article, with perhaps an expansion of the article to more directly deal with that subject, are certainly possible.
You are, of course, completely within your rights to remove the banner if you believe that it's inclusion is not appropriate to the subject. Thank you, however, for your polite inquiry on the subject. It is refreshing to see that at least some editors are capable of manners. Thank you again for your polite question, and it is my sincerest hope that you continue to enjoy working on all the articles you find of interest in the knowledge that I and this project, to the degree that I can speak for others, will not seek to assert our own prejudices or presumptions on the rational content of the articles. Badbilltucker 15:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
My vote would be that we have a lot to cover with the religions of the world, so until we're done organizing those, we should probably not include fictional religions too. Nightngle 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Religion/Archive 1 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States

The article on Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States has recently been locked because of edit warring. The underlying issue seems to be a disagreement between those who want the article to focus narrowly on the formal affiliations of the Presidents, and those who want it to focus on more broadly on their religious beliefs. To my way of thinking, we can probably cover both... but we need to clarify that while two concepts overlap, they are not synonymous. Some neutral, third party, input might help to clarify the confusion. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, WikiProject Religion. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have had many problems in past with this article, but the most recent problem is that the article fails to mention the Crown Heights riots, even if but to mention that Schneerson's motorcade was involved. Again my source, and my justification, for adding this to Schneerson's article is that the New York Times obituary [1], and every retrospective article I found on the riots, mentions Schneerson. When I add any mention there is a team of editors that raises extraneous and false claims. I would urge authors interested in this area to help edit some entry in this article that does justice to the link.

My entry, which I thought was the least controversial, although entered in the controversy section (should it have its own section or his legacy?) stated:

  • Crown Heights Riot

The Crown Heights disturbances in August 19, 1991, which became a central issue in a New York City mayoral race, were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child. In the days that followed, a riot erupted in the neighborhood, reflecting existing tensions between Jewish and black residents. Two men, one of them a young Lubavitch adherent, were killed during the riots. A grand jury found no reason bring charges against anyone in the motorcade.[1][2]

I could live with a shorter version. My quibble is that an article on Schneerson should include the words: motorcade of ... Schneerson and Crown Heights riot in the same paragraph. I could use help from editors providing some reasonable framework with how to proceed.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ New York Daily News, article titled Crown Heights erupts in three days of race riots after Jewish driver hits and kills Gavin Cato, 7, in 1991, retrospective about the riots, by Rich Schapiro and Ginger Adams Otis, August 13, 2016.
  2. ^ Rabbi Schneerson Led A Small Hasidic Sect To World Prominence by Ari Goldman, June 13, 1994.

Proposed merge of Henotheism & Monolatrism

I have proposed a merge of Henotheism and Monolatrism. I can't see any real difference between the two, and at least one of the sources for the latter shows similar uncertainty ("Monolatry and Henotheism". Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. VIII: 810.). If anyone more knowledgeable can improve the distinction, or provide other comments, the discussion is at Talk:Monolatrism#merge proposal. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Stephen T. Lane

I have nominated the article on Stephen T. Lane for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen T. Lane. I think the discussion would be of interest to those involved in this project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Broadest supercategory of "Sinitic religion"

I recently started the article "Sinitic religion" as the broadest supercategory of Chinese reigion, overcoming all the distinctions between the variety of forms of Chinese religion, including popular and elite, diffuse and institutional, ritual and philosophical. I recognise that the category is intrinsically blurry, and overlaps with "religion in China" and "Chinese folk religion" (popular or diffuse). We are now discussing the destiny of the article, since some could see it as a "fork" of other articles. Please see the discussion.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment

RfC on the subject of new religious movements is being held at Category talk:New religious movements. Input from this group would be welcomed and appreciated. Thank you, Happy Hanukkah, Joyous Christide, have a great weekend. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about Religions is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking for more input on a thread I started a few days ago at Talk:Unitarianism#This should be the main article on Unitarianism. That page doesn't get a lot of action, so Carbon Caryatid suggested that I solicit more feedback here. Thanks in advance! —PermStrump(talk) 16:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Child marriage and Teen marriage articles

Opinions are needed on Talk:Child marriage/Archive 1#Recent changes and Talk:Teen marriage#Recent image addition. The first discussion concerns changes made to the article's terminology, the use of images and whether or not to merge the article. And the second discussion concerns whether or not the lead image is appropriate for the article. Permalinks here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis‎

I recently cleaned up this article about a Traditionalist Catholic who advocates "geocentrism"" and has an anti-semitic history - removed a bunch of SPS and other primary sources. Could use more eyes. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Cru_(Christian_organization)

This article needs some work. This is the new name for Campus Crusade for Christ. I don't know that much about it. It needs more people to watch it to ensure that it remains NPOV, and it needs to be expanded with better sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think there's far too few people watching the article. Often very POV language is added by people with little experience with WP (who mean well) and I seem to be the only person who removed it. The article needs more people to watch it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore)

This is not really my field of interest, but perhaps people here can have a look at this article. It seems to be chock-full with SYNTH/OR/personal opinion and definitely it unencyclopedic at this point. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Providence:

The old article for the New Religious Movement has been split into several articles. See:

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Persecution by (groups) categories

The result of the discussion was: No consensus - with caveats. I came very close to closing this as Delete. I cannot see that any of the Keep votes have given any compelling reasons why the category should stay "as-is". Indeed, the majority of the Keep votes were very poor indeed in regards to policy. There is something of a consensus for keeping a similar category, but not named as such. The suggestion of Category:Religious persecution by secular governments given below is, I suggest, a good one. I suggest all editors who have commented here work towards moving this category to something approaching that one, because as given, the current title is frankly original research. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The CfD at Category:Persecution by atheists has recently been closed as "no consensus." During the process of the discussion, points of parallels with other religious persecution categories was raised by at least me. I believe that it might be useful to have some sort of discussion regarding how to name the various pages and categories relating to religious persecution by group Foo, and, I suppose, whether there should be specific qualifying language in the various categories for the purposes of determining what pages should be included. Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Just so everyone is on the same page, this CfD was not closed as "no consensus". It was closed as No consensus - with caveats. The difference is rather important. I've copied the complete closure wording to the top of this thread for easy reference. As was made clear in that discussion, attributing the persecution as "by atheists" or atheism is unsourced original research, which is actually refuted by the preponderance of reliable sources. Suggestions on how to properly categorize Wikipedia articles involving religious persecution are being discussed below. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking strictly for myself, I rather like a suggestion Black Kite made in his closing the CfD discussion. He specifically suggested "persecution by secular governments" or similar for a name for the category in question. I tend to think maybe changing the existing categories from "perseuction by atheists" (or Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, or Islam) to "religious persecution by atheistic (or secular, or Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Muslim) governments" or maybe by "(foo) societies" would probably be a better and less maybe inherently inflammatory language currently used by blaming the adherents themselves, although the proposed change has a potential problem in that it may well be the case that some types of "foo governments" might include a lot more potential cases. Secular state indicates just how many current governments might fall within that category. Also, I suppose, there might be, rare, cases when the government has one particular apparent religious orientation but a persecution under its regime might be conducted by another religious group within the state. I don't think that is likely to happen often, though. In any event, I think the alternative names above are at least worth considering. John Carter (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

John Carter, User:Black Kite a secular state (such as India) is very different from an atheist state (such as North Korea). Right now, the related categories read: Persecution by Muslims, Persecution by Buddhists, Persecution by atheists, etc. We need to follow standard conventions or else all of these categories would need to be renamed. Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I actually am suggesting above renaming all of them to something like "religious persecution by foo governments" or "religious persecution by foo societies". However, the breadth of the term secular state, which would be relevant to "secular governments" or "secular societies" categorization does strike me as I said above as maybe a bit overbroad. Atheist state and "atheist government" would be a lot narrower field. John Carter (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I do agree with John Carter, the term secular state is a bit overboard, while the term Atheist state or "atheist government" would be a lot narrower field. I agree with your suggesting to renaming all of them to something like "religious persecution by foo governments". But I suggest the Persecution by atheists category renaming as "persecution by atheist governments", because as i cited above a secular state is very different from an atheist state. --Jobas (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Black Kite's suggested use of "secular states" is too broad. It lumps states like France with the USSR and China. "Atheist states" or "Atheist governments" could work. Majoreditor (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@John Carter and Jobas: Just wondering, since quite a lot of the content of the category (apart from former communist countries which have their own category anyway) was related to Spain in the 1930s and Mexico in the 1920s, whether these can be described properly as "atheist states". It's an open question, I don't have a final answer. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Marcocapelle: State atheism is a popular term used for a government that is either antireligious, antitheistic or promotes atheism. In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. State atheism may refer to a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen. Calles -Mexico in the 1920- was a staunch atheist and anticlerical and during his term as president, he moved to enforce the anticlerical articles of the Constitution of 1917, which led to a violent and lengthy conflict known as the Cristero Rebellion or the Cristero War. His regime been characterized as an atheist state, and his program as being one to eradicate religion in Mexico.--Jobas (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Marcocapelle: - (As an aside, we should take care not to confuse "state atheism" with "atheist state"/"atheistic state", two entirely different terms, but both still inappropriate for the categories we're designing.) When categorizing articles covering religious persecution with a "Religious persecution BY xyz" category, "xyz" must accurately and uncontroversially describe the source of the persecution. We already have Category:Religious persecution by communists, or more specifically Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union / Category:Persecution by the Soviet Union, for articles describing persecution by the Soviet regime. For France during the French Revolution, Mexico in the 1920s and Spain in the 1930s, we presently have only Category:Anti-clericalism, Category:Anti-Catholicism or the over-broad Category:Religious persecution. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest moving Category:Persecution by atheists to Category:Religious persecution by atheist states; I don't think the intention was to list all kind of persecution and by all individual atheists. In this respect, I would also suggest merging it with Category:Religious persecution by communists, because I don't know difference (Does anybody know non-communist atheist states?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staszek Lem (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This is contentious enough (and this topic is sufficiently more broad than this venue) that when a couple concrete options can be hammered down, it should probably take RfC form. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I think some Buddhist groups officially qualify as atheistic, so, presumably, any governments run by those groups might, broadly, qualify as atheistic. Having said that, there does seem to at least me to be a situation here in which, with a few exceptions, many or most of the overtly religious persecution by overtly religious groups might also be from times when comparatively totalitarian states were more common. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Category: Opposition to X

Just saw Category:Opposition to Islam in the United States added to an article, which I found somewhat surprising.

This led me to go looking and I found a whole slew of similarly named cats (search):

There are a whole slew of things in Category:Anti-Islam as well.

by way of contrast (search)

So what about these "opposition to X" categories? Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it "anti-X:, "opposition to X", or "persecution of X"? You can see that these names (especially "persecution of X" as opposed vs "anti-X" or "opposition to X") convey extremely different meanings. Extremely. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
"Opposition" to my eyes would imply official opposition, which might make it a suboptimal word to use in this connection in a lot of cases. "anti-" is even vaguer, and, on that basis, to me anyway, suboptimal. "Persecution" to my eyes might only really be useful when there is some sort of clear and obvious persecution of individuals based on the named variable. Specifically regarding Islam related content, maybe one option would be "Islamophobia in Foo"? John Carter (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

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

Thanks for the notification Plantdrew (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

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

Thanks for the notification Plantdrew (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Conflict on Menachem Mendel Schneerson and mention of the Crown Heights riots

I have closed the dispute mediation board, since I do not believe that would be productive. Instead I have listed the conflict in

Thanks for the notification Plantdrew (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Criticism of monotheism

Category:Criticism of monotheism has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of fulfilled prophecies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fulfilled prophecies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fulfilled prophecies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaleoNeonate (talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Yarsanism; Ali-Illahism

There is proposal to merge Ali-Illahism in Yarsanism; the proposal can be discussed here--MiguelMadeira (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Christianity and violence

We have a passionate new user; could use more voices in the discussion. User:Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming "420 collaboration"

You are invited to participate in the upcoming

"420 collaboration",

which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017!

The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion.

WikiProject Religion participants may be particularly interested in the following category: Category:Cannabis and religion.

For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of new infobox for religious characters

See Template_talk:Infobox_religious_biography#Character Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

FAC of Heathenry (new religious movement)

Just to let folks interested in religion know that Heathenry (new religious movement) is currently up for FAC. It would be great if some of those reading this could come, take a look, and offer their thoughts at the FAC page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Mahavira

Need some help with Mahavira. Would anyone like to review the article? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata

The discussion going on at Template talk:Infobox religious text#Wikidata is relevant for this wikiproject. Please give your comments. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 13:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Chthonic, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Nomination of Descendants of Adam and Eve for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Descendants of Adam and Eve is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendants of Adam and Eve (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation overkill proposal at WP:Citation overkill talk page

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Archive 1/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Religion.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Religion, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:Citation overkill RfC

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should this essay be changed to encourage more citations?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Input requested on use of "orthodox"

At Pentecostalism, there is currently a discussion on whether it is appropriate to describe mainstream Christians/theology as "orthodox". Input would be appreciated. Ltwin (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You are Invited

You are invited to coment, ask questions and draft Free will changes at talk:free will in the light of new empirical evidence. [[wiki Enjoy the day, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Nominated deletion of multiple Categories: "Persecution by..." Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists

Hi everyone, I think all of the categories with "persecution by..." should be eliminated. Including the one on atheism. This recommendation for elimination includes Category:Persecution by Hindus, Category:Persecution by Muslims, Category:Persecution by Buddhists, Category:Persecution by Christians. I think all of these categories were all made in bad taste as if to accuse and associate violence with people's worldviews. It tends to oversimplify worldviews and relates them to complex situations by placing blame. So these all look to me like POV pushing.

