![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Some users have decided to remove the Swastika of all Hinduism related templates despite the fact it is the most prevalent symbol in Hinduism. Please join the discussion here. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Expression of interest in project collaboration: I noticed this Project mentioned on the Singing Bowl article and I would like to be involved. May somebody please join the dots for me when convenient?
Thanking you in anticipation B9 hummingbird hovering 13:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:
Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Why have you removed my postings on this subject? Are you too afraid to entertain the truth of others?
I've been deleting attempts to orgainze Buddhist categories that include the concept Asceticism - I appreciate the efforts at creating article pages and improve categorization, that's definately a good thing! However, the reason I'm deleting Asceticism is that the Buddha taught against that concept. Tthe Middle Way is a central tenet of Buddhism. Every Buddhist child knows the story of Gautama Buddha that he left his life as a prince and went to live with the ascetics but denounced that path, he lived a life of hedonism, but rejected that path as well. He preached that nether extreme will lead one to truth. The wiki article on Monasticism states that Buddhist monasticism grew from the ascetic tradition (which clearly isn't true), however there is no citation for that section. I would guess that the person who added this section drew from a source written by a Westerner, possible an older text. As early as the 30's, translations of Buddhist texts were popular, but not very accurate, since the translators did not understand Buddhism but drew from their own world view and paradigms. I'll look for a better source for the Buddhist monasticism section of the Monasticism article. Working on the cateogories is a really good idea and the heavy lifting, I can do the housekeeping for the minor details like this, as I'm sure members of individual religion projects will do as well. Nightngle 15:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I seek somone in order to gather a knowladgeble editoraial group that can launch Wikipedia: WikiProject Interreligious, having as first goal of interweaving parallel perceived totalitarian and triumphalism denominations and political and theological branches of the three Abramic faith.
I want to interweave articles like Islamism and Dominionism and its Jewish counterpart, if applicable, through having a structure of refereing to eachother in the articles and the "see also" section.
Also having a structure of refering to movements accused of terrorism like the christian Lord's Resistance Army, IRA and Loyalist Volunteer Force with the Muslim Al-Qa'eda, Hizbollah and such. Also, lets not forget the KKK and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the LTTE Black Tiger.
Possibly creating Totalitarian theologies or Religion and terrorism or something along that line that can give an overview of the those movements.
In short: Im a Muslim and tired of people forgeting that there where shit happening before self proclaimed "Muslims" organizations started to terrorize the world. America was in the hand of KKK, IRA where accused of terror in England, Africa was engulfed in the terror of LRA, and the Tamilian Tigers where wreking havoc in their part of the worl, but that was totaly ignored. Now, people seem to belive that the terrorist actions in the west are a new fenomena. Its not, its the media's etnocentric reports that give that impression.
I want to spread the truth, who's with me?
-- Striver 05:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Although im angry at the moment about having the reputation of my beatiful relioun geting sodomized by animals, this project could evolve to identifyng and interweaving other peacefull parallel articles like Names of God in Judaism - 99 Names of God, and creating parent articles to those when needed, maybe a Interreligious parallels article. Peace! -- Striver 05:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The Islam article itself is the main priority at the moment. It was assessed for good article status but failed and some of us would like to get it ready to try again. If you visit the page you will see the To-Do list. Any comments here or on that article's discussion page very welcome.
There is a lot of perpetual edit-warring about all Islam-related articles. Some people seem to see religion as a zero-sum game, i.e. Islam's gain must be some other religion's loss. It would be nice to see more editors making visits to these pages as sometimes the informative purpose of the encyclopedia gets lots in the desire to shape articles in one way or another. Itsmejudith 18:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Can someone, perhaps with more knowledge than me, help me in improving Alevi? -- Hurax 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
When I was but three, I said: "You don't need a car or a boat or a house to be happy. We just need to be the brothers and sisters of the One Father that we truly are and we will save the world!" How about that, O Islam? Is not your Father Abraham worthy of respect? Are not you half brother to Jews? Even the Great Prophet recognized Jesus, and looks down from heavenly realms with Him in horror at what violence and hate have done to his great and godly work to bring wisdom to mankind! Please understand that America is not being represented by her people, but by multinational corporations who serve the golden calf, idol worshipers of money, guns, oil and drugs, a false god! Many of us here wanted to "bomb" Iraq with food and medicines, and not military dominion! unfortunately, we have not yet been heard in any realms but that of the Holy spirit whose name is above every other name. No respector of persons, god will honor what is in your heart, not your choice of religion or creed. What if my onlly creed is miracles? Will you help by believing in the Most High Good, O Gracious and Merciful One, whose Mercy endureth forever?!````
I'm fulfilled in what I do... I never thought that a lot of money or fine clothes â the finer things of life â would make you happy. My concept of happiness is to be filled in a spiritual sense. - Coretta Scott King (attributed)
NinaOdell | Talk 13:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the above image very much. The only problem is that sometimes it doesn't want to appear for me - but that's true of many images. However, you just have to click on it. It reminds me of all the Wikipedians out there... Nina Odell 12:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
To clarify why we have a picture of a sunset on the religion page, I put it there because the banner this project puts on talk pages of articles and user template previously had: first; a picture of a statue of a man meditating (that is offensive to a number of religions and they let us know they objected to it); second, we had Albrecht Duer's praying hands - yikes! no need to say why that's a bad idea, I hope; third, we had one of those religion icons collages, but that kind of collage can never be inclusive of all the religions that this project proposes as it's scope (my personal opinion is that omitting someone's religion for the sake of expediency is a poor excuse, and that we shouldn't use those types of graphics). Having the Earth from space might be a good option, but I find that those images look kind of puny when they're sized as small as a user template would make them. One proposal was having a picture of a cloud filled sky with sun rays streaming through, but an image like that is already being used for the Spirituality project, so I don't think we should copy them for clarity's sake. Not to mention that it's an allagory for "spirit" and heavenly hosts kind of thing, rejected by some religions and not appropriate on their pages.
I'm certainly open to considering a different picture, but we really have to consider the scope of what we're doing and the appropriateness of the graphic being present on pages relating to other religions. Not being a follower of a diety, I don't want to see any allusions to dieties and otherworldly thingies. Perhaps the answer is as simple as not having a graphic at all, or as complex as realizing that the project is too broad in scope to have any real meaningful purpose. Nightngle 18:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to make a case (extremely belated) for "Lights of the World from Space", I thought the imagery and symbology would be sort of obvious. We are "lights of worlds" being watched by...whatever and whomever. Furthermore, we are shedding "light" on some of the worlds most over-looked and ancient beliefs as a part of this project. I'm not much for extremely long and dense paragraphs (a touch of ADHD, plus an OCD desire to copy-edit other people's comments), so if this has been said somewhere, then I apologize in advance. NinaOdell | Talk 14:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm available as a (now) active member of WikiProject:Buddhism. My emphasis is on Mahayana Buddhism and Buddhism in India-related articles. In truth, these are the topics that I know best, but I'll try to make a more concerted effort at copyediting other articles. I'm know more than a few folks in Wikipedia land, so I'm a good resource in enlisting help on various other religion-related projects as well.
