Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Gender and religion

Another editor and I have been working on the gender and religion article. I think we've improved it quite a bit, but I'd love to see more than two pairs of eyes on it. Anyone want to come take a look? It could especially use opinions on the best structure of the article, and information about non-Abrahamic religions. Information on any religion, actually - it's pretty sparse. --Alynna (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Virgo

I am currently designing an add-on content filter for Wikipedia that will censor images based on a user's preferences. Anyone interested in reviewing/critiquing may find the proposal here, the code-under-development here, and the page for the project-under-development here. The add-on is still being coded, which is why it has zero features at the moment and does not do anything it is intended to do yet. (I'm still working on learning how to code in js, frankly). Your input is appreciated. Thanks!

Also, I would appreciate it if someone (or several people) could create a sort of list that tells what is considered taboo (graphically) in different religions, particularly with reference to porn and nudity. The reason is because ultimately, I'd like to add a feature that allows a user to specify their religion, and the filter will censor images according to their religion. Any help I can get is appreciated, thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The project has undergone several revisions, but is now ready to be launched. Leave your thoughts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Virgo. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Buddhism

This portal is currently undergoing a portal peer review. Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Buddhism/archive1. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Manichaean paranoia

Please partake in the discussion whether Manichaean paranoia should be deleted or not on this page (WP:AfD/Manichaean paranoia (2nd nomination)! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Individual reassessment of God

The article God is currently under individual reassessment, which can be found here. Editors are encouraged to participate. Thank you. DiverseMentality 22:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Koyaanisqatsi

Koyaanisqatsi is currently tagged as a WikiProject Religion article. I think this is quite far-fetched and it should be pruned from the list. Tempshill (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Scientist: Religion

You might want to look at the debate that is going on in Template Talk about the religion field in Infobox Scientist.

There are some editors who would like to remove religion completely, because of their own strong personal feelings against the use of all ethnic and religious categories.[1] This view failed to gain a consensus, so they are trying to put restrictions on how it can be used, which would have the result of substituting "see main text" for religion in many cases.

In fact, Infobox Scientist doesn't include a "Religion " field any more. According to [2], "Religion" was changed to "Religious Stance" on 8 December 2007 without any mention in the Edit box or any discussion in the Talk page. There was some objection in the Talk page afterwards but nothing came of it. So the change was made by an individual editor on his own initiative without consensus. Presumably somebody with Admin access could change it back again.

So if you think the "Religion" field belongs in Infobox Scientist, or doesn't belong, now's the time to weigh in.

(I'm cross-posting this to WikiProject History of Science and WikiProject Religion.) Nbauman (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion policy

Project participants may be interested in contributing to the proposed policy Wikipedia:Religion. —Eustress ^talk 17:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Faith in Place at AfD

An article at AfD Faith in Place has been rewritten so may now meet the project's standards. Input welcome at the AfD discussion. -- Banjeboi 01:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Myth and Religion

Looking around wikipedia, I became very perturbed by the liberal use of the term "myth" in religious articles. It is not the case that I do not think the term is appropriate - rather, it is used in ways which are unclear and may cause confusion to the reader. After numerous discussions in several places, it has become clear that some editors are insisting that it is the term used by 'academics' and therefore it is the correct term. As a result, these editors have dug their heels in and are utterly intransigent on the issue.

What issue? some may ask. To me, it is this: there is no clear definition of what a myth is and there is also a very pejorative definition. Unless it is clear to the reader which definition is intended, then the article cannot claim to be truly neutral. In essence: to be truly neutral, we also have to be seen to be neutral.

To this end I started an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ. There is a section in the FAQ called 'Regarding terminology' (that, incidentally, was written by a 'pro-myth' editor and inserted without discussion or consensus) that I wanted to see re-written so as to advise editors to ensure that the context in which words such as 'myth' are used makes it clear to the reader which definition of the term is intended. I do not mean that a dictionary definition is required. In many cases it is clear already; in some cases just a small change is required to clarify the meaning.

