Talk:Roerichism

Religion Low‑importance

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

Alternative views

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Spelling?!

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The spelling "Rerikhism" would appear to be a strange bastardized hybrid form, which is neither one thing nor the other -- neither a transliteration of the Russian Cyrillic (that would be "Rerikhizm"), nor based on the actual original Latin-alphabet spelling of the man's name ("Roerichism"). If this were my religion, I might be offended... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank You, Sir

Leništudent (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Roerichism & Agni Yoga articles recent review

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Leništudent, Agoyga and Dr Ama7 and thank you for your extensive work on the articles "Roerichism" and "Agni Yoga". I have recently reviewed these articles, and I have found many problems. I have tried to fix some of them but I feel that the articles still need a lot of improvement.

First of all, there were many English grammatical mistakes; I have fixed all of them, or those which I have been able to find. Second, there were various links to YouTube and Facebook used as sources; YouTube and Facebook are not reliable sources and they must not be used in Wikipedia articles. Third, the "accessdate" parametre is totally unuseful and clutter and can be avoided. Fourth, there were many inconsistencies in the use of bold, italic and "quotation marks"; italic should be used for non-English words, while quotation marks to emphasise English words, and bold should not be used in articles' body.

Fifth, and general, the citation style is very confuse. I have not verified all the sources, but they should always cite the specific page where the information is reported, when available. I suggest to compile a list of sources in a "sources" section at the bottom of the page (see Roerichism#Sources) and then use the Template:Sfn in the article's body. This simplifies the citation style and the access to the original information.

Good work.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic