Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Prophecy

Hello all, I was wondering if you could help with some comments at Prophecy. There is this editor that is changing the lead sentence of the article using a Bible verse which is not an academic definition nor is it using the secondary sources as defined in no original research. He seems bent on arguing on Truth rather than verifiability, and doesn't really understand the way Wikipedia works. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk)

Deletion discussion

I have nominated Moralistic therapeutic deism for deletion. This basically boils down to a nonsensical coining on the part of some extremists trying to paint the average (nonextremist) Christian as a defective Christian, and while they're at it to confuse the meaning of deism. Please delete this nonsense. Torquemama007 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Destiny of the unevangelized

This new article could do with tweaking and expanding, and it's been suggested it is redundant to original sin (though I'm not sure it needs to be merged myself). Fences&Windows 00:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a topic of multiple religions. Islam has some interesting things to say about it too. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposed: Destiny of the unevangelized and Fate of the unlearned. I proposed this on their pages. No one seems to have taken note, nothing being said for or against. Does that default to favoring the merge? I don't know. If a merge proposal falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.111.132 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Major issues with North American Emergent Church

Any idea what to do with this article? My gut is to delete and redirect to Emerging church. Any alternate suggestions? MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My gut agreed with yours. I redirected the article and talk page. Vassyana (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahweh and Allah.Borock (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volney Mathison. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:New religious movements

Is this category salvagable? It currently has no defined inclusion criteria, and even admits such ('Although there is no one criterion or set of criteria for describing a group as a "new religious movement"...'). As such, it doesn't work as a category. Is there any hope of defining criteria (such as a cutoff year)? Or is List of new religious movements (along with the broader set of Category:Religious organizations by year of establishment) a good enough replacement, as lists can include citations, while categories cannot? --Mairi (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is. It is an important label widely used in academic study. Just because the boundaries of the label are somewhat unclear and in dispute doesn't prevent its use as a category. NRM as a label has little to do with the date of founding, except that they are founded in the modern age. It has a great deal more to do with distance from the mainstream practices of their respective parent faith and social factors. I have revised the category description, including a common sense inclusion standard. Vassyana (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the category dscribes the religious movements as "new" concerns me, considering how there is not a set time when something isn't new anymore. Maybe it could be renamed? Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 20:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the label used by an overwhelming supermajority of reliable sources and scholars for the group of religions. It may not be ideal, but it is the standard terminology. Vassyana (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's used, doesn't mean it's suitable for a category. Part of the problem is that scholars are inconsistent about what is/isn't a NRM. From that article: "some authors use World War II as the dividing line after which anything is "new", whereas others define as "new" everything after the advent of the Bahá'í Faith (mid-19th century)" and "Generally, Christian denominations that are an accepted part of mainstream Christianity are not seen as new religious movements; nevertheless, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, Christian Scientists, and Shakers have been studied as NRMs". The problem with a category, unlike a list, is that we can't cite it. In a list of NRM, we can cite who called them that, and potentially include anything that someone's considered an NRM. Unless we come up with a specific definition, the category could include anything any scholar has called an NRM, which is less than useful, and hard to track. -Mairi (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A nebulous term used by a bunch of scholars is a fine topic for an article -- I wholeheartedly support List of new religious movements -- but it's a crappy topic for a category. Categories need blindingly obvious inclusion criteria. "Common sense" won't cut it. --Alynna (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to use capital letters to indicate the term is being used in a technical sense? I think scholars in the field do that a lot.

"Categories need blindingly obvious inclusion criteria. "Common sense" won't cut it." That would cause serious problems all over the place. Just think about Category:Religion. Just what is a religion? Peter jackson (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose if it is listed as a New Religious movement verifiable RS there is no need. I think the key is to use The NRM Work group has done i fine job of identying such groups. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ethnoreligious group

I'm posting this note here to request help with the article at Ethnoreligious group, that has a template from this Wikiproject on the talk page. The article currently has no sources for the definition of the term, and there is talk page discussion about a possible merge with Ethnic religion. If anyone here is interested in this topic, please join the discussion or add sources to the page. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 05:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Leo Ryan GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Leo Ryan 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)

RFC for religion - President Obama

Could you help us define non-denominational Protestant, non-denominational Christian, Protestant, Christianity, United Church of Christ, etc.