After a prolonged discussion (follow the link above), the "pro-myth" editors have finally stated that they do not see a problem. Given that, they have effectively stalled the discussion. If anyone here can contribute to the discussion they would be welcomed. However, this issue is important to me. If a consensus cannot be reached then I will take this to ArbCom. As a first step along that process I am raising it here on the project page. If anyone here can help me resolve it by amicable means then I would be delighted.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Forum-shopping. Ilkali (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement above by Ilkali is a perfect example of the sort of efforts that certain editors will go to in order to stifle the debate. If they will not engage in debate then I urge other editors to offer opinion.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fimus, I think you might want to take a look at the "Religion and Mythology","Religion" pages. You may find some potent material there related to discriminatory usage which will strengthen your arguements. Also take a look at the discussion of these articles to find that many people are offended by its usage. The article on Joseph Campbell also contains a portion where he describes mythology as being "other peoples' religion". And why do the academics insist on using this term in a way that is contradictory to its common usage. Are academics too dim to realize that they may be misunderstood or cause unintentional offence. If they define mythology as "traditional narrative", why not simply use "traditional narrative" instead of "mythology". It is like insisting on calling an African American as "negro" and insisting on doing it again and again and insisting on doing it in future also and then explaining that no offence was intended. Is the explaination acceptable or honest.117.198.53.2 (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:36, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Children and Religion POV and assessment

I came across this article which had a serious lack of balance, particularly the section of 'religious indoctrination'. Any help is appreciated, as I am not into the debate and I don't want to put up a strawman with ruddy sources. Some of the further reading links might be seen as insinuating as well. Furthermore, it isn't assessed, although it is probably not exceeding Start class at its current state. Lastly: perhaps it could be merged with another entry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_and_religion Darth Viller (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Enoch

I would like to create category called Category:Enoch in order to re-organize the material in the Enoch series. Enoch is a very mysterious character that would still need to be de-mythologized for the sake of ancient and modern studies in religion. Is there anywhere I can propose or discuss the creation of this category ? ADM (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of folks named Enoch; any particular one? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I imagine that you could just start adding the category to relevant articles (WP:BEBOLD maybe?), but of course there is no guarantee that the category would remain if other editors disagreed. Are there other, similar categories already in existence for Biblical figures? I tried looking for some, but my already sparse religious knowledge seems to have deserted me! You could try looking through the sub-categories under Wikipedia:Categorical_index#Religion_and_belief_systems for a precedent.

For discussion, perhaps the best place to begin might be the talk page of Wikiproject Religion, or alternatively the talk page of one of the articles mentioned at Enoch (I wasn't sure which Enoch you meant), although a discussion there may not get as many contributors. --Kateshortforbob 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The son of Jared is by far the most famous one, known simply as Enoch, there is merely a problem in the disambiguation which I would like to fix. ADM (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Need help with spam links by User:Neufast

I accidentlaly noticed the addition of what I think are WP:SPAM external links being added to religion articles. Since I have no expertise in this area, I would appreciate an independent assesment. Could someone with both interest and expertise please review this situation? I'm inclined to simply remove all of the links, but some of them may be relevant. Please check User talk:Neufast for my warnings to date, an then check "user contributions." If you choose to help out, please let me know on my talk page or on Neufast's talk page. If I do not get help within about three days, I'll remove all the links. Thanks -Arch dude (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark FAR

I have nominated Noah's Ark 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Vassyana (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Religion Issues - A School Project

Please note that there are several students presently creating article as a part of a school project. Any help you might give them or edits you might contribute to this page are graciously welcome. Also, please note that a couple of antagonistic editors have been interfering in these students' work, and so any assistance with this would also be appreciated. Each article has its strengths and weaknesses, and ought to see additions over the next several days. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome and editors are encouraged to work to improve them as they see fit. Thank you. The articles being created by this group are: Taoism and Death Christianity in Haiti Jewish Clothing Buddhism and the Body Islam and Civil Rights Hinduism and Science Vote Cthulhu (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikifying, those are:

• Taoism and death
• Christianity in Haiti
• Jewish clothing
• Buddhism and the body
• Islam and civil rights
• Hinduism and science

Aleta ^Sing 04:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on God as the Devil

Please let me know if this is not the right place to post this request or if you suggest other places to post it. I am posting this request on the talk pages for WikiProject Religion and Wikipedia: Religion.

I have started an article called God as the Devil. This is obviously contentious, but it is based on valid references over a span of 2,000 years. I seek constructive criticism and edits to improve the article to present its information with utmost integrity.

Please give me your feedback on the talk page for the article or via edits to the article. Thank you.