Since @John Carter: raised similar wide concerns in a previous discussion, I am linking it here [2].

I have started a discussion for deleting all of these here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_4. In that same discussion page there is a nomination to delete Category:Persecution by atheists as well. Hope this helps. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that categories like these are often used to label something that an advocate does not like. However, the key test is whether reliable sources have written about the topic, as a topic. That is, if sources identify "persecution by X" as a thing, a category with that name would be justified. Possibly Wikipedia would be better off without the category, but at least there would be an objective reason for establishing it. Unfortunately, once we have persecution by X, there would be a strong tendency for people to want to even the score with persecution by Y and Z and all the others. Johnuniq (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq, I agree with you. That is why I think all of them should be removed as the way these are labeled causes controversy and does temp people to "even the odds". Interestingly, there are no categories for Category:Persecution by Jews or Category:Persecution by Sikhs so I think that people just started adding them just for that. In order to avoid controversy and double standards, we should only leave categories that have "Persecution of..." since those are more neutral (there is better documentation). And of course the sources for persecution are very complex - for instance Christians themselves were persecuted for centuries, they never had a doctrine for persecution, and their leader argued against persecution. In Islam, Muslims too were persecuted early on during Muhammad's lifetime and even took shelter under a Christian rulers. I think that peace and conflict do fluctuate through time in that enemies become allies and then it reverses because the sources are not from these worldviews, but from changing economic, social, and political circumstances. The fact that coexistence among Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims is the norm throughout history, should provoke reconsideration of persecutions and what raneg of factors trigger them. There is no Category:Persecution by Pagans or by the Greeks or Romans or Aztecs or Mayans and they, like everyone else did persecute some people or groups at one point or another. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Minor point for possible correction

The article Unification Church in its info box says that the classification is Unification Church of the United States. I don't see how this is possible, that a larger entity is a sub-classification of a smaller entity. How about New religious movement for the category? 12.27.66.8 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

New template

I have created a new template, Template:Episcopal lineage. It is used to display the lineage leading up to a bishop (including archbishops, cardinals, popes, patriarchs, etc.). It is configured to be used for Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and other Christian denominations that maintain a historical episcopate. An example of its use can be found on the template page or in the Pope Francis article. Ergo Sum 04:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red's new initiative: #1day1woman

Women in Red is pleased to introduce...
A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman
  • Create articles on any day of any month
  • Cover women and their works in any field of interest
  • Feel free to add articles in other languages, too
  • Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Category discussion

You are invited to participate in the Critics of Islamophobia discussion. 79.67.78.57 (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Contentious statement on Joan of Arc page

Hi, I'm just popping in because I noticed something a little odd on Joan of Arc, details on the talk page and was hoping that someone more knowledgeable might be able to help out. Thanks! Mehmuffin (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Two merger proposals currently being discussed

I notify that there are two merger proposals currently being discussed, both pertaining to Modern Paganism.

Participation in the discussions has been low so far. I notify the discussions here since the dedicated WikiProject Neopaganism is practically dead.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Tenrikyo articles

At the moment, I'm working on adding information and sources to Tenrikyo-related articles, particularly the three scriptures (Ofudesaki, Mikagura-uta [not created yet], Osashizu), and the important people (Miki Nakayama, Izo Iburi). I would appreciate any help with checking the content for neutrality, completeness, and accuracy, and with proper formatting of references. Thanks! Singularity 23:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania 2017

Anybody working in this project happening to be attending Wikimania? I am here, and would love to meetup for some in-person time if anybody else is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FULBERT (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry; forgot to sign my Talk post. FULBERT (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Right now happens a discussion for renaming Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings into Category:Deities and spirits

[here]. CN1 (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Jewish content at the Definitions of whiteness in the United States article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Definitions of whiteness in the United States#Jewish material. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Ching Hai move request RFC

Can some of you folks at this project take a look at Talk:Ching_Hai#RFC_requested and give some input to the RFC. Thanks, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Help needed on Kirpal Singh

I would appreciate additional editors to weigh in on a dispute regarding Kirpal Singh#Legacy and succession. (Article history) (Relevant talk section) Sondra.kinsey (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the WP:TALK guideline discourage interleaving?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #2. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox Philippine mythology

Template:Infobox Philippine mythology has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox deity. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.--HouseGecko (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Hero, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

RfC at Karl Marx

Should the categories Ashkenazi Jews, German people of Jewish descent, Jewish atheists, Jewish philosophers, Jewish socialists, Jewish sociologists be added to this article?Talk:Karl_Marx#RfC RolandR (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Utter ouster of small-sampled poor-quality survey data from "religion in..." articles when solid and official data is available, by force of policy

Definitions:

  • "Big data" are censuses, official surveys, large-scale demoscopic analyses (such as the Sreda Arena Atlas of Russia), government-counted church membership
    • Government-filtered church membership are those, for instance, of Scandinavian countries; church membership data not filtered by a secular institution should be taken with pliers and avoided, since many of them tend to inflate their membership. The recent case of the Catholic Church's data fraud in Norway (they included 65.000 fake members) should be kept in mind as an exemplary case.
  • "Small data" are small-sampled surveys and surveys conducted by general polling agencies and market agencies.

The latter ("small data") should be kept out in those cases in which the former ("big data") are available. In cases in which no "big data" are available, "small data" may be used, though carefully evaluating their due weight and therefore their due placement in the article.

Exemplary cases:

et. al.

Alternatively, this format (giving a less visible place to minor surveys, as a list at the bottom of the page or anyway far from the lede) may be applied for small data when "big data" are available.--Wddan (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Reliable surveys are completive to the articles. They shouldn't be erased.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
In the case for Czech Republic, the division is correct since the article has one "census data" section and one "survey data" section, but if the article has only one "demographics" section, both of sources should be in the same paragraph, since they complete the article.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Should tables and pie charts which represent statistics in "religion in..." articles include the non-respondents?

There is an ongoing dispute in some talk pages about whether the mian text, tables and pie charts which represent statistics should include the non-respondents in the total count when the survey or census itself includes such option of not responding. Examples are "Religion in France" and "Religion in Hungary".

What do you think about this? Should or should not the articles include the non-responding population in statistical counts?--Wddan (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

In some cases, like the Religion in Hungary article, adjusted census data is needed in order to better understanding the surveys, that show very similar data. A reader that compares census results to survey results should know this. Many people choose to not answer to some questions also becouse for political matter, maybe they don't trust in the polling agency/government. The better way to deal with missing data is using data adjusting. This is a very neutral way to do this. It's assumed that the population with missing data has the same composition as the population we have data for. It doesn't exlude any particular sect as you would point out. By the way, I didn't remove the pie that includes also missing data.
Regarding the Religion in France article, the source already uses adjusted data, and it's more specific:
It cites 47% of contacted sample answered they are christians, 37% are non religious, 6% didn't answer and 3% followed an other religion other than Islam.
Adjusted data is 51.1% Christian, 39.6% Non-religious, 5.6% Muslim, 2.5 Other religion, 0.8% Jewish.---FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
We simply may not know why the people who chose not to respond did it, and what is their religion or non-religion. All the rest is speculation.--Wddan (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Pie and other charts should report the census or survey result. They should show "no answers" or "refused to answer", etc. as separate "pies". Another hint: In many countries we observe several surveys with quite differing data over time or sample groups. We should not edit warring over which data is superior, more recent or more reliable. We should rather use a matrix and report this data in separate columns, well knowing that they conflict. BR Ulrich --Nillurcheier (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not speculation. We know the religious affilition of only the people that answered the question, so they are the only one taken in consideration. In surveys/censuses that have large unanswered data (for example Hungary, but also Slovenia, Czechia, Slovakia and others) leaving "no answer" as variable in the pie chart doesn't give a realistic view of the situation (especially in the comparision over time). It can be keeped, as @Nillurcheier: said, in separated tables or pies.FrankCesco26 (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

We don't "know" the affiliation - we know what people said their affilation was. (related to that, it is important to include numbers for people who refused to answer at all) Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog: We are precisely discussing about that, about whether to include people who refused to answer at all in those cases in which the census or survey has an option for "opting out", such as Religion in Hungary.
By the way, Religion in the Czech Republic is not to be put into discussion, since the census report does not show double data, one including and the other excluding the non-respondents, as it is the case for Religion in Hungary but also Religion in France, this latter being a slightly different case in which the final count totally excludes the non-respondents.
Nillurcheier: I think that the separation of the two sets of data is a wrong idea, especially when they are not separated in the original report, since the projection of the results for the respondents on the non-respondent population is undue, as explained above.--Wddan (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Dear readers, we need other 1—3 opinions to reach a consensus about whether the non-respondents should always be included in tables and other graphics or not. At the moment the result of the discussion is inconclusive. I repeat my opinion once again: projecting the results for the respondent population on the non-respondent population is a gross mistake, since the non-respondents may include people who do not recognise themselves/are not members in the given organised religions but are not necessarily atheists.--Wddan (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
A headache! Still, they should be included when available, even though it is not always clear what the numbers mean.
In the case of Religion in China, the article is cluttered with tables and charts, some of which are way out of date, and some of which do not reflect the sources, but it's hard to get a consensus. Any advice on how to make the article parallel to others in the category would be welcome.ch (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that if the number of non-respondent people is negligible (under 5%), it can be keeped. If it's so big to compromise the results, data should be adjusted. Also, if the source shows adjusted and non-adjusted data, adjusted data should be preferred.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

RESULTS:

  • 1 vote for adjusted data (exclusion of the non-respondents) (FrankCesco26);
  • 1 vote unclear (Nillurcheier, correct me if I misunderstood your opinion. At a quick reading of your comment it seems you support FrankCesco26's position, but it is unclear whether you meant "different pies" or "different slices" of the same pie);
  • 3 votes for including the non-respondents (me, Jytdog, CH).

VERDICT: Data should include the datum of non-respondents when available/clearly shown in the published data

The discussion is closed.--Wddan (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I ment different slices in one pie Sorry for confusing you BR --Nillurcheier (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Now the consensus is even clearer:

Women in Red November contest open to all


Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest

Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest

Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

MOS page about articles Buddhism

Dear fellow Wikipedians, In response to repeated discussions about policies and whether they hold for articles on Buddhism, I have drafted a policy proposal to include into the Manual of Style for Wikipedia articles about Buddhism. The proposal does not actually include much new policy, but rather attempts to apply policy to articles on Buddhism in an understandable way, similar to MOS:ISLAM. Content is based on discussions held on Buddhist articles, as listed on the talk page. Comments are welcome.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Fatimah

Comments are requested at Talk:Fatimah § Requested move 23 November 2017 concerning a proposed title change. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh-day Adventist historicist interpretations of Bible prophecy (2nd nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh-day Adventist historicist interpretations of Bible prophecy (2nd nomination). James (talk/contribs) 04:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Religion

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 18:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Church of Satan

Broader input is welcome at Talk:Church of Satan#RfC about Church of Satan membership figures. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Religious law

The article on Religious law would probably be of interest to this WikiProject. Vorbee (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Positions on Jerusalem

I added the WikiProject's template to the talk page of Positions on Jerusalem but it was removed. I think that it's on the scope of the project because of the religious importance of Jerusalem for the Abrahamic religions. Do you think that it should be re-added? Rupert Loup (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Opinions needed to reach consensus for two merger proposals

We have two merger proposals at Talk:Modern Paganism for which strong consensus has yet to form despite they've been open since July 2017. We need a number of other opinions. The proposals pertain two articles which are poorly written, with bad or no sources, and whose content is already well treated in the main article. Time to cleanse Wikipedia of uninformative, chaotic junk.

The two discussions are:

Please thoroughly read the reasons for the merger.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that History of religions, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

RFC: is faith healing a pseudoscience

An Request For Comments is asking whether faith healing should be categorised as a pseudoscience. Good arguments have been made by both sides, which you of course can consider before casting a vote, if interested.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians to be moved to Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. Sorabino (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Leinth

Difficult for me to judge whether provided information is accurate and whether sources are reliable. Kindly please check. Thank you. (I am marking the drafts with wikiproject tags, not involved into the draft writing. It seems pretty specialized...) --Gryllida (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies

Has anyone come across Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies before? Any thoughts regarding general reliability etc? I got no response at the India Project talk page and I think the Hinduism project is pretty much moribund. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There's some information about the founder here. Maybe you should check the impact factor.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 02:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks but who is the founder? Witzel? If so, we already use him quite a lot. I'm pretty clueless about impact factors and will have to read up on them but the one thing I think I have seen in AfDs is that they're more useful for scientific journals than humanities. Still, it is a start and appreciated! - Sitush (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the page x of the book says that Michael Witzel is the founding editor. I think it is definitely a reliable venue to publish. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Title: "Slavic paganism" or "Slavic religion"?