I've been trying to recruit some other people for Ayyavazhi and related articles, because I feel that someone who can speak Paul's language might be able to help more. Frankly, I sometimes can't understand what he's trying to express. It's difficult, and slow-going. If we can get some other folks to help out that can speak directly to Paul, I think that would be more efficient. NinaOdell | Talk 14:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Some of you may have noticed that the article Jesus is currently a nominee for the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. The article is currently a good article, which is good. However, it is also the first page that appears when one runs a google search of the name, and the fact that it is only a good article under those circumstances isn't so good. I noted on the talk page that the article as it now reads, at least to me, is more than a little unbalanced toward the religious aspects than the pure biographical aspects, and that it does show a definite "Christian" bent. There are some wonderful new sources available for use listed on the article's talk page, and I hope that all the members at least consider whether they would be willing to vote for the nomination for article improvement, and perhaps work on the article if it is nominated to show a more neutral, NPOV perspective. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Considering that individuals who found one religious movement generally arise from another one, and that their articles will be edited primarily by adherents of the faith s/he founded, not the one s/he arose from, I have proposed a new subproject to deal with these possibly difficult articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Religious leaders in the hope that we might be able to better ensure they be NPOV and have a global perspective. Any and all interested parties should indicate their support there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start the group in earnest. Badbilltucker 15:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Concerns have been expressed elsewhere that some recent attempts to include content related to Taoism in the above article have been reversed. If anyone feels qualified to address this matter, it would be very appreciated. Badbilltucker 14:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I created based on a previous request from a Wikipedian for an infobox for religious buildings. Here's what I came up with: Template:Infobox religious building. I think it works universally for all religous buildings. I've already implemented the infobox in Old New Synagogue, Saint Joseph's Oratory, and Faisal Mosque. -- Sapphire 15:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Are there any plans so far for the Satanism article. Controversy seems to have escalated at this point though some of us agree that using Religioustolerance.org's defintion seems the best thing to do at this point. Still as it is a religion, its recieved a B rating, and it is quite a controversial topic, perhaps it should be included as a project to be revamped. WerewolfSatanist 00:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I need help to answer some person using the "intolerant" word 2-3 times on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_mythology Thank you in advance. Goldenrowley 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay I am good now. I was taking the "mythology expert" challenge on that page and added some of the Early Christianity narratives. I think it still could use expert attention from others as well because I am not a theology major. Goldenrowley 06:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Cessationism could use some serious attention from any interested editors and/or experts. It is currently heavily biased with a huge Charismatic/Pentecostal focused bibliography and similar POV. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Vassyana 06:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate any help and assistance anyone would be willing to offer over at Taoic religions. It has been significantly expanded from a stub, but still needs further expansion and reliable sources for its claims. Thanks! Vassyana 13:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I will probably receive a topic ban from the arbcom, so I am looking for a contributor who will replace me. I was and am the only major contributor. The article was never controversial and there were never serious disputes, except about the external links. Andries 16:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like somebody with more topic knowledge than me to review Eckanar. Sorange ( talk · contribs) has been making a number of unexplained major edits while marking them minor, and doesn't seem interested in discussing them. I have done my three reverts, and he's still going strong. He's so far an WP:SPA, and the removal of cited criticism makes me suspect WP:COI issues. I'd love some help from religion project members on this. Thanks, William Pietri 22:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Presuppositional apologetics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated Taoic religion as a good article. Feedback is welcomed. Vassyana 10:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Per this discussion, we should come up with a consensus over wheteher we should have similar sections in all religion articles, or if we should remove the section from the Islam article.-- Sefringle 02:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, couldn't find a relevent AfD section on your project page, so I'm posting here to alert you to an AfD I would like your input on. The article s in the title, and the AfD is here. Thank you. The Kinslayer 11:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I have collected a list of topics related to religions. I've tried to find any equivalent articles and redirect but I'd appreciate if any experts could have a look at the list. Thank you. - Skysmith 12:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I am interested in how quantum physics approaches will change educational matrices as well as cultural, religious, and secular bias. Will the scientific method's supposed monopoly on knowledge via the "scientific experiment" (now known to be affected by the very thoughts and bias of the observer, especially in artificial laboratory conditions as opposed to the "crucible of experience" acknowledged by Leonardo da Vinci), ever be seen as the lie it is? We are MIDI's, musically intelligent design interfaces, and I have shown how and why in the latest paper for my PhD available at the following link: Google me at SPIRITUALUN (it will come up on angelfire) and follow links or type in the following directly: http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/aaadesignservices/Breadth.html Please reply with feedback in my guest book. thanks! 66.14.38.104 22:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 66.14.38.104 21:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I have seen the Creation (theology) article and it has been proposed that a suitable candidate should completely revise it. I am a Biblical Studies 4 year graduate student majoring in the Old Testament and studied much about the creation mythology in Genesis and would be willing to tackle this over a period of time. How do I get this permission? -- Monasticknight 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Antimuslim
Please keep your eyes open for this troll Zazaban 01:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There are quite a few articles dealing with people who, under pressure, convert to a religion while secretly holding on to their old beliefs, such as:
I wonder, would there be enough material to write an article about this phenomenon, or should it be integrated into Forced conversion? -- Benne ['bÉnÉ] ( talk) 14:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Proposing significant restructuring and renaming, and/or RfC for this article. Please discuss on Talk:Religious pareidolia. Best, -- Shirahadasha 07:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This article's name isn't the best (replacement suggestions are welcome), but the concept of ascension into heaven is important in a number of religions, even going beyond Judaism, Christianity and Islam, so I'm trying to improve the article and save it from deletion. It seems to me that members of this project would have a particular interest in an article on a topic of comparative religion. In the deletion discussion, some editors seem to be calling the belief in ascension without death a "joke". It seems to me that the best response to that is to improve the article and show the concept is not treated as a joke by those who take religious questions seriously. Please take a look at the article and the deletion discussion and consider contributing to both.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who went to heaven alive
Noroton 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Please have a look at the entry titled Religious conversion and terrorism. It is misleadingly titled at the very least, but I believe it really doesn't warrant existence as an entry of its own under any name. Another user, one of the project members here, seems to disagree. The opinions of other Wikiproject:Religion members would be much appreciated. Thanks and best. PelleSmith 04:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The article Panendeism, which has been tagged as supported by this project (and rated as start class) has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panendeism. Interested parties may want to take a look. Cheers, Xtifr tälk 02:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I am wondering why the page on the religious system of Yoruba is Yoruba mythology and not Yoruba religion, as this is a currently practiced religion.
The Orisha article states "An Orisha...is a spirit that reflects one of the manifestations of Olodumare (God) in the Yoruba spiritual or religious system". Here, the term "Yoruba" links to Yoruba mythology, while the term "religious system" links to religion. There seems to be a disconnect here, or perhaps a bias against non-mainstream religious views, relegating them to "mythology".
Is there any sort of protocol about what can be designated a religion and what is called mythology? I would like to call for a renaming of this article, but I wanted to check here first to see if anyone has any ideas or opinions on the matter, as the article in question is under the domain of this wikiproject. Thanks, romarin talk ] 18:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, There is a problem with several editors who have labeled a wide variety of articles on religious topics and doctrines "mythology" on a pick and choose basis (using the category system). While traditionally encyclopedias have entries on "mythology" that strictly discuss past beliefs that are no longer practised any more, these editors do not seem to appreciate the traditional encyclopedic distinction between religion (present) and mythology (past) and want to subsume religion into mythology and just call all of it "mythology". I am arguing with these people and they are very persistent, but the thing is they are not even coming from a background in Comparative Religion and seem to know little of the field, their backgrounds are for the most part Science, and they are very aggressive in asserting that only their view is correct and therefore "neutral".
I have taken Comparative Religion in University, and right after we learned on day one that the predominant religions of the world today are Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc, we learned that we should avoid referring to any of these as mythology because of the sensitive and opinionated nature of the word. No one has authorized wikipedia as a body to sift through all the religious texts of the world and determine which ones are "mythology" and which aren't. In many of these cases, the label of "mythology" is hotly disputed, but they insist that they are simply right, therefore all who disagree with them are "insignificant". This thing is continually rearing its ugly head, and right now I need someone who knows the neutrality issues involved here, and even knows something about the the field of Comparative religion, to weigh in.
The figure of Noah is considered a prophet in Islam and Judaism and several other creeds, not only Christianity. Some even argue that he is the same as Manu, who in Hinduism is believed to be very real and the author of the Manusmriti. I am obviously not asking wikipedia to endorse any of these views, only to refrain from attacking or openly antagonizing them while styling itself a "neutral" encyclopedia. Neutral means not taking anyone's side. These people are not very skilled in logic because everytime I say putting Noah's Ark in the newly-invented category "Mythological ships" is pushing their POV since a vast number of people still consider it to have been real in some form, they immediately start screaming that I am a "fundamentalist" seeking special protection for "fundamentalism", etc. They do not even know what my personal beliefs are, because as an editor they are irrelevant to the question. It is neutrality between all significant points of view that is relevant. I repeatedly tell them that I would equally object to the Quran, the Sutras, or the Vedas being dumped in a "mythology" category, because these are religious texts with significant followings today, with significant viewpoints. But their only response is always to scream at me that I am a "fundie".
This has been the case at Noah's Ark with several editors who wanted to endorse the POV that the Ark is a "fictional ship" by putting it into a category "fictional ships", I said this is a POV; but then they have added the category "mythological ships" which is also obviously a POV-pushing category, and they say all those people of faith who do not agree with them are "insignificant" and so discount all opposition.