-- WagePeace (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Structure of Religious Articles

I have recently been involved in the re-structuring of some articles on religious topics and it has struck me that a number of editors find themselves unsure as to the best approach. For me, it is usually straightforward, so I wondered if it may be an idea to set out a "standardized" structure for articles on religious stories.

I am well aware that this is not a goal that can ever be fully achieved, mostly due to the differing nature of the stories and their religions. However, if a "standard" can be set it may make it easier for other editors who wish to re-structure some articles. Following the general structure of the "better" articles on WP, I have put together what I believe can form the basis of such a standard. You can find it here.

Unfortunately, real-world issues are limiting my time on WP for a little while, but if anyone wishes to work on this idea I would be grateful.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move Maundy Thursday to Holy Thursday

• 6 Apr 2009 – Move requested from Maundy Thursday (talk) to Holy Thursday; see discussion. --Boston (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC on Hak Ja Han

Ongoing WP:RFC on article Hak Ja Han, please see Talk:Hak_Ja_Han#RfC:_Sentence_about_marriage_to_Sun_Myung_Moon. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Angels <-> Deceased humans

Discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Angel#Angels_.3C-.3E_Deceased_humans on whether or not it is appropriate to include in that article the popular notion that when good people die they become angels. Your thoughts on this question are welcome there. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Porphyry (philosopher)

I have been working lately on Porphyry (philosopher) and would appreciate any feedback. Does anyone care about second-rate Neoplatonists anymore? :-) Jwhosler (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, and I have recorded and will be recording my progress and goals on the talk page. Jwhosler (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment at 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot

Please see Talk:1985_Rajneeshee_assassination_plot#RfC:_High-ranking_followers. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Intuition (knowledge)

The article on intuition (knowledge) has project scope tags for projects Spirituality and Philosophy. It had very little on it even regarding spirituality until some edits I just made, but my edits are certainly not comprehensive. It seems to me that the term is used often in english writings regarding various eastern religions. Would it be appropriate to put a Religion project scope tag on that article? - Steve3849 ^talk 19:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark Zoo Farm

There is currently an RfC for a religion based zoo in England, Noah's Ark Zoo Farm, and a conflict over a religion/science issue [3]. I thought some some editors from WikiProject Religion might care to comment. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Qur'an and science

Could some members do a POV/reference check on this article? I'm not so keen on the way it sources arguments directly to the Qur'an rather than scholarly works - it looks a bit like WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. All help appreciated, Verbal chat 11:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request on my talk page, I added the Religion project to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Popular pages. (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Popular pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Popular pages, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Popular pages)

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a week after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! (note that there is an encoding issue with some non-ascii titles, this will be fixed in the next update). Mr.Z-man 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I was the person who requested the list be generated. One of the reasons was that lists like this are one of the few ways I can think of to keep track of what people actually come to wikipedia to see. Granted, the list doesn't start really well in this case, but it does give us an idea as to what people are looking at, and might be one of the few ways to notice recent trends. One of the things we're doing over at WikiProject Christianity is holding a contest to get each article on the list brought up to at least Start status. Maybe something similar could work here as well. John Carter (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Creed

This appears to be an article with an identity crisis. It seems to want to focus on creeds from the Christian perspective, but has an article title that gives it a broader scope. As a result, it leans toward the Christian perspective on creeds, but not with enough detail to really be useful. I beleive it would be an appropriate fork to create Creed (Christianity); that would allow the original article to have a broader focus and the new article to cover a little more in depth on Christianity and creeds. Proposal is on article talk page, please comment there. Thanks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Omnipotence paradox

I have nominated Omnipotence paradox 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Dorje Shugden

I've posted a RfC about some structural issues in the Dorje Shugden article here. This has long been a contentious topic on Wikipedia, but I think we have an opportunity to make some progress with the help of some focused input from people not involved in editing the article. There are a few basic structural questions relating to the focus and coverage of the article that need to be resolved to bring the article closer to meeting NPOV and undue weight considerations. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Newington Green Unitarian Church

This is the first time I have created a really substantial article, from scratch, and would appreciate feedback and improvements. (I haven't formally listed it as within the scope of this wikiproject, but wanted to know what you think.) It is Newington Green Unitarian Church, so that makes it hard for me to find the appropriate categories or projects for it. It was important in the history of English Dissenters from the established church, but is not Protestant or even Christian now. It is both a listed building, and a congregation with a 300-year history of political radicalism. (Most famous minister -- Richard Price, whose sermon stimulated the Revolution Controversy. Most famous congregant -- Mary Wollstonecraft, who listened to this and extended liberte, egalite, fraternite to women's rights too.) I have a "Did You Know" factoid in the list, and would like to take this to GA, but thought I'd ask here first. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Mythical origins of language