More opinions needed in this discussion.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion Invitation

A merge proposal was made to merge Keith Raniere with NXIVM in November 2017, I have revived the merge proposal. Please see discussion here. Your comments in the discussion would be appreciated. -- Waddie96 (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

When to use Fooian paganism vs Fooian religion

I noticed a discussion at Talk:Slavic_paganism#Historical_Slavic_Religion,_What_Gives? about whether to call it paganism or religion. Shortly after, I noticed we are inconsistent in our naming here. Under Category:Paganism in Europe almost all articles are named Fooian paganism of paganism in Foo (ex. Finnish paganism, Germanic paganism, Category:Paganism in Lithuania, etc.), but there are two exceptions:

Setting aside some minor wording issues (Fooian zzz or zzz in Foo), I am rather confused as to why some religions are called paganism. Ancient Slaves and Germans were pagans, but Ancient Greeks had a religion? That is confusing, particularly given that the term paganism is sometimes pejorative. Sure, I am aware it is used in literature, but usually it's inconsistent, i.e. 'ancient religion of/in Fooland' is also used for what other scholars may refer to as 'Fooian paganism/paganism in Fooland'. Given that paganism is, as noted, sometimes pejorative, it might be well considering whether we should not rename the current paganism articles and categories to 'ancient religion' format. Speaking as a sociologist, through not an expert in sociology of religion, I think the term paganism is poorly defined, and should not be used to describe old religions, which are more simply, correctly and neutrally known as ancient religions. Before I propose a bunch of RMs, however, I'd like to hear other editors opinions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

  • This is a valid concern, and you should consider starting a formal RfC about it. Although i have little knowledge about European religion from before Christian times, i think we should follow whatever the most reliable sources say (as well as the most recent sources). I know that there are similar debates in Buddhist studies about Tantric Theravada, which has a pejorative ring to it and these days is described by scholars by a vernacular term instead, i.e. Boran or Yogavacara Buddhism. For what it's worth.
  • Perhaps Alarichall can better answer this question, as he is familiar with relevant research terminology more than anyone else, I think.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the heads up, Farang Rak Tham! I agree with the reservations expressed here about the term 'paganism'. Historically, it means (depending on who you ask and when) 'anyone who is not Christian/Judaeo-Christian/Abrahamic/part of a World Religion'. So, historically, the term 'pagan' has been imposed on people more or less as a term of abuse. Obviously, some people in the last century or so have self-consciously adopted the term 'pagan' (or its synonym 'heathen') as a description for modern religions that claim to be based on ancient ones, but I don't think that's very relevant to articles and categories about ancient religions. One piece of scholarship that helpfully charts the problems with the term 'pagan' is Owen Davies, Paganism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). 'Religion' is often also an anachronistic term, as many societies didn't have a concept of a boundary between religion and the rest of their culture. But it's more neutral, so I'd support 'Ancient Egyptian Religion' over 'Ancient Egyptian Paganism', etc. There will be occasions where this doesn't work well though: you'd expect an entry called 'Finnish religion' to be about all the religions in Finland (the state Lutheran and Orthodox churches, etc.). Maybe we could try 'Traditional Finnish religion' in this sort of context? Alarichall (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Alarichall and Farang Rak Tham: I'd think we could chose one of the two formats: "Old Fooian religion" (as in Norse) or "Ancient Fooian religion" (as in Egyptian, Greek, Roman). Not sure which is better, but those are subjective, neutral terms. Some seem more popular in some context (Old Greek would sound a bit strange, as my Ancient Norse...). Not sure if we need to chose one, but we should be able to call all such old religions either Ancient or Old. Sometimes it may not be necessary. Ex. I came here from the Slavic paganism/religion page, where people discussed also whether it should be called old or ancient, with the resulting choice of neither. I don't think many people would be confused hearing of Slavic religion and made the assumptions that it would be a topic about modern day Polish or Russian or such religions... PS. It's a pleasure to find a non-defunct WikiProject, where one can get meaningful replies :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

RM notice at Islamic terrorism

The discussion can be found here:

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Parliament of the World Religions 2018

I have not seen any in-person meetups of anybody in this project at Wikipedia / Wikimedia events such as Wikimania or the Wikimedia Conference, but wanted to raise this issue related to the Parliament of the World Religions in Toronto in November, 2018. I think the scope of our WikiProject Religion here is valuable, and as this is an international conference related to the topic, that it may be a potential place of interest for our community to gather. Very interested to hear if anybody is considering going or if there would be any interest in convening an Editathon around topics of importance to religion there as I am thinking about attending and would love to help organize one. Would even appreciate any connections to anybody in the Toronto Wikimedia community.

I don't think I'm going to the Parliament, but I'd be very interested in an edit contest about religious articles on Wikipedia, if that's what you are referring to.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I would love to do an Editathon at the Parliament, though am a bit shaky on doing it without any other support. That is what I am looking for here or otherwise will submit a proposal about doing this. Was hoping to find somebody who was local and would want to partner. Otherwise, will put the flag in the ground myself and try for something. Thanks Farang Rak Tham. Wonder if anybody else has any suggestions? --- FULBERT (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Might be a good idea to ask at WT:CANADA. There may be a wiki community in Toronto that could help. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals

Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals.Bermicourt (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Witch and witchcraft: two Wikidata items, and a problem

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Witchcraft#Witch and witchcraft: two Wikidata items, and a problem which is of relevance to this WikiProject. Narky Blert (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated several redirects to Dystheism and Misotheism at RfD. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 3 would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Want to create an article named "Kabir God"

I want to create an article on the subject 'Kabir God'. Though an article already exists on the subject, but that presents Kabir God as merely a mystic poet. There are millions of people(followers of Saint Rampal) in India who worship him as a God, and they have reliable proofs too. I intend to present the basis beneath their faith. Kabirisgod (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Please respond this section. Can it be done on Wikipedia?

Kabirisgod (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Find WP:RS which discuss that. No sources, no article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
If there is an article already you don't simply create a new article because you disagree with the existing one. you use neutral reliable sources, (policy as linked above) to add information to the page. for changes which are considered major or contentious you discuss it first on the article's talk page as your username suggests you are a WP:SPA and advocacy is not encouraged. Mramoeba (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of a film category

There is a discussion at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed [3] that may be of interest to this project. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I wonder how such a discussion can reach a formal conclusion, when no formal RfC procedure has been started.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"Pantheon"

I'm hoping someone involved in this project can help sort out what I think is a bit of a mess, spanning Wikipedias in several languages, as well as several sister projects.

The word "Pantheon" designates three different things, as better indicated in de:Pantheon than in any one place I can find on the English-language Wikipedia:

  1. An ancient Greek or Roman temple to all the gods. This is the origin of the word. I don't think we have a corresponding article.
  2. The concept described in our Pantheon (religion): the panoply of gods and or other mythical beings in a given polytheistic religion.
  3. Buildings named "pantheon" that are not necessarily pantheons in the first sense. E.g. the Panthéon in Paris, or the Stourhead Pantheon. This meaning is incidental and doesn't deserve encyclopedic treatment, but as far as I can tell, it is the only one that has a Commons category (commons:Category:Pantheons, which I've proposed renaming to 'buildings called "Pantheon"').

Until very recently the first two meanings had, confusingly, only one Wikidata item, which I've now split out to pantheon (Q3376141) and Pantheon (Q54857987), respectively. I think the first meaning probably deserves an article in the various Wikipedias.

(I encountered this issue while trying to sort out some Commons/Wikidata issues, and this seemed the best place to bring it.) - Jmabel | Talk 22:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Page Move Discussion

There is a Page move discussion going on for Rajneesh. Would anyone be interested in participating? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajneesh#Requested_move_11_June_2018 Accesscrawl (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Embassy chapels

Hi everyone, I created a new page, Embassy chapel, that displays an interesting and underrated feature of Religion: Embassy chapels. For example, before Catholicism was legal, English Catholics were able to worship at the Embassy chapels of foreign governments, like the French, Portuguese, or Sardinian embassy. Four London churches today have roots in those embassies (Church of St Anselm and St Cecilia, St Etheldreda's Church, Church of our Lady of the Assumption and Saint Gregory, St James's, Spanish Place). The page also talks about other embassy chapels around the world (for example, protestant churches in Italy or churches in China and the Ottoman Empire), which provided religious havens to persecuted religions thanks to diplomatic immunity. I've linked a lot of resources but I don't have much time to fill in the page. Any and all help is welcome. Eccekevin (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Page move discussion

After a page merge, there is now a WP:RM discussion of moving Tanakh to Hebrew Bible occurring at Talk:Tanakh. Members of this WikiProject may be interested in participating in that discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Help in Guru Nanak controversy

Hi. There is an editor, Lepchav, who is removing information from the Gurudongmar Lake article that they consider false regarding Guru Nanak. Issue is they also are claiming that there is no trace of Guru Nanak in history, without presenting reliable sources that back up the claim, so I think there is a WP:NPOV situation going on with the removal. Could you guys please take a look at the situation as impartial editors? Thanks in advance. Thinker78 (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Five-Percent Nation

The Five-Percent_Nation#Myths_and_realities section is poorly written, and cites mostly 5-perfecent Nation sources and apologetics. It should be re-written entirely. I would like outside input on the Talk:Five-Percent_Nation#Myths_and_Realities Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed the section, but it was restored. I'd like outsiders to comment on the issue. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Ethics in the Bible

I have proposed a change to the structure that will affect content at Ethics in the Bible. Please come to the talk page and comment. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Biblical criticism

Biblical criticism is up for peer review in preparation for FA. This is an important article. Please come and comment. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Noah's Ark

Hi. Please comment on the talk page section of the article Noah's Ark titled "Existence of the ark" as to whether the given source verifies the text. Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Unification Church/movement

There are many issues with the articles relating to the "Moonies" sect:
1. It is written by its members and so all the articles lack balance and are sourced by its own literature / authors favourable to them.
a) need independent contributors
b) need to avoid "Scientology" type problem in that content is shaped by its members
c) many critical sources are missing
2. Far too many forks on what is a fringe movement, need to merge them into one
Abcmaxx (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Remember to sign your posts. In any case, if this is true, this is an issue. Neutral sources should be used, and not internal Church sources. We had a similar problem with Providence (religious movement). You should cite specific examples though. As for it being fringe, it is a pretty big church in Korea, so many articles probably make sense. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Harizotoh9 the problem is the sources are disguised as neutral but the whole article is skewed to an unbalanced viewpoint, very cleverly removed/diluted all dissent/criticism over time Abcmaxx (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Oliver McTernan

Is Oliver McTernan notable? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Need input on Omnipotence paradox article

There's a dispute at Omnipotence Paradox (relevant section on talk page) concerning this edit: [4]. Can I get some outside opinions on it? Thanks. Banedon (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2018

In November 2018, Women in Red is focusing on Religion.--Ipigott (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott, I have looked at the link, but it's a lot. How do I tell you people I have written about a female religious figure?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Farang Rak Tham: Use the {{WIR-98}} template on the talk page of the article. You can become a member of WikiProject Women in Red by registering in the box at the top of the main Women in Red page. Hope to see your coverage of interesting religious figures. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Ipigott!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, I don't know if this is the right place, but these articles definitely need some attention. I'm just posting here to try and solicit help on revamping the many Anthroposophy-related articles. For many years, these articles have had pervasive POV issues mostly due to hyper-involved single-purpose editors with COIs. The articles in question are Anthroposophy, Waldorf education, Anthroposophic medicine, and Biodynamic agriculture. Most of these articles read like promotional material and desperately need our help. To get more specific Anthroposophic medicine is actually pretty good, but the others in that list are pretty good examples of WP:BROCHURE.

I could give you the diffs and the many ArbCom rulings, ANI postings, etc. (and will if asked) but suffice it to say that there is a very small group of editors who are themselves professionally linked to Anthroposophy and Waldorf education who are gatekeeping the articles so that all edits are filtered through their lens. As a result, many of the criticisms and less-favorable aspects of the history of this new age religion are dimmed in favor of excessive detail about the adherents' beliefs and positive praises of the subject material.

I of course want these articles to detail the beliefs of anthroposophists, no question about that. But overly favorable language and WP:WEASEL words are pretty rampant throughout. Then the many racist and unscientific views of adherents (anti-vax, anti-microbial theory of disease, their founder Steiner didn't believe in evolution, believed in racial "types", reincarnation, believed Jewish people should fully assimilate and abandon all Jewish identifiers, etc.) are minimized and reduced in size, book-ended with positive praise, and so on. Combine that with the overly wrought language and hyper-sophistry of the article text, and you have what we see today. I will tell you that if you agree to help me, you may become exhausted in the process. But if the wiki itself is less promotional in the process, it will have been worth it!!

