This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This template was considered for deletion on 27 October 2010. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
Based on the discussion at the TFD, I broadened this template to encompass religions, in general. This allows "critics" to be more sensibly included, and also makes it less POV/targeted at one particular faith. Plus, it should be more helpful to readers since they get more links on the topic. I think all the original (Christianity-only) articles are still in this new, broader template. If you have any comments, please reply at the TFD. so we can centralize the discussion. Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 18:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Carlaude: If the template gets too wide, the articles it is used in do not look very aesthetically pleasing. The sidebar should be unobtrusive. I have no objection to adding articles, but we should try to keep it narrow. -- Noleander ( talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Seriously tho? You're gonna put Richard Dawkins at the head of a list of critics of religion, a list of critics that includes Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche? 3L3CTRIC 33L ( talk) 03:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The list of critics seem to be awkwardly cherry picked. Some people are notable for their criticisms of religion, others are just famous people who happen to be critical of religion (but not famous because of these criticisms i.e. Stephen Fry or Bill Maher). I think there should be a more strict guideline on who should be included and who should not. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 23:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 Please list your reasons why some of these are not critics of religion.
This template should be split into subsections
-- 188.29.165.175 ( talk) 19:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Since roughly a third are critics of Christianity, Islam and of religion in general/other religions, I have added subsections. Makes it much clearer to read.-- 188.29.165.175 ( talk) 20:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Here are more examples that contain such sources in their main articles:
I have added the section "Critics of Hinduism" and listed only its most prominent critics. - Mohanbhan ( talk) 04:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This is Amartya Sen's book on the assertion of Hindu identity and how it often leads to violence against religious minorities: Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny (2006) Here is a review of the book. He also critically engages with religious texts like The Bhagavad Gita in The Argumentative Indian. This is one of Chattopadhyay's most famous books: Lokayata: A Study in Ancient Indian Materialism, it is both a devastating critique of Brahminism and a reevaluation of the religious culture of ancient India. His other book, What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy is a critique of theistic Hindu philosophies. In the Preface, Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya says his purpose in this book is to present "an analysis of our philosophical traditions from the standpoint of our present philosophical requirements. These requirements, as understood here, are secularism, rationalism and science-orientation". He once again finds the philosophical development – debates and clashes – in ancient India embedded in the class struggles of the time. He discusses the materialist foundation of Vedic rituals, which he finds similar to the magical belief of controlling the natural forces through yajnas, etc. He shows how these rites and rituals that evolved as primitive scientific endeavours were transformed into superstitions and monopolies in the hands of the oppressors with the advent of class divisions." - Mohanbhan ( talk) 02:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
As discussed above already, many of these names actually fall under the critics of religion, now recently, Terabar went onto WP:WIKIHOUND edits [2] and misusing the rollback without providing a reason for the violation of WP:BLPCAT with the recent edit that he made. Pinging @ TheRedPenOfDoom: for his opinion. D4iNa4 ( talk) 05:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I have to disagree with this absurd premise. This template is based on the said articles and the relevant information is in the articles not here. and it IS there. For example anyone who reads the article on Sanal Edamaruku and then comes here to say that "I have read their articles and they are not ciritics of any religion" is totally lying his ass off. Simple as that. The only other explanation is that the reader in question did not understand simple English, which of course will lead to competence issues. Furthermore this is not the forum/TalkPage to raise this issue. If you think someone is not a critic of religion, go to his article and use his talk page to get all the material pertaining to his criticism removed. On a side/hilarious note, I have written this reply after almost thirty minutes of unstoppable laughing, for only on wikipedia(which has some great editors btw, no disrespect to them) will you find an editor who can stand up and claim that A. C. Grayling, who wrote a book against 'GOD' is "not ciritics of any religion". FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 04:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
That's why the template is called "criticism of religion", not "critics of religions". Capitals00 ( talk) 11:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I propose that the Westboro Baptist Church be removed from the criticism section. This is not a significant denomination of Christianity, rather it is a single (relatively small) congregation which has gotten a lot of media attention in recent years due to its radical tactics (e.g. protesting a funerals). Its inclusion in this template, which is present on numerous articles, gives undue weight, and also goes against NOT News and Recentism. So it should be removed. Is there any objection here before I go ahead and edit? - 79.234.59.53 ( talk) 16:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm removing the lengthy, bloated, "grab bag" style list of "notable critics" from this template. There is no commonality among the names on the list, which includes extremely disparate figures (e.g., Pat Condell and Voltaire have nothing in common):
At least some of the linked biographies also make no mention of the subject's criticism of religion.
In sum, this is an indiscriminate list. I note that Template:Irreligion doesn't have a list of "notable individual figures" — probably for the same reasons that having such a list in the template is a bad idea. Neutrality talk 05:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be neater if the template is collapsible like this one: /info/en/?search=Template:Protestantism
Marax ( talk) 03:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
There are separate listings for Unification Church, Scientology, and new religious movement, but the Unification Church and the Church of Scientology are both classified as "new religions." Also, there's only one denomination of Judaism on the list. As a Reform Jew myself, I promise you, there's been plenty of criticism of Judaism in general (which also includes quite a bit of Antisemitism), and a good portion of criticism of Reform Judaism comes from within the Orthodox Jewish community. Reform Judaism was born with the controversies at the Hamburg Temple, and it's only in March of this year that the Israeli government recognized conversions as legitimately Jewish for immigration purposes. Even still, Reform Jews are not recognized as legally Jewish for marriage or burial purposes in Israel.
And does the Westboro Baptist Church even qualify as a religion? It's considered a hate group by multiple US NGOs. I feel like including them in the same list with other religions gives them more legitimacy than they deserve.
