Talk:Religiosity
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Religiosity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 January 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comment
editDeleted what was here as it referred to the first version of this article before it was redirected then the redirection was taken off. It did not refer to the current content or a previous version of the current content. --exmoron 22:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's at nost:Religiosity/Talk on the Nostalgia Wikipedia in its proper context. Graham87 07:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Redirect ?
edit- Religious redirects here. For its use as a noun, see Monasticism.
The noun form of "religious" can also refer to those who lead a conventual (brother, sister) life, as well as monastic (monk, nun). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.53.197.12 (talk) 00:13, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
"religiosity" A Woefully Bad Title
editI have been at work to switch out the term "religiosity" with the more appropriate, "religious fervor" Seriously guys, who came up with religiosity, it is very childish and immature, and it is shameful that anyone who would want to learn about the topic of religion would arrive upon a very badly titled article( which also has some grammar issues, but I can't fix everything at once) So if anyone can help me with getting a higher ranking Wikipedia staff with changing the title to something more appropriate. Also I am at work fixing the whole hyperlinking system between the religion articles in general.— Preceding unsigned comment added by C.A.Spadini (talk • contribs) 19:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Religiosity is a broad concept and certainly is not limited to fervor. Many religions do not have a fervor as a component there are in fact many dimensions to religions such as beliefs, bonging and behavior which are not linked to emotions. It seems you want to reduce religion to fanaticism. None of the studies here even mention "religious fervor" so why switch the whole article to misrepresent what the sources say?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Not a great article
editI agree with others that this is not a great article. Wherever I look online, "religiosity" is defined as "[being] excessively religious". Only here does it have a really complex, science-y and apparently hard to define definition. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
"Original Research"
editFor example[original research?], one can accept the truthfulness of the Bible (belief dimension), but never attend a church or even belong to an organized religion (practice dimension).
How is this original research? It seems to be a statement of a fact without a citation. Is that allowed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.156.105.27 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)