| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
STOP! Don't read this article!
Before you look at the dismal shape this article is in, I want you to imagine for me what questions you might have about the idea "religion", and what you would expect to see in an article about "religion". Reading this article will only confuse you. I have looked at it many times and it always confuses me. It is the center stage of a wonderful mixture of esoteric POV pushers, including individuals who have told me on the talk page that scholarly discussions of current issues in religious studies are far less important for the sake of a good "religion" article than promoting their personal POV battle. So, don't even look at it-- imagine it, as it exists in Platonic form, the Featured Article in your head. ANYONE reading this paragraph is welcome to add their comments here even if they don't want to do a full peer review. I am open to rewriting this from scratch.
Even after you look at it, please suggest radical revision. For example, who determined that a section called "religion and superstition" should be prominent in the article, instead of placed under "Related forms of thought"? Why is there no section named "religion and society", or "religion and politics"? I'm asking these questions myself, as a past contributor, because I'm only one voice and I want your input.
Alright, go ahead Shii (tock) 21:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: Taking you at your word and commenting without looking at the article, I'd expect it to address the basic "who, what, where, when" questions. The "what" would involve an extended definition of the word, "religion". Since the definition must come from reliable sources, it might actually turn out to be "definitions", and it might be necessary to report on major controversies involving the definitions. The "who" would involve naming and very briefly describing the most notable individuals and groups involved in religion(s). (This might be done as a table). The "where" would involve the geography of religion(s), possibly illustrated by a map. The "when" would involve the history of religions, perhaps reduced to a timeline. The topic is so enormous that I'd never attempt it myself. I don't see how it could be done except as a bare-bones summary of the who-what-where-when type, presented in a clinical way, without bias. Finetooth (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments! I think the point of the topic being enormous is quite important. I just realized that writing paragraph-long summaries of subjects like "religion and superstition", "religion and society", or "religion and politics" is an immense task that this article should not even try to cover. I'll have to bring that up on the talk page. Shii (tock) 21:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Further Finetooth comments: You are most welcome. I waited two days and then read the article, and I have just a few other thoughts, mostly about form but one about content.
Biased content
- "The word "religion" as it is used today does not have an obvious pre-colonial translation into non-European languages. The history of other cultures' interaction with the religious category is therefore their interaction with an idea that first developed in Europe under the influence of Christianity." - On the face of it, this is an extraordinary claim sourced to a single author. It would be easy to object to this claim on grounds that it seems to suggest that before colonization by Western nations, other nations and cultures had no religion. Other writers might well disagree, and, if they do, they should be represented here too. This claim might be interpreted in some other way, but it segues into a discussion of the meaning of Christianity, and a reader might wonder why an article on religion in general has so quickly become a discussion of one particular Western religion. In the first paragraph of the discussion of Christianity, a sentence says, "What we would call religion today, they would only call "law". Big oops! Who is "we", and who is "they"? Whatever else the article might be, it isn't neutral if it divides the world into "we" and "they". I think the working definition at the beginning of the article needs to be broad enough to encompass all religions in all times and places. I don't think you can start with the Romans or simply the etymology of the English word, "religion" without introducing a Western bias from the start.
Form
- The lead should be a succinct summary of the whole article. If you imagine a reader who can read nothing but the lead, you can envision what the lead needs to be. A good rule of thumb is to at least mention each of the main text sections. This lead isn't a summary at all but rather an extended definition. I'd suggest moving the definition into the first main text section. Then the lead could be wholly re-written as a summary or abstract.
- Large chunks of the article are unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged, and every paragraph.
- Bolding is used sparingly in Wikipedia articles. Most of the extra bolding in "Specific religious movements" should be removed. Please see WP:MOSBOLD for details.
- The editing tags that challenge certain sections or statements need to be addressed.
- Images should be placed so that they do not displace section heads or overlap sections.
- Lists such as the one in "Myths" should be rendered as straight prose.
I hope these comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)