I have done a GA Reassessment of the Mythical origins of language article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found it does not meet the GA Criteria. As such I have put the article on hold pending work that needs to be done. My review is here. I am notifying all interested projects and editors that this article may be delisted if it is not brought up to GA standards. If you have questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting help with Bart Sells His Soul

Bart Sells His Soul - This article is currently undergoing a GA review, at Talk:Bart Sells His Soul/GA1. Additional help with copyediting would be much appreciated. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Bart Sells His Soul at Peer Review

The article Bart Sells His Soul is currently undergoing a peer review, input would be appreciated at its peer review page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Bart Sells His Soul/archive1. Cirt (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Stregheria

I have done a GA Reassessment of the Stregheria article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found that the article does not meet the current GA Criteria. My review is here. I am notifying the interested projects that I have put this article on hold pending fixes. Should there be any questions please contact me at my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

St Sepulchre

Howdy - I'm hoping to find a religious historian here who can help me with something. Currently St Sepulchre redirects to St Sepulchre-without-Newgate. I have however found references to a St Sépulchre, for example in Nicolas Grenon. I don't beleive these are the same (the latter may be in Paris?) but cannot find enough information on the subject to sort the whole mess out. Anyone fancy the task? - TB (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with Dispute Resolution

The humanism article needs some attention from some editors with knowledge of Wikipedia's goals and policies. American Heritage Dictionary gives five widely varying definitions of the term (see http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=humanism&search=search ), and for several years, the status of this term on Wikipedia has been:

• AHD definitions 1, 2, 3 loosely grouped under the "humanism" article
• AHD definition 4 briefly mentioned under the humanities article
• AHD definition 5 has its own article at Renaissance humanism and connection to definition 1 mentioned in the humanism article
• Recently, an editor added a disambiguation page to direct readers to the different types of humanism, and added the appropriate hat-note to the article.

Over the past few years, one particularly tendentious editor attempts every few months to change the primary focus of the article, sometimes in favor of AHD definition 4, sometimes in favor of definition 5. Each time, I attempt to respond by showing the common use in best-selling books, news articles, magazines, web sites, and organizations applying the term to themselves is consistent with definition 1 instead. The tendentious editor has proposed moving the article and was voted down, so now he deletes his 3-revert warnings from his own talk page and attempts to create a consensus on other users' talk pages where his viewpoint will encounter no resistance, rather than on the article's own talk page. In general he seems to bring editors into the article who are abusive, argue by putting words into others' mouths, and recite their opinions over and over without providing evidence of verifiability.

The policies I feel the tendentious editor and those he brings into the discussion are breaking are these:

• WP:DICTIONARY: Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. The full articles that the wikipedia's stubs grow into are very different from dictionary articles.
• Also at WP:DICTIONARY: "The same title for different things (homographs): are found in different articles."
• WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
• WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."
• WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article."
• WP:Naming conflict: "A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage: * Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources) * Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution) * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)"

In an attempt to show a most common, most popular, and primary usage for the term "humanism," I've posted top lists of search results of best-selling books, web pages, multiple news sites, magazines, and organizations. In response, my repeated requests for evidence that AHD definition 1 is NOT the most popular use of "humanism" have been met only by occasional single web pages or books that were hand-picked specifically for their biased POV, rather than algorithmically selected for their popularity as Google, Amazon, Alexa, and the other sources I've cited.

Could someone who is familiar with the most popular use of the word "humanism" AND mindful of Wikipedia policies provide feedback? The focus of the article and its definitions have been established long before I came around, as evidenced by the contents of Template:Humanism, Outline of humanism, the categories to which the article belongs (Epistemology, Freethought, Humanism, Humanist Associations, Humanists, and Social theories), and the projects to which the article belongs (WikiProject religion, WikiProject atheism, and WikiProject philosophy). The continued attempts to change the focus of the article fit what WP:DISRUPT calls, "their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive."