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This template was considered for deletion on 27 October 2010. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
Based on the discussion at the TFD, I broadened this template to encompass religions, in general. This allows "critics" to be more sensibly included, and also makes it less POV/targeted at one particular faith. Plus, it should be more helpful to readers since they get more links on the topic. I think all the original (Christianity-only) articles are still in this new, broader template. If you have any comments, please reply at the TFD. so we can centralize the discussion. Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 18:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Carlaude: If the template gets too wide, the articles it is used in do not look very aesthetically pleasing. The sidebar should be unobtrusive. I have no objection to adding articles, but we should try to keep it narrow. -- Noleander ( talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Seriously tho? You're gonna put Richard Dawkins at the head of a list of critics of religion, a list of critics that includes Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche? 3L3CTRIC 33L ( talk) 03:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The list of critics seem to be awkwardly cherry picked. Some people are notable for their criticisms of religion, others are just famous people who happen to be critical of religion (but not famous because of these criticisms i.e. Stephen Fry or Bill Maher). I think there should be a more strict guideline on who should be included and who should not. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 23:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 Please list your reasons why some of these are not critics of religion.
This template should be split into subsections
-- 188.29.165.175 ( talk) 19:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Since roughly a third are critics of Christianity, Islam and of religion in general/other religions, I have added subsections. Makes it much clearer to read.-- 188.29.165.175 ( talk) 20:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Here are more examples that contain such sources in their main articles:
I have added the section "Critics of Hinduism" and listed only its most prominent critics. - Mohanbhan ( talk) 04:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This is Amartya Sen's book on the assertion of Hindu identity and how it often leads to violence against religious minorities: Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny (2006) Here is a review of the book. He also critically engages with religious texts like The Bhagavad Gita in The Argumentative Indian. This is one of Chattopadhyay's most famous books: Lokayata: A Study in Ancient Indian Materialism, it is both a devastating critique of Brahminism and a reevaluation of the religious culture of ancient India. His other book, What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy is a critique of theistic Hindu philosophies. In the Preface, Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya says his purpose in this book is to present "an analysis of our philosophical traditions from the standpoint of our present philosophical requirements. These requirements, as understood here, are secularism, rationalism and science-orientation". He once again finds the philosophical development – debates and clashes – in ancient India embedded in the class struggles of the time. He discusses the materialist foundation of Vedic rituals, which he finds similar to the magical belief of controlling the natural forces through yajnas, etc. He shows how these rites and rituals that evolved as primitive scientific endeavours were transformed into superstitions and monopolies in the hands of the oppressors with the advent of class divisions." - Mohanbhan ( talk) 02:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
As discussed above already, many of these names actually fall under the critics of religion, now recently, Terabar went onto WP:WIKIHOUND edits [2] and misusing the rollback without providing a reason for the violation of WP:BLPCAT with the recent edit that he made. Pinging @ TheRedPenOfDoom: for his opinion. D4iNa4 ( talk) 05:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I have to disagree with this absurd premise. This template is based on the said articles and the relevant information is in the articles not here. and it IS there. For example anyone who reads the article on Sanal Edamaruku and then comes here to say that "I have read their articles and they are not ciritics of any religion" is totally lying his ass off. Simple as that. The only other explanation is that the reader in question did not understand simple English, which of course will lead to competence issues. Furthermore this is not the forum/TalkPage to raise this issue. If you think someone is not a critic of religion, go to his article and use his talk page to get all the material pertaining to his criticism removed. On a side/hilarious note, I have written this reply after almost thirty minutes of unstoppable laughing, for only on wikipedia(which has some great editors btw, no disrespect to them) will you find an editor who can stand up and claim that A. C. Grayling, who wrote a book against 'GOD' is "not ciritics of any religion". FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 04:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
That's why the template is called "criticism of religion", not "critics of religions". Capitals00 ( talk) 11:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I propose that the Westboro Baptist Church be removed from the criticism section. This is not a significant denomination of Christianity, rather it is a single (relatively small) congregation which has gotten a lot of media attention in recent years due to its radical tactics (e.g. protesting a funerals). Its inclusion in this template, which is present on numerous articles, gives undue weight, and also goes against NOT News and Recentism. So it should be removed. Is there any objection here before I go ahead and edit? - 79.234.59.53 ( talk) 16:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm removing the lengthy, bloated, "grab bag" style list of "notable critics" from this template. There is no commonality among the names on the list, which includes extremely disparate figures (e.g., Pat Condell and Voltaire have nothing in common):
At least some of the linked biographies also make no mention of the subject's criticism of religion.
In sum, this is an indiscriminate list. I note that Template:Irreligion doesn't have a list of "notable individual figures" — probably for the same reasons that having such a list in the template is a bad idea. Neutrality talk 05:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be neater if the template is collapsible like this one: /info/en/?search=Template:Protestantism
Marax ( talk) 03:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
There are separate listings for Unification Church, Scientology, and new religious movement, but the Unification Church and the Church of Scientology are both classified as "new religions." Also, there's only one denomination of Judaism on the list. As a Reform Jew myself, I promise you, there's been plenty of criticism of Judaism in general (which also includes quite a bit of Antisemitism), and a good portion of criticism of Reform Judaism comes from within the Orthodox Jewish community. Reform Judaism was born with the controversies at the Hamburg Temple, and it's only in March of this year that the Israeli government recognized conversions as legitimately Jewish for immigration purposes. Even still, Reform Jews are not recognized as legally Jewish for marriage or burial purposes in Israel.
And does the Westboro Baptist Church even qualify as a religion? It's considered a hate group by multiple US NGOs. I feel like including them in the same list with other religions gives them more legitimacy than they deserve.