Please don't come into this process with fiercely pro- or anti-Steiner views. The guy was just a random 19th century philosopher who had some interesting and crazy ideas. The only reason I'm interested in these articles is because of how clearly they are an example of what can happen when a very diligent, very obsessive, very biased group of editors are 99% of the edits on a set of controversial articles.

I personally am starting with the root article Anthroposophy and then hope to expand to revamp the daughter articles in the series. I've tried in the past to help bring these articles to NPOV, but was unsuccessful like many before me due to attrition, wiki-breaks, and a general dissatisfaction dealing with the very involved COI-editors. So I'm hoping that asking for help from more uninvolved editors will do the trick. Any takers? Thanks. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Using the term mythology at the World egg article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:World egg#Contentious wording: Mythology, a slur. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC notice: Jewish religious clothing

A Request for Comment that may be relevant to this WikiProject is open at Talk:Jewish religious clothing § Request for Comment. Ibadibam (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Sunstone magazine on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Sunstone magazine on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Sunstone (magazine). — Newslinger talk 22:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Utah Polygamy and Law Since 2000

I'm wondering if someone from this WikiProject could take a look at this article and assess it. It was created by a student editor as part of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Brigham Young University/HIST 221 - Gonzales - The United States Since 1877 (Winter 2019), and student moved the article to the mainspace on their own without submitting it for WP:AFC review. There are some WP:MOS and other similar errors which can be cleaned up, but my main concerns are that it's a WP:CONTENTFORK which might not need it's own stand-alone article. I don't believe the university course this student created the article for has ended; so, it's possible that they are still going to get graded on their work; at the same time, it's been added to the mainspace which means that it probably shouldn't be left as is just because it's part of a student editing project. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly, if it is a content fork, from which article is it derived? What are the MOS errors you are concerned with?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. It seemed like this could basically better covered in Current state of polygamy in the Latter Day Saint movement, but that's just my opinion. The MOS issues had to do with redundant section headings, no lead, image use, etc. but those either have been cleaned up or can be cleaned up. It's all a moot point now perhaps since the article has been userfied by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga

It's a new religious movement, and the article relies heavily on primary sources, made some questionable claims, and reads a bit like an ad sometimes. I've done some cleanup, and removed the section about medical claims that seems to have violated WP:MEDRS. Any further suggestions for improvement would be welcome. I know very little about them relatively. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Current discussion:

Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What to do about Criticism of the Catholic Church

A user has suggested splitting Criticism of the Catholic Church; you are invited to discuss at Talk:Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church#Revert,_damage_too_much_to_fix.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Five Percent Nation

There's an ongoing dispute about the neutrality of the article. I've made a post on the neutral point of view notice board on it.

Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Falun Gong for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Falun Gong is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Falun Gong until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 09:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Ayyavazhi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Ayyavazhi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ayyavazhi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Scientology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Scientology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Scientology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 22:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Transliteration for Isma'ilism/Ismailism

Hi to all, I've begun a discussion on standardizing the transliteration of Isma'ilism/Ismailism and its adjectives across Wikipedia. Anyone interested is welcome to give his or her opinion on the matter. Constantine ✍ 17:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Tibetan Buddhism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Tibetan Buddhism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tibetan Buddhism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 01:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Vancouver/1000 Women in Religion

1000 Women in Religion: A Wikipedia edit-a-thon at "Atla Annual 2019" in Vancouver, British Columbia
Sheraton Vancouver Wall Center

The 1000 Women in Religion Project is working to improve the coverage of women’s contributions to religious, spiritual and wisdom traditions worldwide. In support of this goal, the edit-a-thon at Atla's (formerly the American Theological Library Association) annual meeting will focus on improving articles about women in religion. We would love to have a few Vancouver area Wikipedians to help us get new editors oriented and editing!!

Wednesday, June 12, 2019
8:00am-12:00pm
Sheraton Vancouver Wall Centre
1088 Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 2R9 Canada

--Rosiestep (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran

Your feedback would be appreciated at this request for comment on Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran. Mathglot (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Tahdhib al-Tahdhib on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Tahdhib al-Tahdhib on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Muhammad Bin Qasim page. — Newslinger talk 22:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Ahmadiyya for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Ahmadiyya is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ahmadiyya until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC on religion

There is an RfC in progress that has the potential to affect how religion is treated in the infoboxes of many country articles, I urge all to participate in the discussion which is at Talk:Australia#RfC dated 23 June 2019 - Should religion be removed from the infobox?. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, AussieLegend.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Citing and referencing religious texts

Hello, I was pointed here from the help desk with my question since I might have a better chance to find an answer. My original post, and questions, are as follows: Is there a standard way to use religious texts, such as the Torah, as references and cite them? How important is it to provide a link to the text being referenced in the citation, if at all, and how should the fact that when translated into English discrepancies are not uncommon between different translations? Thanks, The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of sources in the School of Economic Science article

There is a discussion on the reliability of several sources cited in the School of Economic Science article. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Review School of Economic Science article. — Newslinger talk 10:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC of interest

The following RfC may be of interest to members of this group: [5]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Voice of India#Neutrality and questionable ref page numbers

Hi guys, there is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Voice of India#Neutrality and questionable ref page numbers which might be relevant to this project. Your participation and expertise would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.Tamsier (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Is it appropriate to present 2020 data forecasts about religion demographics in major articles?

Since February 2019 (and currently), the section of the article "Taiwan" about religion demographics presents data forecasts for 2020 as the only figures, replacing the official government statistics released in 2005. I think that official government statistics should have precedence over other data, and even more so if the latter are unverified speculation (per WP:NOCRYSTAL) which has not be proven factual. What is your opinion?--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Not appropriate There are many factors that can affect demographics, so forecasts should not have preference above recent data. If both years can be included, it would be best. If that is impractical, then stick to 2005.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Muhammad and the Bible moved to Muhammad and the Bible (Islamic claim)

Is this a good idea? If you have an opinion, see Talk:Muhammad_and_the_Bible_(Islamic_claim)#Pagemove. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Expulsion of Jews from Spain

An article of interest to this project—Expulsion of Jews from Spain—has been proposed for merging from Alhambra decree. Your feedback would be welcome at the merge discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Death for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Death is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Death until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 01:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Kemetic Orthodoxy article considered for deletion

The article Kemetic Orthodoxy is currently being considered for deletion. If you want to voice your perspective on why this should or should not be deleted, please share that here. --- FULBERT (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Top 1000 page

Greetings, At WikiProject Religion/Top 1000 the page was created 15 May 2009, at 15:15 and not been updated since then. Wondering if it can be either deleted, or activated to update? Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

JoeHebda, I thought it was automatically updating. How can that happen if it is not already doing so? FULBERT (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@FULBERT: - this is Not "Popular pages" which is updated monthly. The "Top 1000" states This is a compilation of the data received regarding the top 1000 articles for hits for... and then it lists the 4 WPs. So I'm only guessing but sounds like it reads the Wikitables for those & then condenses down/combines to the top 1,000 articles. JoeHebda (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Zoroastrianism

I notice that WikiProject Zoroastrianism is inactive. Would any one in this WikiProject Group be interested in getting it active again? Vorbee (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC on reliability of The Epoch Times

There is a request for comment on the reliability of The Epoch Times. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: The Epoch Times. — Newslinger talk 04:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the question on this Walkerma. I will answer via the form, but wanted to state here that I do not know what this tool is and likely do not use it as a result. I am posting this here in case anybody else in this project wants to comment on it or add more information / guidance as to this tool. --- FULBERT (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Muhammad and the Hindu scriptures

A strange page called Muhammad and the Hindu scriptures has appeared recently. Can we have a few eyes on it to check if it is worth keeping? Pinging Dharmadhyaksha, Ms Sarah Welch. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Cursorily seems like a fringe theory and the editor seems obsessed with it. Check histories of Kalki Avtar aur Muhammad sahib (book), Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avtar aur Muhammad sahib (book), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) (3rd nomination), User:Lazy-restless/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Pinging Redtigerxyz, Nvvchar although they seem inactive. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Odd is this new article. Except for rare exceptions such as an OUP source, almost all the sources I have checked so far are SPS/fringe/non-RS. The OUP source by Robinson is merely summarizing fringe allegations such as those of "Siddiq Hussain" in her critical review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Moved here. Left suggestions/comment for Lazy-restless here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Does these five sources seem to be RS?

[1][2][3][4][5]. Yoginder Sikand is anotable writer.

  1. ^ Indian Journal of Secularism: IJS : a Journal of Centre for Study of Society & Secularism. The Centre. 2005. Retrieved 8 November 2019.
  2. ^ Sikand, Yoginder (2008). Pseudo-messianic movements in contemporary Muslim South Asia. Global Media Publications. ISBN 9788188869282. Retrieved 8 November 2019.
  3. ^ Salvadori, Cynthia (1989). Through open doors: a view of Asian cultures in Kenya. Kenway Publications. p. 184. ISBN 9789966848055. Retrieved 8 November 2019.
  4. ^ Lawrence, Troy (1990). New Age Messiah identified: who is Lord Maitreya? : Tara Center's "mystery man" alive and living in London. Huntington House Publishers. p. 132. ISBN 9780910311175. Retrieved 8 November 2019.
  5. ^ Nguyen, Pram (2009). Great Religious Myths of the Twenty-First Century. Dorrance Publishing. p. 105. ISBN 9781434902382. Retrieved 8 November 2019.

-- Lazy-restless 04:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Lazy-restless: Generally speaking, the burden of proof is on the editor who wants to add/change something that has been challenged or make exceptional claims (here that is you), not other wikipedia editors. That is particularly true when we are dealing with fringe/sensitive/controversial topics and where experienced editors/admins are getting upset with the kind of articles/content someone is adding. I will help you with one example. In your list of 5 above, if you look into Dorrance Publishing, you will find that it is a WP:SPS, so non-RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
ISKCON Bangladesh has mentioned in their journal that Muhammad has been prophesized in Atharvaveda book 20, hymn 127. "বৈদিক শাস্ত্র: মনুষ্য রচিত কাল্পনিক সাহিত্য নয়" [Vedic scriptures: not a man-made fictional liturature] (Imprint). Amriter Shandhaney (অমৃতের সন্ধানে, In search of Elixire) (in Bengali). 4 (21, October-November-December 2018). 79/1, Shamibag Road, Dhaka-1100: ISKCON, Bangladesh: 29. 1 October 2018. Retrieved 3 November 2019. পৃথিবীতে বিভিন্ন অবতার ও মহাপুরুষের আবির্ভাব সম্বন্ধেও বেদে নির্ভুল ভবিষ্যৎবাণী করা হয়েছে; যেমন: ★ বুদ্ধ (ভাগবত ১.৩.২৪) ★চানক্য (ভাগবত ১২.১.১১) ★ সম্রাট আশোক ও চন্দ্রগুপ্ত (ভাগবত ১২.১.১২) ★ শ্রীচৈতন্য মহাপ্রভু ( মহাভারত ১২৭.৯২.৭৫, বাগবত ১১.৫.৩২), ★ যীশু ও মুহম্মদ (ভবিষ্যপুরাণ, অথর্ববেদ কাণ্ড ২০, সুক্ত ১২৭, ১-৩)[Meaning:The Vedas also hsve accurately predicted about the appearance of various incarnations and great peoples on earth; For example: ★ Buddha (Bhagavat 4.1.22) ★ Chanakya (Bhagavat 12.6.1) ★ Emperor Ashoka and Chandragupta (Bhagavat 12.12.12) ★ Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (Mahabharata 122.12.2, Bhagavat 4.1 .12), ★ Jesus and Muhammad (Bhavishwapurana, Atharvaveda, book 20, Hymn 127, 1-3).]{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: location (link). I am giving here a screenshot also, see here.

[[File:|250px|thumb|right|Prophecy of Muhammad in Atharvaveda claimed by ISKON Bangladesh journal]]. link -- Lazy-restless 06:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Lazy-restless: ISKCON is a faith-based advocacy group, their publication(s) typically have no independent / scholarly peer-review process. Why is this alleged ISKCON publication in Bangladesh a reliable source per wikipedia community agreed guidelines? You mention Atharvaveda book 20, hymn 127 above. Like other important texts of Indian religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism, Atharvaveda hymns have been studied by scholars and their translations published. It is such scholarly sources we must rely on in wikipedia. More specifically, you can find a scholarly translation of the kuntapa-hymns such as the Atharvaveda book 20, hymn 127 here by Maurice Bloomfield – a Jewish scholar of Sanskrit and comparative linguistics. There is no mention of Muhammad or Islam or anything remotely related, in that Vedic hymn (or others). In fact, parts of it [liquor, etc] teach the opposite of what is in the Quran and the Hadiths. Please see WP:FRINGE and WP:TE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Extended content

XX, 127. A kuntâpa-hymn.