Thanks! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Raëlism GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Raëlism for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Ancestor Worship and Veneration of the dead

I added merger tags to both these articles a short while ago, but no one has said anything on either talk page. I think a merger is a good idea (I suggest merging to Veneration of the dead as it has a broader scope (worship being a slightly loaded term), and might provoke more interest from editors. I'd be bold and go ahead and do it, but I screwed up the only merger I did before and it was very politely suggested to me by an admin to let one of them handle it (history merging issues). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK - is there an admin who can help me merge the two articles?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As there is no opposition to the merger, could an admin please help me perform the merger? (to Veneration of the dead)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I've just proposed that Unification Church and antisemitism (which is a part of this project) be merged to Divine Principle. Please join in the discussion, if you like.

Assistance with deprecation of Template:Sourcebible

The conversion of all instances of {{Sourcebible}} to {{Bibleverse}} is nearly complete. As I am no religious scholar (far from it), any assistance in the elimination of the final transclusions would be appreciated. Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [4]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitismBorock (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

See these

Here are the religious selections from the WP:OOK. Notice the obvious red links:

Outline of religion

Outline of Bahá'í Faith • Outline of Buddhism • Outline of Christianity • Outline of Hinduism • Outline of Islam • Outline of Judaism • Outline of Taoism

We need someone to create outlines for them.

Special thanks to Eu.stephan for creating the Outline of Buddhism.

The Transhumanist 19:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If it were me, I think going to the separate WikiProjects specifically dealing with those topics would probably be more likely to get results. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong

The Arbitration Committee some time ago placed all our material regarding this subject under restrictions, and a recent attempt at mediation has led the mediator to request additional input from previously uninvolved parties. If anyone would be interested in helping improve these articles or take part in the discussions which I am sure will continue to take place regularly about it, please feel free to do so. Thank you.

Names of God

There is currently discussion at the above article regarding content and sourcing. All input is welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Ghost Dance

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Ghost Dance/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cult

Currently the article on Cults is written as a mixture between a dictionary entry and a Cult-Watch group website. The academic viewpoint as found in the literature on Sociology of Religion is hardly mentioned and brushed of as if it were a fringe viewpoint. I hope members of the Religion project could be interested in collaborating towards making the article conform better to NPOV and give a better presentation of this controversial topic.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Maunus and I have started an ongoing effort to improve the entry, which is indeed in horrible shape. Please see the talk page for some discussion. Pleas also see the ongoing rewrite at Talk:Cult/Cult Sandbox. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.PelleSmith (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Someone (not me) has proposed a merge of Satan into Devil discuss at Talk:Satan#Satan_merged_into_Devil.3F. I am circulating this among relevant boards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Zoroastrianism

Hey, I was wondering if I could "recruit" som volunteers for the WikiProject Zoroastrianism. The project could use a lot of help. Thanks. Warrior4321 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming style

I'm looking at this Category:Religious views by individual and there's no common style for titles. Some say 'Person's views on religion', others say 'Person and religion', 'Person's religious views', etc. It'd be a good idea to have a standard naming style. Any suggestions? Mahanga^Talk 20:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I like "Person's religious views", as it's specific and matches the category name. --Alynna (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Articles nomination backlog

Hi! There is currently a backlog of GA nominations in the religion category (one of them is an article I wrote!). The oldest nomination there is from the 29th July (nearly 7 weeks ago). Does anyone feel like reviewing some articles? I would review some myself, but I don't really have the relevant experience (I've just made my first GA nomination). Thanks! --Tango (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Benjamin Disraeli

Benjamin Disraeli has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevant AfD

Relevant AfD to this WikiProject, on the article Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordination of activity