Some want the infobox to say "Christianity". This is the most vocal group.

Some want Protestant.

Some want Non-denominational Christian and have a new, reliable source reference.

Some want United Church of Christ (until 2008), Non-denominational Christian (2009-present)

I think #3 is the best. Some claim consensus but with 4 or more suggestions, there is no consensus. If you know about religion, please help. Other featured article class presidents list a denomination. To not have a denomination, you have to go back 1.5 centuries. Even those say Christian, no denomination or see below. No article uses #1. Help! JB50000 (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My comments: all four are largely accurate, it just depends on how much detail we want to provide:

1. Christianity is accurate, but there are so many varieties of Christian, I'd prefer more detail than this
2. Protestant is better, although there's still many varieties of that
3. I have mixed feelings about "Non-denominational". It's true that Obama no longer associates with a particular denomination. But it's still true he's more Protestant than say Catholic or Orthodox.
4. Listing both UCC up to 2008 and non-denominational thereafter is the most accurate, but maybe too much detail for an infobox?

My two preferences:

1. Non-denominational Protestant (better than Non-denominational Christian - he's closer to Protestant than anything else)
2. United Church of Christ (until 2008), Non-denominational Protestant (2009-present)

--SJK (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this just illustrates a point I've made a number of times before. Infoboxes are usually POV. Peter jackson (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The True Furqan

Would someone please contribute to Talk:The True Furqan. I am faced with an interlocutor who seems to have little understanding of how Wikipedia works, and would appreciate someone else looking at. --SJK (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC for Another Gospel

Please see Talk:Another_Gospel#RfC:_NPOV_and_article_Another_Gospel. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Academic journal categories

Hi, there are two categories for academic journals that fall within the realm of this project: Category:Theology journals and Category:Religious studies journals. I admit that I don't readily see the difference between the two and journals seem to have been assigned rather haphazardly to either one (some journals having "religous studies" in their titles having been assign to "theology journals" and the other way around). Is there any reason to maintain two separate categories and how should they be defined? Or should we just merge the two? In the latter case, should "theorlogy journals" be merged into "religious studies journals" or the other way around? (The former seems more logical, as "religious studies" seems to be more inclusive than "theology"). Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also agree with merging the religious studies journals into the theology journals section. Theology and religious studies seem to be close to the same thing. Also, the former category is more filled than the other one. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 18:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have made a soft redirect from "Theology journals" to "Religious studies journals". This way, there will be a "grace period" of about a week, if somebody would come up with a reason why this should not be done. After that, a bot will automatically move all the articles currently in the "theology" category to the "religious studies" one. --Crusio (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have assumed that "religious studies" journals were about the known, for example, presentation of scripture, catechism, that sort of thing. Definitive.

Whereas, theology journals is about the unknown, or not yet known, or being discussed. Still under discussion.

Religious studies would be the equivalent of how and what to teach science to children. Definitive.

Theology here, would be the equivalent of controlled experiments in teaching children science using different methods. Advanced and not necessarily definitive yet.Student7 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• But wouldn't many journals cover both aspects of what you describe? --Crusio (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

They're quite different. Theology is an activity that goes on inside religion. Religious studies look at religion from the outside. Peter jackson (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• That makes sense and I see how the fields can be differentiated. But again, like I said above, wouldn't many journals in this are cover both aspects? Perhaps you can have a look at the journals currently in those two categories and see whether they can easily classed as either one or the other. Alternatively, we could rename the category "Theology and religious studies journals". There are not that many articles that this would pose a problem, I think. --Crusio (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Peter Jackson, but more importantly, any merge must be discussed at WP:CFD. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Raëlian beliefs and practices

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Raëlian beliefs and practices/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Seventh-day Adventist Church

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people.