As I stated before I would dearly like to see Wikipedia remain neutral and not declare any of the great religious texts or any of the significant world views that are practised in the world today to be either true or false. However they seem to be operating on behalf of a particular world view that seeks to have all others declared either false or mythological. This is very poor word choice, calling someone else's firm beliefs "mythology" is polemical at best, and if it is as innocent as they claim, they should find a more neutral word to express what they are really trying to say. ááá° ( ááááµ) 02:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Bahá'à Faith has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Hi! I would also nominate this review````
Well its been a nice rambling journey so far, but there's still more to do and we all need any help possible. The primary concern is sourcing. Finding outsider, objective sources. Authoritave sources. The main article Satanism could use with a rewrite (and suggestions are welcome). Any help is welcome really. WerewolfSatanist 02:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope that helps. Vassyana 21:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
There is an extant proposal for a project or work group which would deal specifically with articles relating to individual religious leaders. It can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Religious leaders. I am in fact an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints, which is rather active. Unfortunately, despite some suggestions to the contrary, I believe that the existing membership of that project is not necessarily the best equipped people to deal with biographical content related to people involved in non-Christian religion. On that basis, I have recently indicated an interest in that project and would like to call it to the attention of the members of this project. If any of the members of this project would be interested in joining such an effort, please indicate your interest there. Thank you. John Carter 16:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I am here to inform you that the article on money has just been selected as the Good Article Collaboration of the week. This is one of the most important articles in Wikipedia, and while I realize it might not be the most article to this WikiProject, it is unfortunately in a very poor state as of now, so every help is needed. The selection for COTW makes for a good occassion for a concerted effort to improve it, and I am really counting on the members of WikiProject Religion, with your knowledge and expertise, to help other users involved bring it at least to Good Article standards. In particular, I hope you could provide some gravely needed sources, as well as help make the article appropriately covers the aspects of money in religion. PrinceGloria 18:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The above referenced article is currently being considered for deletion seemingly solely on the basis of its inclusion of Bob Dylan. It seems to me that this list of converts, and all the other lists of converts, would be best within the scope of this project, as it is probably the project which would be most aware of all the perspectives involved. Would the members of this project be willing to assist in overseeing these lists of converts? John Carter 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Assistance in cleaning up, sourcing and expanding Universal reconciliation would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Vassyana 05:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I notice that this project seems to be the only one which might be able to deal with subjects which relate to a variety of religions. It also seems to be explicitly involved in articles that relate specifically to religions not counted within any other project's scope. Do the rest of you think that there would be any basis for creating an entity to deal with the potentially sensitive discussion of content which might relate to more than one discrete religious tradition? I personally think that any specific project relating to a particular faith would probably not be qualified to handle such a subject individually, and think that this might be the only group qualified to deal with such matters. Any other opinions? John Carter 16:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Currently we have a Manual of Style that relates to Islam related articles and other, but we have none that relates to all religious articles. All religious articles should be guided by similar requirements. It would be most consistent and NPOV to have all religious articles under similar guidelines. I suggest we create a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Religion-related articles)-- Sefringle 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I had a look at three of the existing religion-specific MOS's mentioned above (i.e., the Judaism MOS, the Latter Day Saints MOS, & the Islamic MOS, & I'd say that they overlap a fair bit in terms of intent, if not at least some details. I felt were written to encourage two different points:
Formulating such a document would, in effect, say to the rest of Wikipedia: "Hey, we're trying to be reasonable here; so can we ask that you be, too?" -- llywrch 03:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, Wikipedia has enough rules, manuals of style, and procedures to choke a battalion of horses. Do we really need more rules and regulations to choke the few really busy and productive editors and put stumbling blocks in the way of their productivity and creativity? Secondly, religions differ. For example, due to the fact that being a Jew means belonging to both an ethnicity (see the Jew article) as well as to a religion (see the Judaism article), and that therefore there are Jews who are not religious but are fully Jewish according to Judaism, and vice versa there are people who practice Judaism yet they would would not be considered Jewish under classical Jewish law (see the Who is a Jew? article), many articles relating to Jews that intersect with Judaism topics would not be "classifiable" under either a purely "religious" or secular set of rules. Thirdly, as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism I can state that trying to get all articles relating to Judaism, and in particular Orthodox Judaism, Haredi Judaism and Hasidic Judaism to function in the same manner as articles that do not deal with those subjects would be a nightmare. Add to that that there are a number of large Jewish denominations each with it's own set of rules of how to understand things. Thus while Reform Judaism may admire Biblical criticism, trash the Talmud, and negate the Shulkhan Arukh, that would be heresy in Orthodox Judaism. So how would one get around the fact that Reform Judaism and secular Jews look at the way Orthodox Jews relate and accept Torah study and citing the Hebrew Bible as a primary source as THE literal word of God, which would not even enter the mind of most Reform scholars, let alone a secular (Jewish) one. Fourthly, so while I can sympathise with User:Sefringle's hopes, I cannot agree with him at this time, because his vision is premature since religion is an esoteric field, it's not a quantifiable "science" and Wikipedia is still in it's developmental stages, essentially it's a secular encyclopedia, and any attempt to create and enforce some sort of "universal standard" for all articles relating to religion via a "manual of style for all relgions" would serve to stifle the development and growth of articles that need to be allowed to "flow in naturally" into Wikipedia and editors of articles relating to religion must not feel that at any moment an axe (of "rules") could fall on them. Finally, there is adequate monitering of articles by alert and experienced editors via talk pages, watchlists, Wikiprojects, and the usage of WP:AFD to deal with topics and articles that are way off, allowing each set of religion and denomination editors to organize, edit, and deal with material without a uniform ARTIFICIAL "code of law" being imposed upon them, or for them to refer to, when we have the existing Wikipedia guidelines that work just fine. IZAK 09:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
COUNTER-PROPOSAL: Retain the status quo, no need for a universal 'manual of style' to govern all religion-related articles:
Agree with counter-proposal
Let's not poll. Certainly not while discussion is at an early stage. Those who are suggesting a common MOS should state their case. Why is this useful in practical terms? Personally, I think it is just instruction creep - but convince us.-- Docg 09:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with counter-proposal
(Provide reasons please)
As discussed above, there are times when Religion articles have unique problems not shared by articles on science, fiction, government, etc., yet because the topic of religion is prone to exceptions and difficult to generalize, an attempt to create a comprehensive guide could easily step on unanticipated toes. To address this, I propose we proceed, but very cautiously, by raising and addressing specific issues which experience finds are common across religions and for which a comprehensive approach would add clear value. In other words, let's start with some common law and go case-by-case for awhile, rather than trying to write an all-embracing constitution from scratch. Suggest a consensus approach to what topics to include. If there is strong disagreement about including a topic, we don't include that topic. -- Shirahadasha 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
A suggested example: Criticism. One topic which may benefit from a cross-religion approach is how criticism should be handled in religion articles. Unlike most article topics, where criticism generally involves disagreement with a single feature or fact and hence is usually better integrated throughout the article, in religion articles criticism often represents a comprehensive disagreement between worldviews which often requires its own introductory/explanatory paragraph. For this reason, I find that separate criticism sections often make more sense in religion articles, despite the fact that this may not be best for other, and perhaps most, kinds of Wikipedia articles. Issues where religious content requires a different approach from other kinds of content represent areas where a common approach will add clout in dealing with the rest of Wikipedia, and hence will have clear value to all the participants. Best -- Shirahadasha 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I do think that it could make sense to have guidelines, possibly separate guidelines, for many of the main articles relating to religion. For instance, a standard format for articles like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, SanterÃa and so on does make a good deal of sense to me. It could indicate which proposed sections, or main topics, an FA on the subject would need, so as to help ensure that as many articles as possible can potentially reach that level. Also, particularly when dealing with articles relating to individual leaders of religion, the recently proposed Religious leaders work group could possibly provide a standard format for such articles. One might even be able to go so far as to create a standard format for specific denominations of larger religions, indicating among other things when a given "movement" or denomination started, its early leaders/founders, the points of theology or whatever that led to the creation of the new group, and so on. I acknowledge that there may well be specific instances when these formats would be inappropriate. However, if nothing else, having a standard format to follow where possible would make it easier to ensure that all the relevant content is included. John Carter 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
These two articles, Young Religious Unitarian Universalists and Unitarian Universalist Youth Conferences are up for deletion and I thought it might be something you may want to comment on. So go and have your say at nominated for deletion.-- Devin Murphy 90 02:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
There is now a possible project sidebar that I copied from the Christianity Project sidebar at {{ WP Religion sidebar}}. The color at the top of the bar probably should be changed. Anyway, any improvements to it are more than welcome. Also, I guess anyone who wants to can add it to the main page when they see fit. John Carter 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys. I just wanted you to know I've been categorizing expert requests, many have to do with religion: Category:Religion articles needing expert attention. This is part of the expert finding process. Goldenrowley 04:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
This is the best place I could think of to ask this question; If you know of a better one, thanks for pointing it out. I am looking for a known religion/philosophy/you name it that considers God as the sum of all information and communication between humans, and as such omnipotent, benevolent, and, of course, omniscient. Can anybody help?
Thanks in advance, -- 82.151.88.108 10:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, I made this user box the other day. Should I make one for "Religious Humanists", and "Humanists", and one for "people who are interested in Humanism? Would anyone use them?
| This user is a secular humanist. |
-- Dr who1975 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
My method in compiling this list is to go through each article in a "(x religion) mythology" cat (eg "Buddhist mythology" etc.) to find those articles that pertain to the recognized sacred scriptures of that religion, and where I would encourage the categorisations to be reviewed by this project for NPOV.
For example, I have listed Shambhala here, because it is a kingdom found in the Tantras, scriptures that have devout adherents among Buddhists today. The fact that its identity is in dispute is no excuse to put it into a mythology cat; this is from the scriptures of a living religion widely practised today, not "mythology". On the other hand, articles pertaining to various Buddhist folk beliefs apparently not found in any sacred scripture, such as Diyu and Apalala, seem to be properly placed and 'fair game' so to speak for a mythology cat, so they are not listed. Feel free to expand or comment within this list. Regards, Blockinblox 17:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm wondering if it may be too ambitious to hope to remove all gray areas. Perhaps the best we could hope from discussing the issue would be to reduce the scope of the problem, hopefully to the point where conflicts over these issues stop being a drain. If this particular religion has 400 followers and doesn't mind its beliefs being called "mythology", perhaps the current situation ain't broke in this particular case. Perhaps we should pick a case which has a substantial number of current Wikipedia editors (and perhaps one where these editors are currently complaining) as an example case. Best, -- Shirahadasha 20:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Copied the following from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology: -- Shirahadasha 01:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I rewrote the WikiProject Religion/Religion WikiProjects, but I'm not sure whether Thelema and Scientology shall be regarded as religions or some religious additional philosophies?? Opinions!? (Be fast, after two or so, I'll act!) Said: Rursus ⺠â 14:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Please help with the NPOV, soapboxing and OR problems in this article. -- Dweller 07:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
We would appreciate any input you have at Talk:Christianity_by_country#RFC. The Evil Spartan 18:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a copy of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion. As this project seems to have turned inactive, I post it again here. The only activity in the meantime was the creation of Criticism of Bahá'í Faith, redirecting to Bahá'í apologetics, which is no improvement at all of the situation.