(Translation of Maurice Bloomfield) A. 1. Listen, ye folks, to this: (a song) in praise of a hero shall be sung! Six thousand and ninety (cows) did we get (when we were) with Kaurama among the Rusamas,-- 2. Whose twice ten buffaloes move right along, touether with their cows; the height of his chariot just misses the heaven which recedes from its touch. 3. This one (Kaurama) presented the seer with a hundred jewels, ten chaplets, three hundred steeds, and ten thousand cattle.

B. 4. Disport thyself, O chanter, disport thyself as a bird upon a flowering tree; thy tongue glides quickly over the lips as a razor over the strop. 5. The chanters with their pious song hurry on blithely as cows; at home are their children, and at home the cows do they attend. 6. Bring hither, O chanter, thy poem, that which earns cattle and earns good things! Among the gods (kings) place thy voice as a manly archer his arrow!

C. 7. Listen ye to the high praise of the king who rules over all peoples, the god who is above mortals, of Vaisvânara Parikshit! 8. 'Parikshit has procured for us a secure dwelling when he, the most excellent one, weat to his seat.' (Thus) the husband in Kuru-land, when he founds his household, converses with his wife. 9. 'What may I bring to thee, curds, stirred drink, or liquor?' (Thus) I the wife asks her husband in the kingdom of king Parikshit. 10. Like light the ripe barley runs over beyond the mouth (of the vessels). The people thrive merrily in the kingdom of king Parikshit.

D. 11. Indra has awakened the poet, saying: 'Arise, move about, and sing; of me, the strong, verily, sing the praises; full every pious one shall offer thee (sacrificial reward)!' 12. Here, O cattle, ye shall be born, here, ye horses, here, ye domestics! And Pûshan also, who bestows a thousand (cows) as sacrificial reward, settles down here. 13. May these cattle, O Indra, not suffer harm, and may their owner not suffer harm; may the hostile folk, O Indra, may the thief not gain possession of them!

14. We shout to the hero with hymn and song we (shout) with a pleasing song. Take delight in our songs; may we not ever suffer harm!

— https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe42/index.htm

Hymns of the Atharva Veda, by Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1895], at sacred-texts.com

p. 363

HYMN CXXVII A hymn in praise of the good Government of King Kaurama 1Listen to this, ye men, a laud of glorious bounty shall be sung. Thousands sixty, and ninety we, O Kaurama, among the Rusamas have received. 2Camels twice-ten that draw the car, with females by their side, he gave. Fain would the chariot's top bow down escaping from the stroke of heaven. 3A hundred chains of gold, ten wreaths, upon thee Rishi he bestowed, And thrice-a-hundred mettled steeds, ten-times-a-thousand cows he gave. 4Glut thee, O Singer, glut thee like a bird on a ripe-fruited tree. Thy lips and tongue move swiftly like the sharp blades of a pair of shears. 5Quickly and willingly like kine forth come the singers and their hymns: Their little maidens are at home, at home they wait upon the cows. 6O Singer, bring thou forth the hymn that findeth cattle, findeth: wealth. p. 364 Even as an archer aims his shaft address this prayer unto the Gods. 7List to Parikshit's eulogy, the sovran whom all people love, The King who ruleth over all, excelling mortals as a God. 8'Mounting his throne, Parikshit, best of all, hath given us peace and rest,' Saith a Kauravya to his wife as he is ordering his house. 9'Which shall I set before thee, curds, gruel of milk, or barley- brew?' Thus the wife asks her husband in the realm which King Parikshit rules. 10Up as it were to heavenly light springs the ripe corn above the cleft. Happily thrive the people in the land where King Parikshit reigns. 11Indra hath waked the bard and said, Rise, wander singing here and there. Praise me, the strong: each pious man will give thee riches in return, 12Here, cows! increase and multiply, here ye, O horses, here, O men. Here, with a thousand rich rewards, doth Pūshan also seat him- self. 13O Indra, let these cows be safe, their master free from injury. Let not the hostile-hearted or the robber have control of them. 14Oft and again we glorify the hero with our hymn of praise, with prayer, with our auspicious prayer.

Take pleasure in the songs we sing: let evil never fall on us.

— https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av/av20127.htm

Significant change in both of their translations. Only the unchanged/fundamental verbal/literal translation of the hymn (Avoiding any kind of self-invented metaphoric meaning of the devine script) from the original sanskrit text can make it clean and clear to understand it actually. -- Lazy-restless 19:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Lazy-restless: No. Please do not convert this talk page into a forum to share your views on how "devine [sic] script" should be translated/interpreted. See WP:TPNO for more, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Fundamental theology

This little stub needs some TLC. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Definition of 'Language'

Contributors to this WikiProject may be interested in discussion at Talk:Language#Definition of 'Language'. I think changing the definition warrants input from more editors, but unfortunately don't have time to add much to the discussion right now. Cnilep (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Main usage of 'Christ'

Participants in this WikiProject may be interested to discuss the main usage of Christ at Talk:Christ (disambiguation)#Main usage. Cnilep (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Hinduism

I see that Wikipedia: WikiProject Hinduism has been labelled as semi-active. Would any one in this WikiProject group be interested in getting it fully active again? Vorbee (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Prayer meeting, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

RFC: Scope of article Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques

Please consider contributing to this Request for Comment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Language

Contributors to this WikiProject may be interested in a discussion at Talk:Language#Edits undone March 2020 regarding making that article easier to read. Cnilep (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC which may be of interest

An RfC on whether it is appropriate to use the disputed 2011 census in the lede of Religion in Albania may be of interest to project participants. [6]. Khirurg (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Religion in Albania

An RfC at Religion in Albania may be of interest to project participants.[7]Resnjari (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for New WikiProject

It occurs to me that Wikipedia could be helped by a new WikiProject - WikiProject Mysticism. This could help to improve Wikipedia's coverage of famous mystics, such as Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart and Julian of Norwich, and famous mystics from Eastern religions, and also improve Wikipedia's coverage of scholars on mysticism, such as Evelyn Underhill or Rudolf Otto. Please let me know if there is a place I can go to on Wikipedia for suggestions for a new WikiProject. If you do not think this is a viable proposal, maybe it could be a task force in this WikiProject (WikiProject Religion). Vorbee (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I have now made a proposal for this WikiProject at Wikipedia: WikiProject Council. Let me know if any one in WikiProject Religion would be interested in starting this new WikiProject. Many thanks, Vorbee (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for Islam

We have notability guidelines for bishops in Christianity but we don’t have anything that covers similar ground in Islam. There is an increasing number of new articles created about Muslim religious figures, some notable and others not. It would be helpful to have some guidelines so that non specialist editors could judge whether the subject of an article is notable or not. I have some ideas about this but would like to work collaboratively with others interested in the same field. Is anyone interested in working on this with me? Mccapra (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance

Big article, input on talkpage welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Basilica#RFC

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Basilica#RFC. Elizium23 (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Kabir Helminski

Hi there. I would like help progressing the above draft article so that it passes Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. I have a declared link to the subject, so a co-author with no connection to the author would be much appreciated. Kabir Helminski is a Sufi Muslim author, translator, and teacher. Many thanks! Danthedervish (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Citations on Religious subjects

Hi guys, I'm a little unclear on what constitutes Reliable Sources and how to cite information on religious articles. Are there any policy pages explaining how to find appropriate citations for articles on religion? Would we cite religious scholars? How do you destinguish from a Reliable Source and an unreliable one. I'm not that up-to-date regarding the academic study of religion in general, so I'm looking for some information on how to write articles on it. By the way, is there any way to search just Wikipedia Policy pages? In other words I was looking for religious policy but what I ran a search all I got was normal articles. Thanks – Chrisvacc - ✆ 20:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake


Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#WP:RSPSCRIPTURE

For the interested, this is a discussion about to what extent we should use primary sources in the "plotsections" of articles concerning religious stories. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Just in case there are folks here who might be interested in reviewing drafts awaiting article status that are particular to this WikiProject. If you'd like to sign up to review/approve/decline new Drafts, instructions are here. AFC Reviewers get to use really cool automated tools that make reviewing really quick and easy, and I've really enjoyed volunteering there, and I'm really digging the AFC Sorting tool so instead of having to comb through lots of articles, I can zip right to topics I'm interested in. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Self-flagellation in Hinduism

Can someone double-check this section: Self-flagellation#Hinduism. A new editor has made substantive changes to the section. I reverted the original changes because there was no source. The editor has added a source. I would prefer not to get too involved in the content, which is in a field I don't know much about. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Falun Gong

There is a new RfC at Talk:Falun Gong#RfC on describing Falun Gong as a new religious movement. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the notability of the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

Hi there is an RfC on the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe that may be of interest to this project. See: Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe#Request for comment: on the notability of the CTMU in 2020 with sources published after 2006 and "unredirect" of this page to Christopher Langan - Scarpy (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on ecclesiastical titles

There is a proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO that editors are encouraged to participate in. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

All, I've stumbled into what's starting to feel like a bit of a walled-garden around Dawoodi Bohras related articles. Hmkwfrance is a new user who started to create a fairly large number of articles about people connection to this faith but many of them were moved to draft space for sourcing issues. They came back and recreated the articles again in main space with some sources, but I questioned some of those sources and removed others. The result was some really, really bare articles. Murtaza.aliakbar has come along and improved some of them but I've still got notability concerns. I'm looking for some outside thoughts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idris Badruddin around notability of this person because of who they are and general notability based on sources. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Could use pointers on how to use Infobox religious biography

Greetings fellow Wikipedians, so while writing an article for another project (Women in Red), I happened to stumble upon the template linked above. I believe it would certainly fit the person in question d:Q20749193, but being somewhat unfamiliar with monastic or religious terms, I do not understand what many of the parameters refer to - and the template lacks a clear explanation. Specifically, I am wondering what to do with title, monastic_name vs regular name or birth_name, as well as profession: As far as I understand, as a mostly "regular" nun, she changed her name to the alternate name, and entering the convent, would have done a "profession". However, entering the profession parameter automatically starts a "Senior posting" section which doubles this info from personal, and I do not know what exactly "Senior posting" refers to.

For comparison, I have the pages of several of her convent's superiors, for example here or here. But these are all not simple nuns, so the infoboxes obviously do not look the same as they would for my person.

Basically, I need someone who can explain the template and/or does know more than me about Catholic monasticism. I thought I'd ask here, hoping to find the expertise concentrated at this project :) --LordPeterII (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Rabbi

The article Rabbi is tagged as being "within the scope" of this project as a C-class, "Mid-importance" article. There are several issues listed on the talk page that someone with more knowledge would be better equipped to handle. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Your input is solicited on a proposed merge at Talk:Catholic teaching on homosexuality! Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic prayers has been nominated for discussion

Category:Roman Catholic prayers has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Manabimasu (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Article Superstition in Judaism has been nominated for deletion

Hello,

Since some editors are contesting existence of articles associating religions and religious communities to superstitions, One of the article which concerns this project/topic has been nominated for deletion. You can support or contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstition in Judaism by putting forward your opinion.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello all! I'll be substantially editing this article [[8]]. Please feel free to give it a look if you'd like, I appreciate any input! Thanks, Michelle Gachelin (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Question about creating a new Wikipedia article

Is creating a new "Religion(s) in censuses" Wikipedia article a good idea? I'm thinking of a new Wikipedia article similar to these two, but specifically for religion:

Anyway, what do you think? Futurist110 (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? Futurist110 (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Worship of Ninigi

This question is mostly for people who are experts or have knowledge in Shinto.

So Britannica claims that Ninigi is no longer venerated. I’m not entirely sure if I misread or misinterpreting it but, it kinda implies he’s no longer widely worshipped. Any thoughts on this?

Source here https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ninigi

CycoMa (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Tablighi Jamaat - disputed COVID-19 section

A section on COVID-19 in Tablighi Jamaat is disputed, please discuss at Talk:Tablighi Jamaat/Archive 2#COVID-19 section. Fences&Windows 15:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Muse RM notification

An editor has requested for Muse (disambiguation) to be moved to Muse. Since you had some involvement with Muse (disambiguation), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Whether or not to move depends mostly on the question if a) Muses (the ancient Greek goddesses) is the primary topic, or b) Muses and Muse (band) are comparably significant, and there is no primary topic. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Nithyananda again

After a year or so of comparative calm, the BLP Nithyananda has been re-invaded both by haters and by devotees. This week, it's mostly followers clearly working in concert to whitewash, last week or so it was mostly detractors trying to dwell on allegations. This article needs more experienced, neutral editorial eyes and brains on it. The WP:SPA tides are not relenting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

See also followup discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Nithyananda again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV issues at Pope's Worldwide Prayer Network?