Generic RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people. Comments invited as might apply to some articles of interest to this wikiproject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC - prefixes in article title of Eastern Orthodox officials

An RfC is currently open (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#naming_convention_associated_with_Eastern_Orthodox_officials) regarding the appropriateness of having position titles in the article title of religious Eastern Orthodox officials. Commentary would be welcomed, as the WP:NCWC talk page has a low level of activity.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ammended: The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church reorganization proposal - comments welcome

A proposal has been made to restructure and shorten the article Catholic Church. Comments on whether or not the proposed changed should be implemented are welcome. Karanacs (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I definately think it's a good idea - the article is far too long to give a general overview. Some sections are not needed at all. L. Weaxzezz (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Jacob Frank now a mascot for Wikipedia sister project Wikiversity

Hi, I'm developing Jacob Frank (an 18th-century religious leader and follower of Sabbatai Zevi) as a mascot for Wikipedia's sister project Wikiversity. Wikiversity aims to be an online open school and university, and was also created to host original research. Because of its nature, it's open to educational resources in almost any format. Wikiversity's mascots appear on User talk pages when new Users are welcomed. In my opinion, the Wikiversity mascots could be used more fully as an opportunity to teach. The previously developed Wikiversity mascots lack intrinsic educational value. For example, they include a jack-o-lantern, a goat and twin babies not noticeably tied to anything else. In contrast, Jacob Frank is tied to a chapter of history that is relatively little-known and is probably interesting to some people who might not have heard of him beforehand. I'm also hoping to use his professed ignorance in real life and his doctrine of "purification through transgression" to introduce the Wikiversity policies of "Be bold" and "Ignore all rules" (Wikipedia has very similar policies with the same names). I would appreciate your going over to Wikiversity to provide feedback on the pages about the mascot: v:User:JacobFrank and v:Template:JacobFrank. The Template is left on new Users' talk pages; the Userpage is linked from the template and provides more information about Jacob Frank. Also, any ideas for other Wikiversity mascots? Thanks. --AFriedman (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the Paranormal pseudoscience

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Is_the_paranormal_pseudoscience.3F. Unomi (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move Of Genesis Creation Myth

here Thank you For you time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaponbb7 (contributions; talk) 17:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, because it is not neutral to call it a "myth". The term myth carries the connotation of being untrue, especially something which ignorant people used to believe in the past before we all wised up.

The phase "according to" is completely neutral, because it doesn't evaluate the source but merely attributes the idea to the source. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church has opened to decide which of several versions of the article has consensus, and how best to develop it. Input is welcome. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Creationism, ID vs. Evolution, and Atheism

Can we get together to describe the relationships between Creationism, which begins with religious faith in a typical Abrahamic Creator); Intelligent Design, which argues that life is too complex to have come about through "unguided" natural processes alone; Evolution, which argues that humans evolved through natural processes alone from simpler forms of life (but without specifying how life originally began); and Atheism, which generally either sides with evolution or uses evolution as an argument against the "need" to posit a Creator?

I'm not interested in adding to the Creation-Evolution Debate - wherein the various sides make their cases for what they believe. Rather I'd just like to see an article (or series) which simply describes clearly what each side believes.

I think there is already a article: Creation–evolution controversy. (Seems to me that there are basically two opinions: 1) Creationism which supports Intelligent Design, though not necessarily on the same timetable and 2) evolution. I don't see that "Atheism" enters into the picture anymore than "Democrats," or "English speaking Africans" or Sophomores or any other group. Just another group who may or may not have picked sides. I don't see how their inclusion would aid understanding, per se. That would be discussing "groups" rather than "ideas" IMO Student7 (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

One aspect that seems to get lost in all the posturing, is that the general public (and certain notable sources) are of the opinion that Intelligent Design supports Creationism and that Evolution supports Atheism.

So, ideologically, there is an incentive among atheists to promote evolution as much as there is an incentive among creationists to support ID.

I wonder where is the best place in Wikipedia to describe the incentives or motives that various advocates have for promoting ideas that support their metaphysical positions.