About all current religions, there is debate. All right.
So there is Christianity, Criticism of Christianity, and Christian apologetics. All right.
There is Bahá'í Faith, Criticism of Bahá'í Faith and Bahá'í apologetics. All... wait! Is anything missing here?
Well, there used to be Bahá'í criticisms, but it was decided to merge this article into Bahá'í Faith as it was considered Wikipedia:Content forking, see AfD 'Bahá'í criticisms'.
Now, no merge was done, but the article was turned into a redirect and all info removed. Thus, "Bahá'í criticisms" redirects to an article where no criticism at all is mentioned. There is just a link: "See also: Bahá'í apologetics - for critical viewpoints." There, as the name suggests, is neither any criticism, but the apologetics of this faith.
But without criticism... how can apologetics be relevant?
There are several ways to resolve this problem:
I'd prefer the first way, because it's the simplest - let's discuss. The current situation, however, is flawless POV and inacceptable. And as the headline implies, there are more problems. But I discuss them one by one.-- KnightMove 18:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It would appear that over time usually unexplained and unwarrranted reverts have occured switching between these two articles - is there any suggestion within this project of how to conciliate this rather lame edit war over time? Satu Suro 14:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I have just made this page, among many things that could be added is the proper Christian name of 'God'. Could anyone help? SCmurky 04:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This article started as an offshoot of the Freemasonry project (as Freemasonry requires its members to have a belief in a Supreme Being)... but the concept goes beyond just one fraternity. A quick google search indicates that it is a concept that is discussed in most religions (each with their own interpretation of what that "being" is... Christ, Yaweh, Allah, Odin, or what ever) I am hoping that some of the members of this project will help improve the article. Thanks, Blueboar 12:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
As many of you might have noticed by now, I have started to hijack the main project page with a listing of the articles which have been selected as FAs, GAs, DYKs, and by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team for inclusion in the wikipedia release versions. Many articles about religion are of importance to more than one religion, and it seemed to me to make sense to make a master list of them. Those lists is still of course far from finished, and if you know of any articles missing, please add them. My primary reason for doing so was my personal belief that religion-related content is probably noticably lacking in the release versions to date. I myself nominated Moses, who I consider to be a central figure in the development of the Western world, for inclusion for the first time a few weeks ago. If any members of this project believe that they know of other articles which they believe are of sufficient importance to be included in the release versions, please name them below and I will ensure that they are at least nominated. Thanks for your attention. John Carter 17:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The three subcategories are:
Although it wasn't specifically included in the proposal, the sub- Category:Jewish American film directors would undoubtedly be affected, as well, if these categories were to be deleted.
If you wish to add your comments to the discussion, be sure to do so ASAP, as the the CFD was opened on July 27 and will probably close in 2 days. Cgingold 13:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Just for info. Would be nice if somebody with some clue about neutral, encyclopedic articles about religions could show up there, watch the "noise" a bit and do some neutral editing. Misou 18:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has been nominated as a candidate for the collaboration above. If you would be interested in helping to improve this article in this collaboration, please indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter 22:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The project infobox has "see Related Wikiprojects below" with a wikilink that doesn't work. Perhaps the section on related projects could be reinstated? __ meco 11:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I recently added a new section to the Mircea Eliade article, on Eliade's philosophy of religion. (Eliade was a historian of religions.) So far, I haven't gotten much feedback. I'm assuming that's because not many people know a lot about Eliade. However, any feedback on the article's talk page would be appreciated. -- Phatius McBluff 07:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice a fairly big missing article—one on universalism versus particularism in religion. Something for the WikiProject to consider, I think. Thanks.-- Pharos 06:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Above article has had multiple problems for a long time now. I am trying to do some basic restructuring but am finding it hard going. Any experts on new religious movements available to lend a hand? 21:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool heads needed on the above page as an NPOV dispute is rumbling. The article subject is a twentieth-century writer on mysticism who has been accused of racism and antisemitism. Itsmejudith 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, this articles is one of the worst articles i've come across in Wikipedia. Please read this report at the ANI. I am not an expert but would like to see this article in good shape. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm copying recent discussion on this page's talkpage here to request that some experienced religion editors take a peek and offer their advice. It seems to me this is a reasonably high-profile page and its style should be maintained. Thanks, and regards... User:scbomber 10:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I've created a brief, extremely rough draft of a proposed guideline for notability for religious figures, which currently have no directly relevant notability guideline. Please feel free to improve and/or discuss at Wikipedia talk:Notability (religious figures). Best, -- Shirahadasha 01:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added this article for peer review. Please write your idea about it here.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 07:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Please help review the newly created entry Origin of religion. It seems completely WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and also completely spurious in the conclusion its attempting to draw. Thanks. PelleSmith 15:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Update: The entry has now been nominated for deletion here. PelleSmith 00:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
A proposal has been made on Talk:Bible to split the current Bible article into two separate articles, Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible, with Bible becoming a redirect to Bible (disambiguation). Best, -- Shirahadasha 05:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Discussion has proceeded into additional proposals for restructuring the article. Please join the discussion on Talk:Bible. Best, -- Shirahadasha 13:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
For this project, a made an alternate Userbox:
![]() | This user is a member of WikiProject Religion. |
Just if anyone is interested. Not sure if this is the right place to put this.
Basilides/"ούκ ών θεός"
20:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
On 13 October 2007 I wrote a new chapter in the already existing article about satanic ritual abuse. It contains the discussion about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Two days later I found out that my chapter (which I have kept as neutral as possible, because I am very well aware that this discussion is very polarized) was almost entirely removed by someone who is not Dutch, who does not speak Dutch and who probably is not familiar at all with the discussion about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Therefore I have put the original text again in the chapter.
However, a day later, this contributor, an Australian student who calls himself Biaothanatoi, removed again my whole text. Since then, every time when I put the text again in the chapter, he removes it and replaces it with a biased text on the situation in the Netherlands. A text with is based entirely on the research of Fred Jonker and Ietje Jonker-Bakker. That research is widely criticized both in the Netherlands and in the United States, because their findings are far from objective.
Furthermore Biaothanatoi accuses me of violating Wikipedia's policy of NPOV and balance. He says that any additions I make to this section should be statements of fact, not an endorsement of one opinion over another. But that is precisely what I am doing. I wrote a neutral text with lots of footnotes containing relevant literature, while Biaothanatoi only refers to a very questionable source: the research of Fred Jonker and Ietje Jonker-Bakker.
Since I follow the discussion about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands since 1994, I am very well informed about the ins and outs of this discussion. Therefore I asked Biaothanatoi several times to stop replacing my neutral text by his biased text. Since he refuses this, I would like to ask you how he can be stopped.
Yours sincerely,
Criminologist1963 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You find the discussion between Biaothanatoi and me here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#POV_pushing_in_the_Netherlands_section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Neutral_stance_toward_satanic_ritual_abuse_in_the_Netherlands
Thank you for your advice Judith. I will try to discuss the status of my sources with everybody who doubts them and who wants to have more information. I have done research into satanic ritual abuse for years and I have published on this subject too, and I am always prepared to answer questions about the situation in the Netherlands concerning satanic ritual abuse.
D. Bachmann is editing the satanic ritual abuse page, but he has not edited the section about the Netherlands so far. Therefore, I am not sure if he has looked into it. Criminologist1963 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The article is on Afd but I think it only needs cleanup, a massive cleanup. I opted to notify you instead as I have no idea on how to fix it myself.-- Lenticel ( talk) 10:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
How can i join?? cheesepuffsaretasty!!! ( talk) 15:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
There is now a proposed barnstar for religion-related content at Image:REstar.png. If the members of this project would like to make this image, or a variation of it, the barnstar of this project, I think at this point all we would have to do is include it on the project page. Just letting you all know the at least potential award exists. John Carter 14:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
A couple of weeks ago I visited a monastery, with my study group. In the gift shop there was little book section where I found a small book by Nicholas of Cusa with the Latin title De pace fidei, On religious peace. It was written 1454, a few months after the Ottoman Turks sacked Constantinople. While Christian Europe called for revenge, this bishop wrote a work how representatives of the major religions should come before the throne of God and talk, rather to fight, to find a solution. Is it interesting and significant enough to add? I've done lots of minor edits, I've never really started a serious article. In case it might be good to create one, may I assume I'll get some help? -- Soetermans 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for you advice, John. I haven't finished the book yet, so when I do I'll try to make a small summary and drop a line over those other WikiProjects. -- Soetermans 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).