Hi folks. Pope's Worldwide Prayer Network has recently seen some very large additions by Libros abiertos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seemingly a single-purpose account. I'm not very knowledgeable in this topic area, so I'd rather leave it to others to take action. But my impression is that the changes have major NPOV issues. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Robby.is.on Thank you for your comment. I am new in writing Wikipedia entries and may make mistakes in tone. I’ll take your comments into account. I hope to gain experience and improve my writing to make it more encyclopedic. Greetings and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libros abiertos (talk • contribs) 11:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Christianity in Nepal

The article Christianity in Nepal needs a thorough rewriting. It is currently entirely based on Christian missionary sources and is extremely slanted in favor of Christianity (even citing that Christians would constitute 10% of the population while according to census they are 1.4%). There is a user who guards the article impeding any modification and the addition of problem tags. Based on the nickname, he is the very same author of many of the cited sources, a Christian missionary, and thus has a strong conflict of interest.--37.161.136.19 (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

problem of the creator of God

Could use a lot of work. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

But not like that. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I need some advice

Recently I created a template "Template:Catholic parishes of County Clare" that was moved to Template:Catholic parishes in County Clare because one parish is straddling the county border (two parts County Clare, one part County Limerick). I do not like it, but maybe Laurel Lodged has a point here.

But Laurel Lodged has now started discussion about the naming convention for the parishes (Talk:Corofin (parish)#Naming convention). He did not like my reply and is now making pointy remarks at parishes that do not need a disambiguation. See Talk:Parteen-Meelick-Coonagh, Talk:Carron/New Quay, Talk:Lisdoonvarna/Kilshanny, Talk:St. Fachanan, Kilfenora and Talk:Cratloe-Sixmilebridge.

I am about to loose my cool! Please advice how to proceed. The Banner talk 19:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Rhodes blood libel

I have nominated Rhodes blood libel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 12:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Mysteries of Isis GA Reassessment

Mysteries of Isis, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed move at "Icon"

Please comment there. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about biased sources on religion demographics needs opinions

There is an ongoing discussion about the use of biased sources in the field of religion demographics, here. Opinions from multiple users are needed.--37.162.158.168 (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Forum shopping can get you banned. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Interfaith articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Category:Interfaith articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Polydoxy

Been coming across this term lately in my metaphorical travels. Seems to have some decent academic tradition behind it. Anybody want to go in on writing the article? Hyperbolick (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

The infernal names 83,677 2,789 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

"Interdenominational" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Interdenominational. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 9#Interdenominational until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Template:Yoga

I'm proposing extensive changes to the Yoga navbox which include adding representation for Jainism and clarifying the relationships between Buddhist denominations in the navbox. Since this topic is relevant to multiple religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism), I would appreciate the input of those interested in WikiProject Religion.

Please discuss the changes at this link; discussion elsewhere may be missed:

Template_talk:Yoga#Proposed_partial_reorganisation

Explanations for my proposed changes are listed at the discussion page linked above along with a draft which I will update as the discussion proceeds. Scyrme (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Organized religion, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Religion in New Zealand

I think that no religion and undeclared is same as no religion. Why it's must be divided? Cahyand (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

For background on Cahyand's question, see User talk:Cahyand#Pie Charts.-gadfium 05:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Religion China, "Irreligion, Folk Religion and buddhism".

As Chinese diaspora, i think China is not irreligion or atheist country. Chinese people mixing Buddhism and Folk religion. In Buddhism people don't care religion important or not because buddha said action more important than only beliave religion. Being buddhism does not mean you must going to buddhist temple everyweek like going to church. Buddhism allow they re people to follow folk religion. It's same like Japan who follow both buddhist and shintoism. China is Buddhism and Chinese Folk religion Majority country. China and Japan is not atheist country like some European country. They re pie chart should be majority (buddhism and Folk religion), (Christianity) and (Islam). Cahyand (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cahyand: is there a specific article you're talking about? I think the article Religion in China pretty clearly states that there are many religious people in China, especially if one counts folk religion, if that's the article you're thinking about Sigvid (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal between ethnic and indigenous religion

I have created a merge proposal between ethnic religion and indigenous religion. Please see the discussion. —Caorongjin 💬 14:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion proposal for Growth of religion, Christian population growth, Muslim population growth, et al.

Over the years, these articles have turned into a battleground between Christians and Muslims (and occasionally others), anonymous and registered users, all pushing to present their religion as the fastest growing religion, filling the articles with walls of text and statistics supported by a plethora of dubious sources, some of them clearly unreliable as they come directly from the mouths of Christian or Muslim leaders, and journals and institutions functioning as the spokepersons of these leaders.

The articles have become unreadable and inextricable walls of text and statistics (against WP:NOSTATS) of propaganda. Moreover, "Christian population growth" and "Muslim population growth" are WP:CFORK of "Growth of religion". "Conversion to Christianity" and "Christianity#Demographics" have been developed as other forks and battleground for statistical propaganda. They often also contain unreliable speculations about the future (against WP:NOCRYSTAL), i.e. about which religion is the fastest growing one and will be the biggest, largest and greatest, often expressed in glorifying terminology.

The same discourse could be made for articles like "List of religious populations", "List of Christian denominations by number of members", "Christianity by country" (incl. Roman Catholicism by country, Protestantism by country, Eastern Orthodoxy by country, Oriental Orthodoxy by country), "Islam by country", "Hinduism by country", "Buddhism by country", etc. They are walls of statistics, easily prey to vandalism and whose sources are often difficult to verify. "Religious denomination" also contains a table with unsourced statistics. There is also the oddly titled "Religious information by country" which is a fork of "Religions by country".

I think that it is TIME TO PUT AN END to this statistical mess, which is drawing a lot of energy that should be better invested in the development of the main articles about the religions, explaining their doctrines, ethics, etc. Moreover, statistics are already treated in each country's main article (e.g. India) and in the articles about religions in a given country (e.g. Religion in India), often presenting official census data which are the most reliable ones.

Recently an IP user tried to delete some content based on the unreliability of some of the sources used. I agree with this user about the unreliability of the statistics coming from the World Religion Database/World Christian Database/World Christian Encyclopedia, which are edited by the same people who are also the directors of the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in the US. Also many statistical reports of the Pew Research Center are based on the same WRD/WCD/WCE data. Scholars have contested the validity of these sources, as they overestimate Christians and underestimate other religions:

  • A. Liedhegener & A. Odermatt, Religious Affiliation in Europe - an Empirical Approach. The "Swiss Metadatabase of Religious Affiliation in Europe (SMRE)", Zentrum für Religion, Wirtschaft und Politik (ZRWP), Universität Luzern, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.33430.55364, page 9: "...the World Christian Database (WCD) or the World Religion Database (WRD) which is a direct offspring of the WCD. ... In itself the latter is not an unproblematic source, because its data, gathered originally from the World Christian Encyclopedia, result mostly from country reports prepared by American missionaries. Therefore, a systematic bias of its data in favor of Christianity is a major, although controversial point of criticism".
  • Hsu, Becky; Reynolds, Amy; Hackett, Conrad; Gibbon, James (2008). "Estimating the Religious Composition of All Nations: An Empirical Assessment of the World Christian Database". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 47 (4): 691–692. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2008.00435.x
    • page 679: ... The main criticisms scholars have directed at the WCD concern the estimation and categorization of certain religious populations. There are questions about whether religious composition within countries is skewed by the overcounting of certain groups or variance in quality of information obtained on different religious groups. There is also concern about possible bias because the WCE was originally developed as a Christian missionary tool. Some of the country descriptions in the WCE have been characterized as having an anti-Catholic and pro-Protestant orientation (McClymond 2002:881), and Martin describes the WCE as a work "dedicated to the conversion of mankind" (1990:293). Criticisms have also been raised about projections for different religious groups and demographic trends, as the WCD provides empirical data for the population of religious groups well into the future. Doubts have been raised about the WCD's estimation and categorization of new religious groups. Steenbrink (1998) criticizes the 1982 WCE data for Indonesia, which suggest the population is only 43.2 percent Muslim and 36.4 percent "new religionist." Steenbrink maintains that those classified as "new religionists" should actually be classified as Muslim, even if stricter Islamic groups might disagree. Lewis (2004) observes that the Soka Gakkai, Rissho Kosei Kai, and Nichiren Shoshu in the Japanese Buddhist tradition are classified as new religions, whereas Pentecostals (a much more recent movement) are classified as Christian rather than a new religion. The size of Christian populations is also debated. Jenkins (2002) notes a large gap between the reported size of India's Christian population in the government census and in the WCE/WCD. While he admits that census figures omit many Scheduled Caste adherents who can lose government benefits by declaring Christian identity, he suspects the WCD overcounts Christians in India. The WCE has also been criticized for including "inadequate and confusing" categories of Christian religious groups, in particular, "Great Commission Christians," "Latent Christians," "Non-baptized believers in Christ," and "Crypto-Christians" (Anderson 2002:129). Some worry that it is difficult to distinguish Christians who keep their faith secret from Christians who practice an indigenized form of Christianity that incorporates elements of non-Christian religions. McClymond writes that estimates for the "non-baptized believers in Christ" or "non-Christian believers in Christ" in India who are Buddhist and Muslim "seem to be largely anecdotal" (2002:886). Estimates of adherents in the United States have also been challenged. Noll has questioned the designation and size of certain Christian categories, for which the WCD and WCE provide the most detail. Although he finds estimates for most Christian denominations agree with other sources, he notes that "Great Commission Christians"—a category used to describe those actively involved in Christian expansion—are estimated in the United States and Europe to be a much larger group than the number of Christians who weekly attend church (2002:451). Another cause for concern is the number of "independents," a muddled category including African-American, "community," and "Bible" churches. Changes in the data set also raise issues about categories: Anderson notes that groups previously labeled as Protestant in the first edition of the WCE in 1982 (Conservative Baptist Association of America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and the Presbyterian Church in America) were relabeled Independent in the second edition published in 2001 (Anderson 2002). Some have argued that projections of religious composition for years such as 2025 and 2050 should not be included with the empirical data, as they are merely conjecture (McClymond 2002). Irvin (2005) argues against making predictions about the future of worldwide religion based on recent statistics because Christian growth in Asia and Africa will not necessarily continue along the trajectory it has in past decades. ...
    • page 680: ... To address the criticisms mentioned above, we compare the religious composition estimates in the WCD to four other cross-national data sets on religious composition (two survey-based data sets and two government-sponsored data sets): the World Values Survey (WVS), the Pew Global Attitudes Project (Pew), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the U.S. State Department (State Department). In our analysis, we find support for some of the criticisms made by reviewers ... the WCD does have higher estimates of percent Christian within countries. Another important difference between the WCD and other cross-national data sets is that the WCD includes data on 18 different religious groups for each country while other data sets only estimate the size of major religions. In evaluating some of the specific critiques discussed above, we find that WCD estimates of American Christian groups are generally higher than those based on surveys and denominational statistics. ... The majority of data came from fieldwork, unpublished reports, and private communications from contributors who are a mix of clergy, academics, and others; the Christian origins of the encyclopedia explain in part its detailed information on Christian groups. ...
    • page 684: ... Figure 1 shows that the WCD tends to overestimate percent Christian relative to the other data sets. Scatterplots show that the majority of the points lie above the y = x line, indicating the WCD estimate for percent Christian within countries is generally higher than the other estimates. Although the bias is slight, it is consistent, and consequently, the WCD estimates a higher ratio of Christians in the world. This suggests that while the percentage Christian estimates are closely related among the data sets, the tendency is for them to be slightly higher in the WCD. ... On the other hand, the WCD likely underestimates percent Muslim in former Communist countries and countries with popular syncretistic and traditional religions.
    • page 692: ... We find some evidence for the three main criticisms directed at the WCD regarding estimation, ambiguous religious categories, and bias. The WCD consistently gives a higher estimate for percent Christian in comparison to other cross-national data sets. ... We also found evidence of overestimation when we compared WCD data on American denominational adherence to American survey data such as ARIS, due in part to inclusion of children, and perhaps also to uncritical acceptance of estimates from religious institutions. We agree with reviewers that some of the WCD's religious categories are impossible to measure accurately, such as "Great Commission Christians," "latent Christians," and "Crypto-Christians." ...