Also, I wonder if there is even any significant awareness among Wikipedia contributors of the linkage between atheism and evolution. Am I the only one who notes that Richard Dawkins, the world's foremost atheist, is outspoken about evolution? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Atheists like evolution, imagining that it supports their POV. However, there are a large number (probably larger number) of religious supporters who also support evolution. Atheists do not "own" Evolution. Neither do these same religious people perceive evolution at variance with Intelligent Design, just on a more protracted timetable with an inerrant God who is free of the constraints of time. Not one who is errant and has to constantly intervene in time to correct his mistakes. Student7 (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Book:Hindu Proud sent to MfD

If a few of you could comment, this would be much appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:

• Book:Buddhism (problems)
• Book:Christianity (problems)
• Book:Freemasonry (problems)
• Book:Greek Mythology - 1 : Deities (problems)
• Book:Greek Mythology - 2 : Heroes and Creatures (problems)
• Book:Hinduism (problems)
• Book:Indian religions (problems)
• Book:Islam (problems)
• Book:Judaism (problems)
• Book:Mythologies : A Polytheistic view of the world (problems)
• Book:Sikhism (problems)

The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)

Also, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Religion articles should have covers.

If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing religion topics

I've updated my list of missing religion topics - Skysmith (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Christ myth theory

There is a dispute as to whether Christ myth theory—an article about the theory that Jesus may not have existed as an historical figure—ought to be included in the "pseudohistory" category. Input would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Helped needed at Talk:Christ myth theory

Input would be appreciated to settle a dispute at Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Should the lead contain a dissenting voice?

The Christ myth theory is the argument that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure. This is a small-minority view within academia. Some Wikipedians and biblical scholars say it is a fringe view. There is therefore a disagreement as to whether the lead should contain a dissenting voice, and if so, what it should say.

Should the lead contain the following sentence? "The philosopher Michael Martin of Boston University writes that, while the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted by Christians and assumed by the majority of non-Christians and anti-Christians—and anyone arguing against it may be seen as a crank—a strong prima facie case can be constructed that challenges it." The source is Martin's The Case Against Christianity 1991, pp. 36–37. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Islam 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. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Category deletion discussion

• Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_24#Category:Relatives_of_L._Ron_Hubbard. -- Cirt (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police and Emergency Services

I think is a rare and interesting document and deserves an article but it apparently needs a wider audience for development or it's scheduled for deletion. I think (though this argument isn't in the article) that it's approximately the only document of it's kind. It's certainly the only one I've heard of except that New Zealand modeled one based on it. I'd welcome any thoughts as to the viability of the article.Smkolins (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding problematic groups and topics

There are several religious groups, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not discuss their internal workings much at all, often forcing reliance on former members, who are not always necessarily particularly reliable. There are other topics, many of which fall within the broad range of "conspiracy theories", which may be significant or important regarding a specific group which is also discussed little if at all by generally reliable sources. How should we proceed in such matters? I tend to think, personally, that it might make sense to develop specific articles regarding the notable works on the disputed subject first, and then, once we know what the various available sources say, and how reliable they seem to be, to perhaps create or change the problematic content in the main articles. Does that proposal make sense to the rest of you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk; contributions) 15:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems like a worthy undertaking. I wouldn't disagree with the actions. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 21:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Good to see a post from you John! I agree that an article detailing available sources might be helpful in many situations. A subject must be at least mentioned in mainstream press or academic sources in order to establish notability, but as you mentioned, there are instances where the obvious mainstream sources give only very limited, incomplete information. There are often well-researched materials available from websites, small publishers, SPS works, etc. which have been at least cited by one or more other reliable sources, and which can help round-out an article if used with care. Putting some more information about available sources would help readers judge for themselves. It would also help provide a common list of sources which could be applied to related articles. As you are (painfully) aware, there are some fanatically pro and anti types for whom there are NO acceptible reliable sources, and I'm not sure that this or anything else would satisfy these. I'm finding this in a current article which is undergoing a GA review and involves multiple nationalistic views, although not nearly to the degree involved in a couple of religious topics to which I've contributed. Still, it would be useful. I'm trying to visualize how this would be implemented—an article that could be linked from See Also sections? Might this be handled by a drop-down template that could be placed at the bottom of the article itself? Would there be a guideline for what factors should be listed regarding the sources? • Astynax ^talk 23:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Talk:Judaism regarding the term "religion"