This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. -- Quiddity 19:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. We have a new article, Jewish-Christian Gospels: Patristic Citations. I don't know what to make of it. Would you have a look at it please? -- Malcolmxl5 00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a touchy subject, so I want some opinions on the article Mesoamerican reconstruction. I, myself, am an Aztec recon and there IS a community for it. But its not "established" religion, unlike the likes of Asatru. So is this a valid article? I mean there are multiple wiki rules to be considered, including reliability on references. I really do not believe there is much or any "scholarly" sources on the subject. All I know is my friend's website, but it may be considered by wiki to be a personal one. Xuchilbara ( talk) 00:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should create a work group of folks interested in articles related to Unitarian Universalism. Is anyone interested in being on such a work group? Aleta ( talk) 03:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, enough interest has been expressed that I've started a page for the workgroup at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group. Aleta 19:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
With much regret I have proposed this article for deletion, the discussion is here. It doesn't seem possible to have a single article on such a topic that is reliably sourced without its being at best an original research synthesis. There also seems to be difficulty complying with WP:NPOV on the subject. There seems to be no way to determine, for example, what weight to give opinions. A number of articles seem to be dumping grounds for POVs and their pushers, but there doesn't seem to be a practical way to construct a policy-compliant article. If I am wrong in this I could not be more pleased. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 03:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, The purpose of life is a Topic that we can say forms the crux of the religions around the world and having it as a central part of this whole post is of utmost importance. While every religion has tried to present its own way of what the purpose of life is there is absolutely no doubting the fact that the decision of finding ones own purpose is to be left to that Individual himself about how he or she feels about it.Even though there is no unanimity about the same trying to shape others views of purpose of life has been a bane of all religions and no matter what amount of force was used or methods employed the question still is so complex that people are not able to find content suitable to be listed here. I request learned men on the editorial board to forget the complex multitude of religious scriptures and let us try and make it a simple one line question as to what is that that to you for now which can be defined as your own purpose of life and leave it at that.I would sure like to be interacting with men of knowledge to complete this section and see it online and complete in the days to come.
Anand Damani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damaniindia ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I recently created Category:Religious sanctuaries and Category:Historical religious sanctuaries, which may or may not merit inclusion. User:Athinaios raised some issues about these categories (see this), and I thought I'd bring the discussion to a broader audience. I'll defer to this project how to handle those categories, and how to deal with the issues raised. Mind matrix 16:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be one of the more active project groups in Wikipedia, so I wonder how many of you would be interested in contributing a knowledge of religious gerontology to the articles on aging and gerontology? Perhaps some of you might like to join a newly proposed Wiki-project group - see my plea at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COUNCIL/P#Gerontology
While I am here, you might also also be interested in my proposal at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COUNCIL/P#Transpersonal_Studies I know that I have said that being more towards Exopedianism than metapedianism, I tend not to join project groups, but I might make exceptions here if enough interest can be gathered in these proposals.
ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
There are two proposals to merge Holy anointing oil, one to merge it with Shemen Afarsimon and one to merge it with Chrism. Please see Holy anointing oil for discussion locations. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 04:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Some users have decided to remove the Swastika of all Hinduism related templates despite the fact it is the most prevalent symbol in Hinduism. Please join the discussion here. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Expression of interest in project collaboration: I noticed this Project mentioned on the Singing Bowl article and I would like to be involved. May somebody please join the dots for me when convenient?
Thanking you in anticipation B9 hummingbird hovering 13:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:
Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Why have you removed my postings on this subject? Are you too afraid to entertain the truth of others?
I've been deleting attempts to orgainze Buddhist categories that include the concept Asceticism - I appreciate the efforts at creating article pages and improve categorization, that's definately a good thing! However, the reason I'm deleting Asceticism is that the Buddha taught against that concept. Tthe Middle Way is a central tenet of Buddhism. Every Buddhist child knows the story of Gautama Buddha that he left his life as a prince and went to live with the ascetics but denounced that path, he lived a life of hedonism, but rejected that path as well. He preached that nether extreme will lead one to truth. The wiki article on Monasticism states that Buddhist monasticism grew from the ascetic tradition (which clearly isn't true), however there is no citation for that section. I would guess that the person who added this section drew from a source written by a Westerner, possible an older text. As early as the 30's, translations of Buddhist texts were popular, but not very accurate, since the translators did not understand Buddhism but drew from their own world view and paradigms. I'll look for a better source for the Buddhist monasticism section of the Monasticism article. Working on the cateogories is a really good idea and the heavy lifting, I can do the housekeeping for the minor details like this, as I'm sure members of individual religion projects will do as well. Nightngle 15:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I seek somone in order to gather a knowladgeble editoraial group that can launch Wikipedia: WikiProject Interreligious, having as first goal of interweaving parallel perceived totalitarian and triumphalism denominations and political and theological branches of the three Abramic faith.
I want to interweave articles like Islamism and Dominionism and its Jewish counterpart, if applicable, through having a structure of refereing to eachother in the articles and the "see also" section.
Also having a structure of refering to movements accused of terrorism like the christian Lord's Resistance Army, IRA and Loyalist Volunteer Force with the Muslim Al-Qa'eda, Hizbollah and such. Also, lets not forget the KKK and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the LTTE Black Tiger.
Possibly creating Totalitarian theologies or Religion and terrorism or something along that line that can give an overview of the those movements.
In short: Im a Muslim and tired of people forgeting that there where shit happening before self proclaimed "Muslims" organizations started to terrorize the world. America was in the hand of KKK, IRA where accused of terror in England, Africa was engulfed in the terror of LRA, and the Tamilian Tigers where wreking havoc in their part of the worl, but that was totaly ignored. Now, people seem to belive that the terrorist actions in the west are a new fenomena. Its not, its the media's etnocentric reports that give that impression.
I want to spread the truth, who's with me?
-- Striver 05:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Although im angry at the moment about having the reputation of my beatiful relioun geting sodomized by animals, this project could evolve to identifyng and interweaving other peacefull parallel articles like Names of God in Judaism - 99 Names of God, and creating parent articles to those when needed, maybe a Interreligious parallels article. Peace! -- Striver 05:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The Islam article itself is the main priority at the moment. It was assessed for good article status but failed and some of us would like to get it ready to try again. If you visit the page you will see the To-Do list. Any comments here or on that article's discussion page very welcome.
There is a lot of perpetual edit-warring about all Islam-related articles. Some people seem to see religion as a zero-sum game, i.e. Islam's gain must be some other religion's loss. It would be nice to see more editors making visits to these pages as sometimes the informative purpose of the encyclopedia gets lots in the desire to shape articles in one way or another. Itsmejudith 18:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Can someone, perhaps with more knowledge than me, help me in improving Alevi? -- Hurax 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
When I was but three, I said: "You don't need a car or a boat or a house to be happy. We just need to be the brothers and sisters of the One Father that we truly are and we will save the world!" How about that, O Islam? Is not your Father Abraham worthy of respect? Are not you half brother to Jews? Even the Great Prophet recognized Jesus, and looks down from heavenly realms with Him in horror at what violence and hate have done to his great and godly work to bring wisdom to mankind! Please understand that America is not being represented by her people, but by multinational corporations who serve the golden calf, idol worshipers of money, guns, oil and drugs, a false god! Many of us here wanted to "bomb" Iraq with food and medicines, and not military dominion! unfortunately, we have not yet been heard in any realms but that of the Holy spirit whose name is above every other name. No respector of persons, god will honor what is in your heart, not your choice of religion or creed. What if my onlly creed is miracles? Will you help by believing in the Most High Good, O Gracious and Merciful One, whose Mercy endureth forever?!````
I'm fulfilled in what I do... I never thought that a lot of money or fine clothes â the finer things of life â would make you happy. My concept of happiness is to be filled in a spiritual sense. - Coretta Scott King (attributed)
NinaOdell | Talk 13:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the above image very much. The only problem is that sometimes it doesn't want to appear for me - but that's true of many images. However, you just have to click on it. It reminds me of all the Wikipedians out there... Nina Odell 12:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
To clarify why we have a picture of a sunset on the religion page, I put it there because the banner this project puts on talk pages of articles and user template previously had: first; a picture of a statue of a man meditating (that is offensive to a number of religions and they let us know they objected to it); second, we had Albrecht Duer's praying hands - yikes! no need to say why that's a bad idea, I hope; third, we had one of those religion icons collages, but that kind of collage can never be inclusive of all the religions that this project proposes as it's scope (my personal opinion is that omitting someone's religion for the sake of expediency is a poor excuse, and that we shouldn't use those types of graphics). Having the Earth from space might be a good option, but I find that those images look kind of puny when they're sized as small as a user template would make them. One proposal was having a picture of a cloud filled sky with sun rays streaming through, but an image like that is already being used for the Spirituality project, so I don't think we should copy them for clarity's sake. Not to mention that it's an allagory for "spirit" and heavenly hosts kind of thing, rejected by some religions and not appropriate on their pages.
I'm certainly open to considering a different picture, but we really have to consider the scope of what we're doing and the appropriateness of the graphic being present on pages relating to other religions. Not being a follower of a diety, I don't want to see any allusions to dieties and otherworldly thingies. Perhaps the answer is as simple as not having a graphic at all, or as complex as realizing that the project is too broad in scope to have any real meaningful purpose. Nightngle 18:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to make a case (extremely belated) for "Lights of the World from Space", I thought the imagery and symbology would be sort of obvious. We are "lights of worlds" being watched by...whatever and whomever. Furthermore, we are shedding "light" on some of the worlds most over-looked and ancient beliefs as a part of this project. I'm not much for extremely long and dense paragraphs (a touch of ADHD, plus an OCD desire to copy-edit other people's comments), so if this has been said somewhere, then I apologize in advance. NinaOdell | Talk 14:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm available as a (now) active member of WikiProject:Buddhism. My emphasis is on Mahayana Buddhism and Buddhism in India-related articles. In truth, these are the topics that I know best, but I'll try to make a more concerted effort at copyediting other articles. I'm know more than a few folks in Wikipedia land, so I'm a good resource in enlisting help on various other religion-related projects as well.