Some of the sources used in the articles are even worse than these. Therefore, what I propose is to DELETE "Growth of religion", "List of religious populations", "Christian population growth", "Muslim population growth", "List of Christian denominations by number of members", "Religious information by country", MERGE "Christianity by country", "Islam by country", "Hinduism by country", and the other articles of the same type into "Religions by country" without copying the content, and PURGE all the other articles from the statistical chaos.--37.160.140.73 (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hitchens's razor

I am attempting to add the line "Hitchens's razor is often invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God." to this article. This project may be interested in the discussion on the talk page. MarshallKe (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Heimdallr#Requested move 27 July 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Heimdallr#Requested move 27 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Satanic ritual abuse#Requested move 1 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Satanic ritual abuse#Requested move 1 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 05:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Joan of Arc

I have nominated Joan of Arc for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Hindutva § Adding new section on Dismantling Global Hindutva Conference

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hindutva § Adding new section on Dismantling Global Hindutva Conference. 2405:201:D01B:6A8D:398C:4357:788E:75CE (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Leadimage at Solomon's Temple

If you have an opinion, please share. Talk:Solomon's_Temple#Leadimage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Godhead

About five years ago I started Draft:Godhead so that we can replace the current disambiguation page, Godhead, with a proper article on this notable subject. Frankly, I have made little headway since then, this being outside of my expertise. Would anyone like to adopt this draft and raise it to adulthood? BD2412 T 21:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Orthodox Church of Albania#Requested move 17 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Orthodox Church of Albania#Requested move 17 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

GAR for Opus Dei

Opus Dei 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. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Kartikeya § Requested move 1 October 2021

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kartikeya § Requested move 1 October 2021. Venkat TL (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Philosophical theology into Philosophy of religion, 16 October

The article about "Philosophical theology" presents an intellectual argument put forward seemingly largely by one individual Mortimer J. Adler, about the nature of the philosophy of religion - attempting to draw a distinction between what he calls "philosophical theology" by religious outsiders, such as Aristotle, and Natural theology, by insiders. Its most appropriate place would likely be as a much-contracted entry in the philosophy of religion article (and possibly as a mentioned criticism on the Natural theology page. As it stands, having an article entitled Philosophical theology provides significant scope for confusion with the Philosophy of religion and Religious philosophy pages to the extent that casual readers could readily be confused. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Notification

Galileo Galilei 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of Sikhism

There are three RFCs currently underway at Talk:Criticism of Sikhism. Participation is welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Liberation theology"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Liberation theology#Missing_information_template_discussion, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Solomon#Leadimage

If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of ways people dishonor the dead#Requested move 8 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of ways people dishonor the dead#Requested move 8 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Jews and Christmas

Input and contributions will be appreciated at Draft:Jews and Christmas, where work is ongoing. Thank you! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

{{Infobox deity}}

FYI {{Infobox Buddha}} has been proposed to be merged into {{Infobox deity}} -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Move of Shaitan to Shayatin

An editor has requested for Talk:Shaitan to be moved to Shayatin. Since you had some involvement with Talk:Shaitan#Requested move 14 January 2022, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Skyerise (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for George Fox

I have nominated George Fox for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 21:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Involvement in discussion

Hello. I'd like to invite the WikiProject members to this discussion. I've seen no response for nearly a month. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 02:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback requested re sourcing megachurch attendance figures

Your feedback would be appreciated, regarding the sourcing of megachurch attendance figures. Please see WT:Verifiability#INDEPENDENT vs. ABOUTSELF regarding megachurch attendance figures. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Bible#RFC_about_history_in_the_Bible

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Workgroup for Liberation Theology

I'm not entirely sure how to create a workgroup, but I'm curious if there would be any interest in starting one dedicated to Liberation theology. There appears to be a suprising lack of Wikipedia pages dedicated to the subject, but I think there's plenty of content out there to start a workgroup.

I'm posting this in the Religion WikiProject instead of the Christianity WikiProject because I was recently made aware that Liberation Theology exists as a theological approach in many religions to some degree or another and there are plenty of pages about non-christian and religious people who are relevant to Liberation Theology (i.e. Malcolm X and his influence on James H. Cone). TipsyElephant (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Heathen holidays#Requested move 10 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Heathen holidays#Requested move 10 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Consistency on Fasting categories?

I'm not sure where else to bring this up, would appreciate ideas. Category:Fasting has among its subcategories: Category:Christian fasting, Category:Fasting in Islam and Category:Jewish fast days. I'd like to see the first two named in parallel and *maybe* the third, but I'm not sure what the names would be.Naraht (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Categories for extinct religions and sects?

While reading the Kharijites articles, which deals with various extinct Islamic sects, and noticing the List of extinct Shia sects, I became interested in looking up more extinct religious groups, but it doesn't seem we have a category structure to identify them. So I wanted to make some categories for them, but wanted to check here first. Would also be useful for articles like Catharism. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Ive created a few of these categories now, but I wonder if "defunct religious groups" would be a better name? FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on title of Quaker decision-making (link)

There is a discussion on the talk page of the newly-created Quaker decision-making article as to what the appropriate title should be. Thought folks here might be interested. SamBC(talk) 11:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Historicity of the Book of Mormon

There is a dispute as to whether Historicity of the Book of Mormon (and possibly other Book of Mormon related topics) ought to be included in the "pseudohistory" category. Input would be appreciated. --FyzixFighter (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

Hi, I am User:Bookku, I find information and knowledge gaps, try to recruit article expanding editors and promote drafts articles for further expansion.

Requesting your visit to following drafts / articles and help expand the same if any of these interests you.



Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Maximus the Confessor for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Ownership being asserted over articles concerning "Yoruba topics" (in this case religious)

This is a very unfortunate situation where an editor is saying that any Wikipedia:WikiProject Yoruba including in this case those on the Yoruba religion cannot be edited without discussing the edits on the talk page, and claiming to be the overseer of all related articles. To quote them: "Furthermore, anyone attempting to edit any of the articles under our jurisdiction ought to be aware that they need to put their thoughts in the talk page first and then we can discuss. The absence of such process can only be considered vandalism." This is not the way a Wikiproject should work, particularly one on religion. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Editor's been blocked, first for a week, then for longer due to their behaviour on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 06:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical region

Hello, I am asking for input on a new parameter for {{Infobox church}} and have opened a discussion at Template talk:Infobox church#Addition of ecclesiastical region. Please come and give your thoughts on the matter. Your input is welcome! Vesuvio14 (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Shahada

@Iskandar323: I'm curious about this edit where you reduce the article importance to this WikiProject to low. Despite being here over a decade I've always found the WikiProject ratings a mystery, so I could easily be off base. However, I would have guessed that Shahada would have been one of the more important religion -related articles on WP. DeCausa (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Its importance remains "top" for WikiProject Islam; I only reduced it to "low" for WikiProject Religion, which has much broader, more general scope. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, that's my point really. If it's Top for Islam, one of the world's major religions, it seems odd that it's low for religion. I would assume the principle declaration of faith of Islam would be a Top topic for religion. I've just looked at the Top topics that have also gone through FAR. Tecumseh, King Arthur and Kharijites warrant Top but Shahada doesn't??? As I implied earlier, I've always found WikiProject ratings unfathomable. DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Religious debates over the Harry Potter series Featured article review

I have nominated Religious debates over the Harry Potter series for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Infoboxes for what are figures in religion but not generally accepted as historical

Opinions are welcome at NPOVN discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Baháʼí Faith Featured article review

User:Nutez has nominated Baháʼí Faith for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Religious education in Kerala

I started the article Religious education in Kerala with hope like Islamic education I will get some citations for Christian religious education in Kerala being involved in organized educational activity but practically finding bit difficult to get citations; Idk if I am missing something in my searches. Requesting help for bibliographic info for religious education other than Islam.


Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Move Request Society of Jesus to Jesuits

An editor has requested for Society of Jesus to be moved to Jesuit. Since you had some involvement with Society of Jesus, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). –Zfish118⋉talk 23:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Help with article expansion

Hey, I found Christian Southeast Asia redirecting to Philippines, but that doesn't make sense as Philippines is a country and Christian Southeast Asia is an article about a specific demographic group in a specific region, and Philippines isn't even the country with the most Christians in the region, this distinction is awarded to East Timor. I'd be glad if the community expands the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.59.114.88 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Joan of Arc

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Joan of Arc/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Top-level importance for Hegel page?

I think this assessment is either a mistake or an act of vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

yoga-template update suggestions - pls review - thx

I've provided a draft of possible updates to the Yoga template. Could you please check and comment on this - thx

Frank Samyamananda (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

For the interested

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#No_more_citations_to_bible_verses_linking_to_particular_translations_(especially_if_it's_KJV_or_NKJV) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Coptic Orthodox Diocese of New York and New England

Would some members from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Coptic Orthodox Diocese of New York and New England and assessing it? It was created back in 2015, but nobody created a corresponding article talk page or added any WikiProject banners. Since Coptic Orthodox Church is listed a falling within this project's purview, I thought this would be a good place to ask about the diocese's article as well. The content about scandals might be needed to be closely examined to see whether BLP is being violated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Religion and Music

I started this draft Draft:Religion and Music because I noticed a conspicuous absense on Wikipedia of this topic. I hope others have more to add on it. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 21:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle And I started Draft:Humor and religion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category: articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It might take a while before the category is populated. There might be as few as one page in the category, or zero if someone has removed the expert request tag from the page. Treetoes023 (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Islamic sexual jurisprudence, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Images of (Historical) Religious figures

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Images of (Historical) Religious figures that might interest those here.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion at Gautama Buddha

There is an active page move discussion at Talk:Gautama Buddha about moving the page Gautama Buddha to The Buddha. This is of particular relevance to this project as it pertains to a religious figure of significant global standing and wide-ranging impact in the history of religion, philosophy, spirituality and mysticism. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Atheism FAR

I have nominated Atheism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Is ARDA a reliable source of data for numbers?

@Foorgood@Æo Since this seems to be spilling into people's talk pages, I'm starting a discussion here where it can also be used for future reference. ARDA (The Association of Religion Data Archives) and it has been used as a source for the various Religion in country X tables and pie charts on numbers of people in particular religions (among other data). ARDA is an archive of data from a wide variety of sources hence their statement that when citing "the author should acknowledge the Association of Religion Data Archives and the original collector(s) of the data (e.g., The data were downloaded from the Association of Religion Data Archives, https://www.theARDA.com, and were collected by [name of principal investigator(s)])". Given that, my view is the original collection has to be evaluated as to relative reliability not ARDA. See also next question on World Religion Database. Erp (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Is the World Religion Database a reliable source of information?

@Foorgood@Æo A different but related topic to the question on ARDA is then the reliability of the World Religion Database (Todd M. Johnson and Brian J. Grim, eds. World Religion Database (Leiden/Boston: Brill), https://www.worldreligiondatabase.org/) for figures to use in the Religion in country X articles. Erp (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

As I have thoroughly demonstrated here, these sets of data are ultimately produced by the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and are therefore biased and unreliable (WP:PARTISAN, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:SPONSORED). In any case, they should never replace data from national censuses and surveys conducted by statistical organisations.--Æo (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
N.b.: The discussion continues here. Please keep the discussion on a single page (the linked Sources Noticeboard) for the sake of information completeness.--Æo (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Association_of_Religion_Data_Archives_and_World_Religion_Database has an RFC

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Association_of_Religion_Data_Archives_and_World_Religion_Database, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for WP:DEPRECATION. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Æo (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Medjed, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Human history, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Category:Theocrats

Hi editors,

There is an IP user rapidly editing articles tonight and adding Category:Theocrats to articles (mostly but not all biographies) on Jews, Catholics, Muslims, et. al. Unfortunately this category is difficult to reconcile with WP:CATV: who is a true theocrat? An activist for religious-based rule of their nation? Someone who merely feels such rule would be preferable? The lines are blurry and so is the verifiability; in all the articles I've followed up on, there is absolutely no direct mention or sourcing of "theocracy" in that article, which would be required. I'm not going to waste time scouring articles trying to guess whether Joe Schmoe is an actual theocrat or not; WP:CATV applies and we need both a direct, explicit mention as well as a reliable, secondary source to apply this category, especially considering its contentious and negative nature. Elizium23 (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

My ears are burning. I actually agree, believe it or not. The category is ridiculous and overwhelmingly subjective in nature. I just felt like populating it to counter the obvious biases of whomever created it the category in the first place. This category should be CFDed. So who wants to do the honors of CFDing it? 107.127.46.50 (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
However, @Elizium23 is mistaken in their conclusion regarding additional sourcing being required to add categories to articles chock-full of historic text and reflinks which support the categories, to wit:
From WP:Categorization: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information '"in the article"' why it was placed in each of its categories" -- who determines which categories require extra sourcing to be added to wholly deserving and appropriate articles? 107.127.46.50 (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Theocrats exist and the category is also a container for sub-categories of real people who are/were indeed theocrats by a narrow definition. It would never pass a CFD deletion for that reason. What needs to be established is inclusion criteria: who is a theocrat and why do they deserve such a category? Your help in bringing this to light is appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

For encyclopedic attention and improvement

It may be just another recent news of capital punishment for blasphemy, nevertheless the wp article Abduljabbar Nasiru Kabara seem to deserve some additional encyclopedic attention. Bookku (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Requested move 18 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Requested move 18 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

GAR notice

Dwarka 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible proposed deletion of article of evangelical Christain family in Ireland

I have a concern about an article created in August 2022 about a evangelical Christian family in Ireland that i believe (from what i read of it) was created to doxx and intimidate members of the family due to their religious views and which its creation date coincided with the beginning date of a court case that is still curently ongoing. The article in question is Burke family (Castlebar) . I believe, but I am not too sure, that the article violates a number of wiki policies but particularly Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in the sections of WP:BLPGOSSIP , WP:AVOIDVICTIM , WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE , WP:BLP1E , and WP:BLPNAME (for some of the family named in the article). I believe this article is suitable for deletion according to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people but I am not sure how to go about this. I would be grateful if someone can review the rticle nd also review its talk page where a dispute arose about the inclusion of a source from a newspaper article that has since been retracted and removed from the internet by the media agency but which an archival copy appears from internet archive. 79.154.24.42 (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people will work since plenty of references in it are to reliable sources. You can go the Wikipedia:How to delete a page with a proposed deletion though I suspect you will have to go the deletion discussion route. Note your request will likely get a better hearing if you do it from a regular account rather than an IP address. Canvassing as you've been doing to multiple projects will certainly not help. Erp (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Erp. I guess one of the other things I believe this article is designed to intimidate and therefore violating wiki policies is that it names all the family members, even those that have have not been involved in actions listed in media reports. I don't see any justification for this. Surely if the article is about various protests by various members of the family, then why involve and list family members that have not been involved. Surely the article should just list those that their sources list and make reference to the actions as listed in their said sources. All the same thank you for responding, I will take your advice on board. 79.154.24.42 (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I have chosen to AFD it as I can see some issues with tone, and am unsure just how truly notable (given how they have actively sought publicity) they really are. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. Asser
  2. Cardinal-nephew
  3. Ganesha
  4. Henry (bishop of Finland)
  5. Jocelin of Glasgow
  6. John Knox
  7. Orion (mythology)
  8. The Age of Reason

Request for help at List of folk heroes

Hello! I recently came across List of folk heroes, which had been trashed by a user who removed all references, categories, internal formatting, etc. and replaced it with an indiscriminate and unsourced list of random historical figures, Marvel characters, and entirely made up hoax characters. I reverted it to the last stable version with references, only to find that this version is still sorely lacking in referencing and contains many kings and such. I have no idea how to tell if these people are folk heroes or not unless their article literally says "folk hero" in it. Therefore, I'm here to ask for help!