As most of you know, there is rather a lot of content out there clearly related to at least some degree to religion in general, and individual religions in particular. The amount of content makes it reasonable to think that it might be useful if we were to know who, if anyone, directly works with content related to any specific religion or religious tradition. Ultimately, maybe, if there are enough people, the various religion-related WikiProjects and task forces could try to organize to be more effective, much in the way that WP:MILHIST has done with their muliple project coordinators. I would love to see this sort of thing take place, but to do it would involve having people willing to provide the necessary "support services" for content relating to their particular topic of interest, whether it has a specifically dedicated group yet or not. These individuals would also function as unofficial contact people for needs related to their particular subjects of interest. I have left messsages on the talk pages of all the related religion and religion related WikiProjects and work groups, and any individuals coming to this discussion from those messages, or just reading this on this page for the first time, who would like to take on some work to help manage some of the content are encouraged to indicate their willingness by adding their names below, if possible with an indication of what particular faith or other topic they would be willing to work with. And, yes, if there already is a name or two dealing with your particular subject, feel free to add your name as well. The more there are, the better off we will probably be. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've become increasingly involved in Ancient Egyptian religion and the related topics, and am very slowly working to improve them. As I seem to be the most-involved editor there, and am watching all of those pages, I might as well put my name in, though at the moment there isn't much activity to coordinate. A. Parrot (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• I've just started working on cleaning up a lot of Hinduism related articles and will be moving on to do more. Nothing much seeems to be going on now, but I'd be glad to join the list. Manoj Prajwal (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• I've been working for quite a bit of time on Zoroastrianism related articles. There isn't much or any activity going on, but I'll put my name on the list. warrior4321 22:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• I enjoy researching controversial groups that some call cults, and others refer to as new religious movements – and then putting that research to use to bring related articles up to audited levels of quality past WP:AFD, WP:DYK, WP:GA, WP:PR, and sometimes WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• I frequently write and rewrite articles on subjects in the area of Germanic paganism. For the unaware, that includes Anglo-Saxon paganism, Norse paganism, continental Germanic paganism and so forth. As of now, I've written nigh 40 GA articles in the field, with several more in the works. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what you're looking for here, so feel free to delete me from this list if what I say seems inappropriate. My main interest is in Buddhism. I no longer edit articles, having discovered that Wikipedia has no effective procedure for enforcing its neutrality policy. I do comment from time to time, & I'm always available to supply information from scholarly sources. There's a supply already on my user page (& some in its history). Peter jackson (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• I work mostly on pages related to the Bahá'í Faith - my most recent and ongoing project has been Category:Bahá'í Faith by country for a couple years but at times I've tried to expand content in biographies of Bahá'ís or educational institutions and to stabilize/update Bahá'í content in a variety of already existing articles - and of course I have interests beyond religion as well. I've occasionally tried to updating multiple faith's articles or articles with multiple faith entries but had less success. And we have a group project too - Wikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith. Smkolins (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• I monitor the Unitarian Universalism (UU) articles which are under the scope of the Unitarian Universalism work group. I insure their in the right categories or sub-categories and if need be I will create a new category(ies) or sub-category(ies) and populate it/them with the appropriate UU articles. So if you think an article might fall wholly or party within the scope of the Unitarian Universalism work group and want to be sure I would be a good person to contact. --Devin Murphy (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• I seem to be involved in a lot of articles that cover multiple religions (Gender of God, Transgenderism and religion, Religion and AIDS, etc.). Not sure if that's a speciality, but I'm always glad to help. --Alynna (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Relevant AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonies. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Brainwashing and mind control

Brainwashing was recently merged into Mind control. Please come take a look. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Major COI issues at Messiah Foundation International

If anyone else enjoys removing POV/COI from religious articles (which I do, but have been bogged down), the article Messiah Foundation International has some huge COI issues. I tried rewriting the introduction to at least summarize the group's beliefs rather than be just a bunch of fluff, but the article still needs a lot of work. Among other things, large portions are just direct quotes from their religious leader, making it pretty soapbox. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Atheism Article

Hi, a series of proposed changes to the atheism article and have been outlined at Talk:Atheism#article_.2F_source_discrepancies, comments would be appreciated.

List of religious organizations

Hi. The article List of religious organizations is in need of serious help. It was in an abandoned state and discussed for deletion, however I feel it has strong potential to become a useful list. But it needs lots of help and collaboration. Is someone of you interested? --Cyclopia^talk 23:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll add it to my watchlist and swing a couple edits that way when I get the chance. I think it's an excellent list so far in terms of diversity, but how do I say this..."It's not such a bad little list, all it needs is a little love" Peter Deer (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Relevant AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Fefferman. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Article request

Would anyone care to start an article on Unification Church sex rituals? It seems to be a topic of some public interest and sources should be easy enough to find. Please see: Talk:Unification Church views of sexuality. I'm a church member myself and if I started it I would be in so much trouble with my family (wife and kids)  :-). Steve Dufour (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, is there an article on "Later Day Saint sex rituals"? Borock (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I kind of don't want to know, since I have many Mormon friends. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Each topic needs to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines in order for inclusion, which essentially means that it must have sufficient third-party coverage for mention. Peter Deer (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

True. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfulfilled religious predictions