I've been trying to recruit some other people for Ayyavazhi and related articles, because I feel that someone who can speak Paul's language might be able to help more. Frankly, I sometimes can't understand what he's trying to express. It's difficult, and slow-going. If we can get some other folks to help out that can speak directly to Paul, I think that would be more efficient. NinaOdell | Talk 14:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Some of you may have noticed that the article Jesus is currently a nominee for the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. The article is currently a good article, which is good. However, it is also the first page that appears when one runs a google search of the name, and the fact that it is only a good article under those circumstances isn't so good. I noted on the talk page that the article as it now reads, at least to me, is more than a little unbalanced toward the religious aspects than the pure biographical aspects, and that it does show a definite "Christian" bent. There are some wonderful new sources available for use listed on the article's talk page, and I hope that all the members at least consider whether they would be willing to vote for the nomination for article improvement, and perhaps work on the article if it is nominated to show a more neutral, NPOV perspective. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Considering that individuals who found one religious movement generally arise from another one, and that their articles will be edited primarily by adherents of the faith s/he founded, not the one s/he arose from, I have proposed a new subproject to deal with these possibly difficult articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Religious leaders in the hope that we might be able to better ensure they be NPOV and have a global perspective. Any and all interested parties should indicate their support there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start the group in earnest. Badbilltucker 15:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Concerns have been expressed elsewhere that some recent attempts to include content related to Taoism in the above article have been reversed. If anyone feels qualified to address this matter, it would be very appreciated. Badbilltucker 14:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I created based on a previous request from a Wikipedian for an infobox for religious buildings. Here's what I came up with: Template:Infobox religious building. I think it works universally for all religous buildings. I've already implemented the infobox in Old New Synagogue, Saint Joseph's Oratory, and Faisal Mosque. -- Sapphire 15:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Are there any plans so far for the Satanism article. Controversy seems to have escalated at this point though some of us agree that using Religioustolerance.org's defintion seems the best thing to do at this point. Still as it is a religion, its recieved a B rating, and it is quite a controversial topic, perhaps it should be included as a project to be revamped. WerewolfSatanist 00:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I need help to answer some person using the "intolerant" word 2-3 times on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_mythology Thank you in advance. Goldenrowley 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay I am good now. I was taking the "mythology expert" challenge on that page and added some of the Early Christianity narratives. I think it still could use expert attention from others as well because I am not a theology major. Goldenrowley 06:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Cessationism could use some serious attention from any interested editors and/or experts. It is currently heavily biased with a huge Charismatic/Pentecostal focused bibliography and similar POV. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Vassyana 06:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate any help and assistance anyone would be willing to offer over at Taoic religions. It has been significantly expanded from a stub, but still needs further expansion and reliable sources for its claims. Thanks! Vassyana 13:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I will probably receive a topic ban from the arbcom, so I am looking for a contributor who will replace me. I was and am the only major contributor. The article was never controversial and there were never serious disputes, except about the external links. Andries 16:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like somebody with more topic knowledge than me to review Eckanar. Sorange ( talk · contribs) has been making a number of unexplained major edits while marking them minor, and doesn't seem interested in discussing them. I have done my three reverts, and he's still going strong. He's so far an WP:SPA, and the removal of cited criticism makes me suspect WP:COI issues. I'd love some help from religion project members on this. Thanks, William Pietri 22:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Presuppositional apologetics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated Taoic religion as a good article. Feedback is welcomed. Vassyana 10:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Per this discussion, we should come up with a consensus over wheteher we should have similar sections in all religion articles, or if we should remove the section from the Islam article.-- Sefringle 02:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, couldn't find a relevent AfD section on your project page, so I'm posting here to alert you to an AfD I would like your input on. The article s in the title, and the AfD is here. Thank you. The Kinslayer 11:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I have collected a list of topics related to religions. I've tried to find any equivalent articles and redirect but I'd appreciate if any experts could have a look at the list. Thank you. - Skysmith 12:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I am interested in how quantum physics approaches will change educational matrices as well as cultural, religious, and secular bias. Will the scientific method's supposed monopoly on knowledge via the "scientific experiment" (now known to be affected by the very thoughts and bias of the observer, especially in artificial laboratory conditions as opposed to the "crucible of experience" acknowledged by Leonardo da Vinci), ever be seen as the lie it is? We are MIDI's, musically intelligent design interfaces, and I have shown how and why in the latest paper for my PhD available at the following link: Google me at SPIRITUALUN (it will come up on angelfire) and follow links or type in the following directly: http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/aaadesignservices/Breadth.html Please reply with feedback in my guest book. thanks! 66.14.38.104 22:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 66.14.38.104 21:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I have seen the Creation (theology) article and it has been proposed that a suitable candidate should completely revise it. I am a Biblical Studies 4 year graduate student majoring in the Old Testament and studied much about the creation mythology in Genesis and would be willing to tackle this over a period of time. How do I get this permission? -- Monasticknight 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Antimuslim
Please keep your eyes open for this troll Zazaban 01:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There are quite a few articles dealing with people who, under pressure, convert to a religion while secretly holding on to their old beliefs, such as:
I wonder, would there be enough material to write an article about this phenomenon, or should it be integrated into Forced conversion? -- Benne ['bÉnÉ] ( talk) 14:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Proposing significant restructuring and renaming, and/or RfC for this article. Please discuss on Talk:Religious pareidolia. Best, -- Shirahadasha 07:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This article's name isn't the best (replacement suggestions are welcome), but the concept of ascension into heaven is important in a number of religions, even going beyond Judaism, Christianity and Islam, so I'm trying to improve the article and save it from deletion. It seems to me that members of this project would have a particular interest in an article on a topic of comparative religion. In the deletion discussion, some editors seem to be calling the belief in ascension without death a "joke". It seems to me that the best response to that is to improve the article and show the concept is not treated as a joke by those who take religious questions seriously. Please take a look at the article and the deletion discussion and consider contributing to both.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who went to heaven alive
Noroton 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Please have a look at the entry titled Religious conversion and terrorism. It is misleadingly titled at the very least, but I believe it really doesn't warrant existence as an entry of its own under any name. Another user, one of the project members here, seems to disagree. The opinions of other Wikiproject:Religion members would be much appreciated. Thanks and best. PelleSmith 04:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The article Panendeism, which has been tagged as supported by this project (and rated as start class) has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panendeism. Interested parties may want to take a look. Cheers, Xtifr tälk 02:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I am wondering why the page on the religious system of Yoruba is Yoruba mythology and not Yoruba religion, as this is a currently practiced religion.
The Orisha article states "An Orisha...is a spirit that reflects one of the manifestations of Olodumare (God) in the Yoruba spiritual or religious system". Here, the term "Yoruba" links to Yoruba mythology, while the term "religious system" links to religion. There seems to be a disconnect here, or perhaps a bias against non-mainstream religious views, relegating them to "mythology".
Is there any sort of protocol about what can be designated a religion and what is called mythology? I would like to call for a renaming of this article, but I wanted to check here first to see if anyone has any ideas or opinions on the matter, as the article in question is under the domain of this wikiproject. Thanks, romarin talk ] 18:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, There is a problem with several editors who have labeled a wide variety of articles on religious topics and doctrines "mythology" on a pick and choose basis (using the category system). While traditionally encyclopedias have entries on "mythology" that strictly discuss past beliefs that are no longer practised any more, these editors do not seem to appreciate the traditional encyclopedic distinction between religion (present) and mythology (past) and want to subsume religion into mythology and just call all of it "mythology". I am arguing with these people and they are very persistent, but the thing is they are not even coming from a background in Comparative Religion and seem to know little of the field, their backgrounds are for the most part Science, and they are very aggressive in asserting that only their view is correct and therefore "neutral".
I have taken Comparative Religion in University, and right after we learned on day one that the predominant religions of the world today are Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc, we learned that we should avoid referring to any of these as mythology because of the sensitive and opinionated nature of the word. No one has authorized wikipedia as a body to sift through all the religious texts of the world and determine which ones are "mythology" and which aren't. In many of these cases, the label of "mythology" is hotly disputed, but they insist that they are simply right, therefore all who disagree with them are "insignificant". This thing is continually rearing its ugly head, and right now I need someone who knows the neutrality issues involved here, and even knows something about the the field of Comparative religion, to weigh in.