Its linked WikiProjects are WikiProject Folklore, which is inactive, and WikiProject lists, which has a rather inactive talk page. WikiProject Religion is linked for Folk hero and Hero. If this isn't the right WikiProject, please let me know where I should go. Thank you! Blue Edits (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Persecution of Zoroastrians

Persecution of Zoroastrians has been nominated for a 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. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Question about userbox

Hi. What's the difference between

{{User WPReligion}}

This user is a participant in WikiProject Religion.

and

{{User WPReligion/Userbox 2}}?

This user is a participant in WikiProject Religion.

@Adarkhairedone:, @WOSlinker: Regards, --Thinker78 (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Nothing really. The 2nd could be made into a redirect to the first. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Celtic neopaganism#Requested move 24 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Celtic neopaganism#Requested move 24 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 06:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Neo-paganism in the Republic of Ireland#Requested move 24 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Neo-paganism in the Republic of Ireland#Requested move 24 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 06:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Moloch

This discussion on whether/how to include an IP's addition to the article Moloch might be of interest to members of this project.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Apocalypse#Requested move 4 May 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Apocalypse#Requested move 4 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MaterialWorks 20:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad#Poisoning_of_Muhammad

Discussion about including the story about Muhammad being poisoned by a Jewish woman, Zaynab bint Al-Harith, in Muhammad, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Supreme deity#Requested move 21 May 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Supreme deity#Requested move 21 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MaterialWorks 15:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Bible, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Comments requested on mergers involving Hallow, Sacredness, Sanctification and Consecration

Discussions: Talk:Sacredness#Merge Hallow and Talk:Sanctification#Merge Sanctification and Consecration

There are merge discussions underway at the discussion links above which require informed comments from those familiar with the topics of these discussions. Your help would be much appreciated. Felix QW (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Sacrifice article

Would it be possible to move this article to something like Religious sacrifice? "Sacrifice" in general means to give up something precious in turn to receive or retain something and does not always need to happen in a religious context; for example when giving up a habit or possession as part of a compromise with a person, group or institution. ★Trekker (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree, although I suggest something like Sacrifice (religion) as the title, as 'religious sacrifice' is not a very intuitive title that most people might search for. Also @StarTrekker: I suggest you put this question on the article talk page - you may get some more responses there. Chefallen (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
@Chefallen: I have started a movie discussion now.★Trekker (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Agama?

The category Category:Agamas exists, but what exactly is it supposed to collect? As of now the term is a disambiguation page which mentions that Jain, Hindu and Buddhist Agama all exist. ★Trekker (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Venkateshvara#Requested move 10 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Venkateshvara#Requested move 10 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Could you help to disambiguate links to Supreme deity? There are over 100 articles (shown at Disambig fix list for Supreme deity) which link to the dab page. It would be useful to readers if these linked to a more specific article and it is not always clear which article is most appropriate. Any help appreciated.— Rod talk 17:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for input on Witchcraft talk page

Hello everyone! There is an ongoing discussion occurring at Talk:Witchcraft#Ridiculous! which focuses on women who identify as a witch, their relationships to the term witchcraft and its practices (both historically and present day, see the short descriptor for a start, ""Practice of malevolent magic"), and whether the article is neutral. Historyday01 (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion

If anyone has any opinions on this Talk:Labours of Hercules#Requested move 10 July 2023, please join the discussion. Paul August ☎ 00:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Religious philosophy, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Witchcraft: Requested move

There's a discussion about moving the article Witchcraft to Witchcraft (classical) and moving Witchcraft (disambiguation) to Witchcraft instead, at Talk:Witchcraft#Requested move 19 July 2023. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Religion in Latinamerican countries

There are many pages on religion at Latinamerican countries, both in English and Spanish, that were appropiated by "religious" people who distort the data about rates in surveys or cite wrong sources. Some examples are: Religion in Dominican Republic, Religion en Colombia (in Spanish), Religion en Bolivia (in Spanish)...

Can you post specific examples of the issues you see? Additionally, please sign your comments on talk pages WP:Sign -- I would edit to add a signature for you, but cannot find your handle on the history of this page. Maximilian775 (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@Maximilian775 I sincerely congratulate you after five and half year (from 2018 January 26) you are the first one to care about the message. It seems that message did not get archived because there is no date mentioned. Pl. have a look @ Special:Contributions/190.181.2.147, it took some time to go back in the talk page history up to 2018 January 26 to find who added the message.
I suppose that IP must have forgotten the message by now. Since our discussion is signed with dates hopefully it will get archived by bot automatically in near future.
Let the world have more helpful people like you. Wish you happy editing Bookku (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

An RfC of interest

An RfC of possible interest to the editors of this article can be found here.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to limit languages on religious group template

Please see the topical proposal at Template talk:Infobox religious group. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Linguistics in Religion

Are there any discussions on how language/linguistics affect differences in religion?Lorelaib (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any but it seems like an interesting topic.★Trekker (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Māui (mythology)#Requested move 13 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Māui (mythology)#Requested move 13 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion re scope of List of death deities

List of death deities currently includes many deities who aren't clear, direct personifications of the end of life itself, or bringers of death or grim reapers, but are closely associated with death, an underworld, an afterlife, or suchlike. Members of this WikiProject may be able to help with this discussion about what the scope should be and how it might be expressed. NebY (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Gardnerian Wicca § RfC on Open Letter

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gardnerian Wicca § RfC on Open Letter. Peaceray (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Din-i Ilahi#Requested move 16 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Din-i Ilahi#Requested move 16 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dongyue Emperor#Requested move 23 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dongyue Emperor#Requested move 23 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Superstition, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Requested move at Talk:Aita (disambiguation)#undefined

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aita (disambiguation)#undefined that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPathtalk 03:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Join Request

Hi, could I join? Thanks in advance! MethodistMan (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Taisha (shrine)#Requested move 10 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Taisha (shrine)#Requested move 10 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Order of Assassins merger discussion

Input welcome in merger discussion about the Order of Assassins. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Splitting off History of religion in China from Religion in China

The article Religion in China is a very massive article. I have a draft for splitting the history section off from the main part. I feel it might be not enough though and the article will still be too long, but I'm less sure about other ways. ThoughtsImmanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 07:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Godhead

We have had a draft on the concept of the Godhead stewing for about seven years now. It's time to finish it. BD2412 T 13:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Help request

I am requesting input/feedback.... I created a page for a Wiki.Edu class and made some mistakes. I have tried diligently to address the problems and would like others to review it, tell me what you think I can do to make it better, and consequently, be able to get the tags removed. Thank you WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Swaddled infant votive WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Interesting article. Nice work. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dom Justo Takayama#Requested move 5 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dom Justo Takayama#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rathod of Banjara#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rathod of Banjara#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chauhan of Banjara#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chauhan of Banjara#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mu'tazilism#Requested move 10 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mu'tazilism#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Hunger strike, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Good article reassessment for Catholic Church

Catholic Church has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Priests by nationality

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_3#Priests_by_nationality. – Fayenatic London 16:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting discussion to explore if there is redundancy in categorization of articles about priests in general (not any given religion) and clergy. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Jewish Christian#Requested move 12 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jewish Christian#Requested move 12 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kardecist spiritism#Requested move 28 February 2024

An editor has requested that Kardecist spiritism be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Zoroastrian discussion

There is a discussion (and dispute) about Zoroastrianism that may be of your interest at Talk:Zoroastrianism#Monotheism, polytheism, dualism. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Religious music, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Good article reassessment for Isaac

Isaac has been nominated for a 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. Spinixster (chat!) 09:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Isabella I of Castile#Requested move 29 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Isabella I of Castile#Requested move 29 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Crusading movement

Crusading movement has been nominated for a 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. Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:? (film)#Requested move 9 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:? (film)#Requested move 9 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Biblical and Quranic narratives#Requested move 7 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Biblical and Quranic narratives#Requested move 7 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 17:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

"Pronomian" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pronomian to the article antinomianism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15 § Pronomian until a consensus is reached. Bwrs (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

"Pronomianism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pronomianism to the article antinomianism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15 § Pronomian until a consensus is reached. Bwrs (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Input request

As a discussion facilitator I feel more inputs from wider audience at Talk:Jinn#Reverting of WP:BOLD after would be helpful in the on going WP:Due discussions. Pl. do not give inputs here but at Talk:Jinn only.

Bookku (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Hierombalus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hierombalus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hierombalus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

46.38.214.5 (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#Requested move 21 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#Requested move 21 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Unbelief disambiguation or redirect

There is a discussion at Talk:Unbelief#Disambiguation about whether Unbelief should be a disambiguation page or a redirect to Belief. Additional opinions would be appreciated. Daask (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Pre-RfC stage @ Talk:Jinn

also Pre-RfC stage info:
  • Also A user has proposed updates for consideration at this sand box for the article Jinn.

As a discussion facilitator fyi a WP:DUE discussion (some aspects may touch WP:Fringe) is at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC stage's WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:ORN step. After RSN and WP:ORN step, RfC formatting is likely to be discussed at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC in a new sub section.

Bookku (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for input on Eastern Esotericism talk page

Greetings! For the interested members of this project, there is an ongoing discussion occurring at Talk:Eastern esotericism, which focuses on proposals of splitting, balancing the proportion of information regarding the main subject and whether the article is adequately written in English. Best regards! Bafuncius (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Iṣṭa-devatā (Hinduism)#Requested move 25 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Iṣṭa-devatā (Hinduism)#Requested move 25 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Madonna#Requested move 1 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Madonna#Requested move 1 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Sources_for_Muhammad

Your view is welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Should Cain and Abel be merged into Cain and Abel?

Your view is welcome at Talk:Cain_and_Abel#Should_Cain_and_Abel_be_merged_into_this_article?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sadh Vaishnavism#Requested move 14 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sadh Vaishnavism#Requested move 14 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Nature

Nature has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Thunderbird (mythology)#Requested move 9 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Thunderbird (mythology)#Requested move 9 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Ruthenian Pagan beliefs - who is editing them all to say they never existed?

Hello, I am new to this but I am a Ruthenian pagan, and I am concerned about a Wikipedia wide problem that seems to be occurring. A single source linked to a russian Catholic disputing the existence of pagan gods has been introduced in every single reference to them in every article I have read. This is not a reliable source, yet it is quoted for every article I have seen on the matter. As an example, Krásny Brod in Slovakia is built on a temple to Kupala, a fact which is mentioned even on the sign for the monastery that stands there now. Yet every article on Wikipedia now is disparaging of it being fact. This is religious discrimination and I find it interesting that it is related, especially, to Ukrainian pagan gods. The particular slant towards Christian churches is also a concerning trend. Maybe the committee should not be editing references to Ruthenian or other Slavic gods if they have biases against paganism. Brusnice (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Brusnice I cannot find anywhere that you have named this source. You are also adding unsourced material to Krásny Brod and the only source you have added for its history is to Waymarking.com which is crowd sourced. You've also shown bad faith several times. And I haven't seen you edit anything about pagan gods. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Jinn: RfC: Proposed additions of text 1

Jinn (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

User inputs and comments are requested at:

Bookku (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Would anyone be interested in joining a sub project of WP:Anthropology on oral tradition? WP's coverage of this is quite poor atm imo Kowal2701 (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion/Archive_1&oldid=1253357076"