Please see the following request for comment. Talk:Judaism#Should_the_term_.22religion.22_appear_descriptively_in_the_first_sentence.3F. Input would be much appreciated.Griswaldo (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories for converts / by former religion

The category trees under Category:People by former religion and Category:Religious converts are a bit muddled, often with a lack of distinction between similar categories. For example Category:Former Christians and Category:Converts from Christianity lack any descriptive text, yet one is a child of the other. The distinction at times seems to be to have categories for excommunicated people in Former, but not in Converts from. However, if that's the intention, it's not explained in any of the categories. Whether or not there's a distinction being made, the categories need some work. --Mairi (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The "converts" structure seems to exist to hold "Coverts from X to Y" categories. I agree that the distinction between "Former Xians" and "Coverts from X" is unclear, if one actually exists. There are assuredly cases where a person has left a religion, but not "converted" to another one. I'd say this applies to most athiests and agnostics who have left religions, although I believe we have "converts to atheism" categories... On another note, excommunicated people are not all former Christians, or even former Catholics. I think the Catholic church still considers them Catholic, and some of them probably still identify as Catholic. --Alynna (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Glossary of religion

There should be a Glossary of religion. See also Category:Glossaries on religion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality with Regard to Jewish Legal Opinions: Orthodox and Conservative: WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE

Since I think that this debate has implications for Wikipedia's coverage of religion in general, I wanted to post here about a dispute I am having with other editors about how Orthodox and Conservative Jewish legal opinions should be covered with reference to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, primarily. I have posted it on the NPOV noticeboard, with links to the diffs in question and discussion on an article talk page. Savant1984 (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement

A WikiProject has been created, for the topic with main article: Transcendental Meditation movement. The project page is located at WP:TMMOVEMENT. Feel free to list yourself as a participant there. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC at List of Scientologists

Request for Comment at page, List of Scientologists. Please see discussion on talk page, at "RfC: Should people be self-proclaimed Scientologists in order to be included on this list?" Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Swami Krishnananda

Hi, I have come across this article which has potential but which also has, to my mind, some very serious problems. I said some intemperate things to the author on my userpage, and would like to recruit a wider range of opinion on the matter. I need someone to help this user understand Wikipedia policy and whether the article in its current state violates it. Thank you! — goethean ॐ 10:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've not even heard of this guy before, but I have seen the same three sources point out that "he was one of the most important theologians and philosophers of the 20th century" and that "his influence on the world has been immense". I'm not trying to minimize his notablility, but those are questionable passages, if you ask me. Look at the current controversy at the Jesus talk page, because that controversy is stemming from similarly phrased words said about Jesus. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 22:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD - Steve Eichel

• Steve Eichel

Please see discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Eichel. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Need your comment on an issue related to this WikiProject

At the FA talk page a discussion is going on about whether religious buildings like cathedrals should be filed under Architecture or Religion. Please give your opinion on this issue. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment. Antisemitism and the New testament

Editors are requesting outside comment on the article Antisemitism in the New Testament. Student7 (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

move to delete one of the lists of TC's from Ten Commandments

The three lists called TC's in the OT or in popular conception have been listed side-by-side, stably, for a year and a half. There's now an edit war pushing to delete one of them, which has its own article. IMO, the main article should cover all points of view; if some editors want to cover only the traditionalist POV, then the article should be renamed 'traditionalist account of the TCs' or some such. — kwami (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are only two sets of lists that are commonly called the "Ten Commandments". The Ritual Decalogue is commonly called the "Ritual Decalogue", which is why Talk: page consensus has always been that the Ten Commandments article deal primarily with what is known as the "Ten Commandments", while the Ritual Decalogue article deals with what is commonly known as the "Ritual Decalogue". Of course, the Ten Commandments article does make reference to the Ritual Decalogue article, and no-one is suggesting it shouldn't. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed redirect, from Ritual decalogue to Covenant code

Please see my proposal here and comment/vote. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Meditation

I request that anyone please add their support/oppose rationale to the debate regarding the lede to Meditation, in the following thread;

• Talk:Meditation#Suggested change to lede regarding position of The Catholic Church on meditation

I emphasize my request for brief reasoning. This debate has a history (on the talk page); my role has simply been to try and get things on-track, to form a consensus.