Evidently, my AfD for this article will fail, and so I will ask for someone to take a look at the article and see how it can be fixed. (I honestly don't think that the article can be fixed and thus won't try to do so.) My primary issues are that this list is ill-defined and hopelessly broad, leading to utterly arbitrary entries. (I'm also concerned about why unfulfilled religious predictions should have a page, while neither "fulfilled religious predictions" nor "unfulfilled psychic predictions" qualify for an article.) Here are some issues I see:

• The move from a purely Christian article to a broader world religions article has succeeded in a name change only. Not one single non-Christian prediction has been listed.
• There was evidently only one unfulfilled religious prediction in the first 1500 years of the church, but about a dozen in the past century. Obviously, the list is skewed towards recent predictions.
• This list gives the appearance of equal importance to such events as the Great Disappointment and Oral Roberts's prediction that Jim Bakker would be acquitted. Because there is no clear criteria for inclusion, each of these predictions is listed.
• The list will never approach anything like completeness. Notable unfulfilled religious predictions are a dime a dozen, near as I can figure. Unless the list is restricted to some clear class of predictions (doomsday, say), the project is as hopeless as "List of false political statements".

Evidently, these concerns do not warrant deletion (according to the current AFD), but hopefully someone will at least try to improve the current state of the article.

Thanks. Phiwum (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Book-class

Since this is one of the bigger WikiProjects, and that several Wikipedia-Books are religion related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WikiProject Religion people can oversee books like Greek Mythology - 1 : Deities much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.

There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The only caveat I might add is that books specifically related to mythology fall within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology, not this project. Otherwise, sounds good to me. John Carter (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well there's plenty of other religions-related books in there like Wikipedia:Books/Islam and Wikipedia:Books/Christianity. Let me know if you need help implementing the book-class.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can adjust the Template:WPReligion to include the book-class, I can adjust the various other religion banners to include it as well. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I tagged all the books that I though were religion-related (see Category:Book-Class Religion articles). Feel free to assign them to different projects as necessary (if their banners doesn't support the book-class yet, either contact them or me). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Help please: Ordination of United Methodist Women

I spotted this one at WP:FEED and it needs some expert help please. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

New England Institute of Religious Research

There is a dispute at New England Institute of Religious Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the depth of coverage and appropriate use of sources. I would appreciate the guidance of uninvolved editors. The relevant discussions can be found here and here. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: UFO religion

Please see Talk:UFO_religion#RfC_Church_of_the_SubGenius. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please see Talk:Scientology_controversies#RfC:_Alleged_oppression_of_Scientologists_in_Germany. Cirt (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Biblical disambiguators

I wanted to start a discussion about using "Bible" as a disambiguator. I recently moved/renamed a couple of articles so that they use a "<name> (Bible)" pattern (instead of "<name> (ancestor of Noah)", which seemed a bit wordy as well as being unusual). There are many articles that currently use the word "Bible" as a disambiguator, but the problem there is... well, it's an awkward disambiguator. I remember participating in a long but productive discussion about something similar a couple of months ago, as part of a specific WP:RM, but for the life of me I can't remember or locate the page...

Anyway, if anyone has any ideas on better disambiguators we could use, I think we should discuss it. I'm tempted to recommend "Biblical characters", but I know that will go over like a lead balloon. Something similar, but without the overtones inherent with the use of the word "characters", would seem much more appropriate however.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

How about "Biblical figure"? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a possibility. I worry that "figure" is still too... irreverent? It's important to keep in mind that the word or phrase needs to be at least something that no one will actively oppose, and we are talking about the Bible here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think "figure" is not disrespective, but also think that "(Bible)" alone is better. Debresser (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it. As the wording of that phrase suggests, I am not opposed on some higher religious principle, just to say I would prefer something else. If you look at the current (ish) top disambiguators, most are a noun, so you can say, "XYZ the film/footballer/song" or whatever. In this sense, your most likely parallels are with the sport names which are just thrown on. Other than that, there isn't really much precedent, hence my "reckon". - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 11:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The difference that I see between "Bible" and most other dabs, is that "Bible" is a singular proper noun. Since a dab is supposed to be about differentiating many items with the same name, it seems a little odd to use a singular proper noun to do that. This is essentially the same argument that I used in the Mary Jones discussion that Dweller linked to below (although, I didn't really express it well there).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The beauty of "Bible" is it is a) totally and instantly intuitively clear b) brief c) applicable to people, objects, animals, kingdoms, whatever. --Dweller (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it really, though? Aside from the (potentially fractious) point that there are many forms to The Bible, the word "Bible" is a singular Noun. If you mention the article title Jared (Bible) in isolation, and having little or no specific knowledge beforehand, is Jared a person, place, or thing? There are similar issues with using something like "Moon", or any other singular proper noun, as a dab.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