The figure of Noah is considered a prophet in Islam and Judaism and several other creeds, not only Christianity. Some even argue that he is the same as Manu, who in Hinduism is believed to be very real and the author of the Manusmriti. I am obviously not asking wikipedia to endorse any of these views, only to refrain from attacking or openly antagonizing them while styling itself a "neutral" encyclopedia. Neutral means not taking anyone's side. These people are not very skilled in logic because everytime I say putting Noah's Ark in the newly-invented category "Mythological ships" is pushing their POV since a vast number of people still consider it to have been real in some form, they immediately start screaming that I am a "fundamentalist" seeking special protection for "fundamentalism", etc. They do not even know what my personal beliefs are, because as an editor they are irrelevant to the question. It is neutrality between all significant points of view that is relevant. I repeatedly tell them that I would equally object to the Quran, the Sutras, or the Vedas being dumped in a "mythology" category, because these are religious texts with significant followings today, with significant viewpoints. But their only response is always to scream at me that I am a "fundie".
This has been the case at Noah's Ark with several editors who wanted to endorse the POV that the Ark is a "fictional ship" by putting it into a category "fictional ships", I said this is a POV; but then they have added the category "mythological ships" which is also obviously a POV-pushing category, and they say all those people of faith who do not agree with them are "insignificant" and so discount all opposition.
As I stated before I would dearly like to see Wikipedia remain neutral and not declare any of the great religious texts or any of the significant world views that are practised in the world today to be either true or false. However they seem to be operating on behalf of a particular world view that seeks to have all others declared either false or mythological. This is very poor word choice, calling someone else's firm beliefs "mythology" is polemical at best, and if it is as innocent as they claim, they should find a more neutral word to express what they are really trying to say. ááá° ( ááááµ) 02:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Bahá'à Faith has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Hi! I would also nominate this review````
Well its been a nice rambling journey so far, but there's still more to do and we all need any help possible. The primary concern is sourcing. Finding outsider, objective sources. Authoritave sources. The main article Satanism could use with a rewrite (and suggestions are welcome). Any help is welcome really. WerewolfSatanist 02:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope that helps. Vassyana 21:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
There is an extant proposal for a project or work group which would deal specifically with articles relating to individual religious leaders. It can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Religious leaders. I am in fact an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints, which is rather active. Unfortunately, despite some suggestions to the contrary, I believe that the existing membership of that project is not necessarily the best equipped people to deal with biographical content related to people involved in non-Christian religion. On that basis, I have recently indicated an interest in that project and would like to call it to the attention of the members of this project. If any of the members of this project would be interested in joining such an effort, please indicate your interest there. Thank you. John Carter 16:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I am here to inform you that the article on money has just been selected as the Good Article Collaboration of the week. This is one of the most important articles in Wikipedia, and while I realize it might not be the most article to this WikiProject, it is unfortunately in a very poor state as of now, so every help is needed. The selection for COTW makes for a good occassion for a concerted effort to improve it, and I am really counting on the members of WikiProject Religion, with your knowledge and expertise, to help other users involved bring it at least to Good Article standards. In particular, I hope you could provide some gravely needed sources, as well as help make the article appropriately covers the aspects of money in religion. PrinceGloria 18:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The above referenced article is currently being considered for deletion seemingly solely on the basis of its inclusion of Bob Dylan. It seems to me that this list of converts, and all the other lists of converts, would be best within the scope of this project, as it is probably the project which would be most aware of all the perspectives involved. Would the members of this project be willing to assist in overseeing these lists of converts? John Carter 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Assistance in cleaning up, sourcing and expanding Universal reconciliation would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Vassyana 05:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I notice that this project seems to be the only one which might be able to deal with subjects which relate to a variety of religions. It also seems to be explicitly involved in articles that relate specifically to religions not counted within any other project's scope. Do the rest of you think that there would be any basis for creating an entity to deal with the potentially sensitive discussion of content which might relate to more than one discrete religious tradition? I personally think that any specific project relating to a particular faith would probably not be qualified to handle such a subject individually, and think that this might be the only group qualified to deal with such matters. Any other opinions? John Carter 16:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Currently we have a Manual of Style that relates to Islam related articles and other, but we have none that relates to all religious articles. All religious articles should be guided by similar requirements. It would be most consistent and NPOV to have all religious articles under similar guidelines. I suggest we create a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Religion-related articles)-- Sefringle 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I had a look at three of the existing religion-specific MOS's mentioned above (i.e., the Judaism MOS, the Latter Day Saints MOS, & the Islamic MOS, & I'd say that they overlap a fair bit in terms of intent, if not at least some details. I felt were written to encourage two different points:
Formulating such a document would, in effect, say to the rest of Wikipedia: "Hey, we're trying to be reasonable here; so can we ask that you be, too?" -- llywrch 03:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, Wikipedia has enough rules, manuals of style, and procedures to choke a battalion of horses. Do we really need more rules and regulations to choke the few really busy and productive editors and put stumbling blocks in the way of their productivity and creativity? Secondly, religions differ. For example, due to the fact that being a Jew means belonging to both an ethnicity (see the Jew article) as well as to a religion (see the Judaism article), and that therefore there are Jews who are not religious but are fully Jewish according to Judaism, and vice versa there are people who practice Judaism yet they would would not be considered Jewish under classical Jewish law (see the Who is a Jew? article), many articles relating to Jews that intersect with Judaism topics would not be "classifiable" under either a purely "religious" or secular set of rules. Thirdly, as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism I can state that trying to get all articles relating to Judaism, and in particular Orthodox Judaism, Haredi Judaism and Hasidic Judaism to function in the same manner as articles that do not deal with those subjects would be a nightmare. Add to that that there are a number of large Jewish denominations each with it's own set of rules of how to understand things. Thus while Reform Judaism may admire Biblical criticism, trash the Talmud, and negate the Shulkhan Arukh, that would be heresy in Orthodox Judaism. So how would one get around the fact that Reform Judaism and secular Jews look at the way Orthodox Jews relate and accept Torah study and citing the Hebrew Bible as a primary source as THE literal word of God, which would not even enter the mind of most Reform scholars, let alone a secular (Jewish) one. Fourthly, so while I can sympathise with User:Sefringle's hopes, I cannot agree with him at this time, because his vision is premature since religion is an esoteric field, it's not a quantifiable "science" and Wikipedia is still in it's developmental stages, essentially it's a secular encyclopedia, and any attempt to create and enforce some sort of "universal standard" for all articles relating to religion via a "manual of style for all relgions" would serve to stifle the development and growth of articles that need to be allowed to "flow in naturally" into Wikipedia and editors of articles relating to religion must not feel that at any moment an axe (of "rules") could fall on them. Finally, there is adequate monitering of articles by alert and experienced editors via talk pages, watchlists, Wikiprojects, and the usage of WP:AFD to deal with topics and articles that are way off, allowing each set of religion and denomination editors to organize, edit, and deal with material without a uniform ARTIFICIAL "code of law" being imposed upon them, or for them to refer to, when we have the existing Wikipedia guidelines that work just fine. IZAK 09:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
COUNTER-PROPOSAL: Retain the status quo, no need for a universal 'manual of style' to govern all religion-related articles:
Agree with counter-proposal
Let's not poll. Certainly not while discussion is at an early stage. Those who are suggesting a common MOS should state their case. Why is this useful in practical terms? Personally, I think it is just instruction creep - but convince us.-- Docg 09:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with counter-proposal
(Provide reasons please)
As discussed above, there are times when Religion articles have unique problems not shared by articles on science, fiction, government, etc., yet because the topic of religion is prone to exceptions and difficult to generalize, an attempt to create a comprehensive guide could easily step on unanticipated toes. To address this, I propose we proceed, but very cautiously, by raising and addressing specific issues which experience finds are common across religions and for which a comprehensive approach would add clear value. In other words, let's start with some common law and go case-by-case for awhile, rather than trying to write an all-embracing constitution from scratch. Suggest a consensus approach to what topics to include. If there is strong disagreement about including a topic, we don't include that topic. -- Shirahadasha 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
A suggested example: Criticism. One topic which may benefit from a cross-religion approach is how criticism should be handled in religion articles. Unlike most article topics, where criticism generally involves disagreement with a single feature or fact and hence is usually better integrated throughout the article, in religion articles criticism often represents a comprehensive disagreement between worldviews which often requires its own introductory/explanatory paragraph. For this reason, I find that separate criticism sections often make more sense in religion articles, despite the fact that this may not be best for other, and perhaps most, kinds of Wikipedia articles. Issues where religious content requires a different approach from other kinds of content represent areas where a common approach will add clout in dealing with the rest of Wikipedia, and hence will have clear value to all the participants. Best -- Shirahadasha 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I do think that it could make sense to have guidelines, possibly separate guidelines, for many of the main articles relating to religion. For instance, a standard format for articles like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, SanterÃa and so on does make a good deal of sense to me. It could indicate which proposed sections, or main topics, an FA on the subject would need, so as to help ensure that as many articles as possible can potentially reach that level. Also, particularly when dealing with articles relating to individual leaders of religion, the recently proposed Religious leaders work group could possibly provide a standard format for such articles. One might even be able to go so far as to create a standard format for specific denominations of larger religions, indicating among other things when a given "movement" or denomination started, its early leaders/founders, the points of theology or whatever that led to the creation of the new group, and so on. I acknowledge that there may well be specific instances when these formats would be inappropriate. However, if nothing else, having a standard format to follow where possible would make it easier to ensure that all the relevant content is included. John Carter 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
These two articles, Young Religious Unitarian Universalists and Unitarian Universalist Youth Conferences are up for deletion and I thought it might be something you may want to comment on. So go and have your say at nominated for deletion.-- Devin Murphy 90 02:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
There is now a possible project sidebar that I copied from the Christianity Project sidebar at {{ WP Religion sidebar}}. The color at the top of the bar probably should be changed. Anyway, any improvements to it are more than welcome. Also, I guess anyone who wants to can add it to the main page when they see fit. John Carter 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys. I just wanted you to know I've been categorizing expert requests, many have to do with religion: Category:Religion articles needing expert attention. This is part of the expert finding process. Goldenrowley 04:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
This is the best place I could think of to ask this question; If you know of a better one, thanks for pointing it out. I am looking for a known religion/philosophy/you name it that considers God as the sum of all information and communication between humans, and as such omnipotent, benevolent, and, of course, omniscient. Can anybody help?