I am posting here, and on the other two project group talk pages which are listed on that pages talk.

I would be very grateful for some help, to resolve this issue. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  19:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Now a second discussion, to clarify; quite a simple suggestion, and it could really do with more input, if anyone can contribute to the discussion, thanks,  Chzz  ►  15:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Economics of religion

I started cleaning up the page Economics of religion and added a religion project template on the talk page. If that's a problem, just take it down, but I thought it in the scope of your project. Thanks!... Ocaasi (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Dean (Christianity)

We are discussing whether the title of the article should be left at Dean (Christianity), moved back to Dean (religion), or moved to something else entirely like Dean (ecclesiastical office). Opinions are welcome! bd2412 T 17:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Religion and sex integration and Sex segregation and religion

Religion and sex integration and Sex segregation and religion need serious revision. I've already cut out a lot of redundant cut-and-paste material, and what is left looks like two halves of a set of notes for an early draft for an essay, rather than an encyclopedia article. I suggest that they first need to be merged, and then extensively revised, to create a single coherent article. -- The Anome (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Origin of sex segregation looks like it is need of similar treatment. -- The Anome (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryukyuan Shinto -> Ryukyuan religion

Wanna talk about moving this back (officially)...I think the word "Shinto" is restrictive and misleading. DaAnHo (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC Ryukyuan Shinto request to move

Since there is at least one editor arguing against the move, it would be good to get more input on this proposed move at Talk:Ryukyuan Shinto. • Astynax ^talk 08:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Christ myth theory page name

Comments would be appreciated at an RfC about the best title for the Christ myth theory. See the discussion here. The article is about the theory that Jesus of Nazareth did not, or probably did not, exist as an historical being. Should it be moved from Christ myth theory to, for example, Jesus myth theory? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Naamah

In the Cainitic line related in Genesis 4:17-24, Naamah is the daughter of Cainitic Lamech, and sister of Tubal Cain, mentioned at Gen 4:22. Most Bible commentators are puzzled at her inclusion in these verses as she does not appear in other accounts. The 16th century theological historian, John Gill, (mentioned on your 'Naamah,' page,) suggests that she is the wife of Ham, and in this he seems correct, for by being a descendant of Cain, and therefore carrying the curse stated at Gen.4:11-12, she would carry the hereditry characteristics of Cain's wickedness. Most Bible commentators are of the opinion that Cain's line ended with the global Flood of Noah's day, however a study of the four sons of Ham, reveals a distinct rebellious, and violent streak, namely, (a)'Cush,' Ham's first son, gives birth to Nimrod an opposer of God and builder of the tower of Babel in Gen.11:4. (b)'Mizraim,' the second son, was the founder of the first World Power, Egypt. (c)'Put,' third son of Ham, was the progenitor of the Libyans, Moors,and the Berebers, of the Barbary Coast, (where the name Barbarians originates.) (d)'Canaan,' fourth son, was cursed by Noah, in Gen9:25-27, and whose descendants settled in the Promised Land, prior to Abraham's perusal by God in Gen.12:5,6. This indicates, that, rather than the line of Cain being destroyed at the Flood, the wicked trait was actually carried through the Floodwaters by Ham's wife, Naamah. To support this, one only has to look at Joshua15:41, which names one of the townships assigned by lot to Judah as Naamah, in the distribution of the land of Caanan to the Nation of Israel. This township, was obviously named under Caananite possession, as a commemorative title honouring the mother of the Caananites, Naamah herself. Additional support is given in Job2:11, which defines one of the three comforters as being 'Zophar the Naamathite.' This understanding, now gives reason for Naamah being mentioned in Gen.4:22, not as an afterthought, but rather as a clue to the trait of wickedness being carried through the Flood waters, on the Ark itself, and subsequently to flourish in the post flood world, and so apparent in present world conditions!

I would be interested in your thoughts on this, Trevor Laidler. E mail;- m.laidler@sky.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superartist (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)