<- I don't understand your Jared point. The disambiguator works fine - you know it's something to do with the Bible. And yes, there are many forms of The Bible. I can't see that that's a problem. It can be used broadly. --Dweller (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The dab that is used should at least hint at the nature of what it is differentiating. If you look over Jarry1250's list above it seems that most do (the sports related ones being a notable exception, but... well, WP:OTHERSTUFF, you know?).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It was the very tricky conversation at Talk:Mary_Jones_and_her_Bible. --Dweller (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's it! Thank you!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with just using (Bible) is that there may well be several such people in the bible. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible#standardized_way_of_naming_articles_for_biblical_persons Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually just noticed that immediately after placing the note about this conversation in the WikiProject Bible talk page. I actually thought about copying that conversation here, or something... Anyway, Lemmiwinks2's suggestion is to use "<name> (son of <parent>)" That's certainly a possibility, although it's not my favorite choice. The primary issue there is that it's a bit self referential, don't you think?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Using (Bible) after article names is rather vague and something that I wouldn't promote because of the said vagueness. I think a better idea would be something along the lines of "(Biblical character)", "(Biblical event)", "(Biblical location/city/town/lake/mountain/anything else)". However, I do understand that (Biblical character) can't always be used, considering that there are, at times, multiple people in the Bible with identical names. As said above, there could be a "name (son of dad's name)" placement, or maybe the naming could involve which book or chapter of the Bible that the person is mentioned in or what events are tied to their name. They're just ideas, though. Thoughs? Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 20:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the objection to the word 'character' is more that it's stepping on many people's beliefs and implying to them that the person being spoken of wasn't real (whether or not the word actually implies this). That's why I suggested 'figure' as that's a pretty common word to use for real people (i.e. political figure, etc.) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. What about "Biblical person"?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be my intention at all to step on people's beliefs by using the word "character", because I myself am a Christian. Biblical figure and Biblical person are both great ideas, though. "Character" is probably out then. Thanks all of you. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 03:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, "Biblical figure" or "Biblical person" should both work. --Alynna (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Biblical figure" sounds like it won't be actively opposed, at least (ie.: reverted). I think that I'll change one or two and wait a couple of days to see how that goes.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Question... what if you need further diambibuation? I am thinking of situations where the same name appears more than once in the Bible (example: there are multiple women named Mary in the Bible. Another example: Boaz, can refer to the husband of Ruth or one of the pillars outside Solomon's Temple.) Simple puting "Mary (Bible)" or "Mary (Biblical figure)" isn't going to be enough. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Mary we can see that those situations are already taken care of (although, not well, in my opinion). I think that this is step 1, which may or may not be the end of things.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In the case of characters mentioned in the Koran as well, Muslims might consider Bible dab biased. Peter jackson (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Two articles for Islamic/Biblical prophets???

I noticed that some articles, such as Ibrahim, Moses, Noah etc, one for the Qur'anic version and one for the Biblical version. I am curious why this is, and why the main article gives preference to the Biblical version (Ishmael for example). They seem to all go to the "Islamic view of so and so" which to me, even as a non-muslim, I find sort of offensive in taking ownership of the prophets (in a sense, it is saying that 'this is what they think of OUR prophets'). I am wondering has this been discussed? and if so where. My biggest problems are the ones where the spellings are the same (Adam, Ishmael) however my preference would be the merge all of them and discuss them from a Neutral point of view respecting information contained in all sources, be they history, the bible, the koran, the baha'i books etc. Grant bud (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that there is a Qur'anic version separate from the usual Bible itself. Islam recognizes the same material that Jews and Christians do and unless their is clearly a separate description in the Qur'an, these articles should be merged. I have just proposed that for the Islamic "version" of Moses. Unless the others are clear about being separately defined in sura someplace, they, too, should be merged. Student7 (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD for New England Institute of Religious Research

• New England Institute of Religious Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New England Institute of Religious Research. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)