Thanks in advance, -- 82.151.88.108 10:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, I made this user box the other day. Should I make one for "Religious Humanists", and "Humanists", and one for "people who are interested in Humanism? Would anyone use them?
| This user is a secular humanist. |
-- Dr who1975 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
My method in compiling this list is to go through each article in a "(x religion) mythology" cat (eg "Buddhist mythology" etc.) to find those articles that pertain to the recognized sacred scriptures of that religion, and where I would encourage the categorisations to be reviewed by this project for NPOV.
For example, I have listed Shambhala here, because it is a kingdom found in the Tantras, scriptures that have devout adherents among Buddhists today. The fact that its identity is in dispute is no excuse to put it into a mythology cat; this is from the scriptures of a living religion widely practised today, not "mythology". On the other hand, articles pertaining to various Buddhist folk beliefs apparently not found in any sacred scripture, such as Diyu and Apalala, seem to be properly placed and 'fair game' so to speak for a mythology cat, so they are not listed. Feel free to expand or comment within this list. Regards, Blockinblox 17:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm wondering if it may be too ambitious to hope to remove all gray areas. Perhaps the best we could hope from discussing the issue would be to reduce the scope of the problem, hopefully to the point where conflicts over these issues stop being a drain. If this particular religion has 400 followers and doesn't mind its beliefs being called "mythology", perhaps the current situation ain't broke in this particular case. Perhaps we should pick a case which has a substantial number of current Wikipedia editors (and perhaps one where these editors are currently complaining) as an example case. Best, -- Shirahadasha 20:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Copied the following from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology: -- Shirahadasha 01:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I rewrote the WikiProject Religion/Religion WikiProjects, but I'm not sure whether Thelema and Scientology shall be regarded as religions or some religious additional philosophies?? Opinions!? (Be fast, after two or so, I'll act!) Said: Rursus ⺠â 14:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Please help with the NPOV, soapboxing and OR problems in this article. -- Dweller 07:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
We would appreciate any input you have at Talk:Christianity_by_country#RFC. The Evil Spartan 18:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a copy of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion. As this project seems to have turned inactive, I post it again here. The only activity in the meantime was the creation of Criticism of Bahá'í Faith, redirecting to Bahá'í apologetics, which is no improvement at all of the situation.
About all current religions, there is debate. All right.
So there is Christianity, Criticism of Christianity, and Christian apologetics. All right.
There is Bahá'í Faith, Criticism of Bahá'í Faith and Bahá'í apologetics. All... wait! Is anything missing here?
Well, there used to be Bahá'í criticisms, but it was decided to merge this article into Bahá'í Faith as it was considered Wikipedia:Content forking, see AfD 'Bahá'í criticisms'.
Now, no merge was done, but the article was turned into a redirect and all info removed. Thus, "Bahá'í criticisms" redirects to an article where no criticism at all is mentioned. There is just a link: "See also: Bahá'í apologetics - for critical viewpoints." There, as the name suggests, is neither any criticism, but the apologetics of this faith.
But without criticism... how can apologetics be relevant?
There are several ways to resolve this problem:
I'd prefer the first way, because it's the simplest - let's discuss. The current situation, however, is flawless POV and inacceptable. And as the headline implies, there are more problems. But I discuss them one by one.-- KnightMove 18:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It would appear that over time usually unexplained and unwarrranted reverts have occured switching between these two articles - is there any suggestion within this project of how to conciliate this rather lame edit war over time? Satu Suro 14:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I have just made this page, among many things that could be added is the proper Christian name of 'God'. Could anyone help? SCmurky 04:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This article started as an offshoot of the Freemasonry project (as Freemasonry requires its members to have a belief in a Supreme Being)... but the concept goes beyond just one fraternity. A quick google search indicates that it is a concept that is discussed in most religions (each with their own interpretation of what that "being" is... Christ, Yaweh, Allah, Odin, or what ever) I am hoping that some of the members of this project will help improve the article. Thanks, Blueboar 12:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
As many of you might have noticed by now, I have started to hijack the main project page with a listing of the articles which have been selected as FAs, GAs, DYKs, and by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team for inclusion in the wikipedia release versions. Many articles about religion are of importance to more than one religion, and it seemed to me to make sense to make a master list of them. Those lists is still of course far from finished, and if you know of any articles missing, please add them. My primary reason for doing so was my personal belief that religion-related content is probably noticably lacking in the release versions to date. I myself nominated Moses, who I consider to be a central figure in the development of the Western world, for inclusion for the first time a few weeks ago. If any members of this project believe that they know of other articles which they believe are of sufficient importance to be included in the release versions, please name them below and I will ensure that they are at least nominated. Thanks for your attention. John Carter 17:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The three subcategories are:
Although it wasn't specifically included in the proposal, the sub- Category:Jewish American film directors would undoubtedly be affected, as well, if these categories were to be deleted.
If you wish to add your comments to the discussion, be sure to do so ASAP, as the the CFD was opened on July 27 and will probably close in 2 days. Cgingold 13:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Just for info. Would be nice if somebody with some clue about neutral, encyclopedic articles about religions could show up there, watch the "noise" a bit and do some neutral editing. Misou 18:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has been nominated as a candidate for the collaboration above. If you would be interested in helping to improve this article in this collaboration, please indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter 22:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The project infobox has "see Related Wikiprojects below" with a wikilink that doesn't work. Perhaps the section on related projects could be reinstated? __ meco 11:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I recently added a new section to the Mircea Eliade article, on Eliade's philosophy of religion. (Eliade was a historian of religions.) So far, I haven't gotten much feedback. I'm assuming that's because not many people know a lot about Eliade. However, any feedback on the article's talk page would be appreciated. -- Phatius McBluff 07:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice a fairly big missing article—one on universalism versus particularism in religion. Something for the WikiProject to consider, I think. Thanks.-- Pharos 06:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Above article has had multiple problems for a long time now. I am trying to do some basic restructuring but am finding it hard going. Any experts on new religious movements available to lend a hand? 21:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool heads needed on the above page as an NPOV dispute is rumbling. The article subject is a twentieth-century writer on mysticism who has been accused of racism and antisemitism. Itsmejudith 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, this articles is one of the worst articles i've come across in Wikipedia. Please read this report at the ANI. I am not an expert but would like to see this article in good shape. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm copying recent discussion on this page's talkpage here to request that some experienced religion editors take a peek and offer their advice. It seems to me this is a reasonably high-profile page and its style should be maintained. Thanks, and regards... User:scbomber 10:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I've created a brief, extremely rough draft of a proposed guideline for notability for religious figures, which currently have no directly relevant notability guideline. Please feel free to improve and/or discuss at Wikipedia talk:Notability (religious figures). Best, -- Shirahadasha 01:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added this article for peer review. Please write your idea about it here.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 07:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Please help review the newly created entry Origin of religion. It seems completely WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and also completely spurious in the conclusion its attempting to draw. Thanks. PelleSmith 15:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Update: The entry has now been nominated for deletion here. PelleSmith 00:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
A proposal has been made on Talk:Bible to split the current Bible article into two separate articles, Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible, with Bible becoming a redirect to Bible (disambiguation). Best, -- Shirahadasha 05:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Discussion has proceeded into additional proposals for restructuring the article. Please join the discussion on Talk:Bible. Best, -- Shirahadasha 13:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
For this project, a made an alternate Userbox:
![]() | This user is a member of WikiProject Religion. |
Just if anyone is interested. Not sure if this is the right place to put this.
Basilides/"ούκ ών θεός"
20:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
On 13 October 2007 I wrote a new chapter in the already existing article about satanic ritual abuse. It contains the discussion about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Two days later I found out that my chapter (which I have kept as neutral as possible, because I am very well aware that this discussion is very polarized) was almost entirely removed by someone who is not Dutch, who does not speak Dutch and who probably is not familiar at all with the discussion about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Therefore I have put the original text again in the chapter.
However, a day later, this contributor, an Australian student who calls himself Biaothanatoi, removed again my whole text. Since then, every time when I put the text again in the chapter, he removes it and replaces it with a biased text on the situation in the Netherlands. A text with is based entirely on the research of Fred Jonker and Ietje Jonker-Bakker. That research is widely criticized both in the Netherlands and in the United States, because their findings are far from objective.
Furthermore Biaothanatoi accuses me of violating Wikipedia's policy of NPOV and balance. He says that any additions I make to this section should be statements of fact, not an endorsement of one opinion over another. But that is precisely what I am doing. I wrote a neutral text with lots of footnotes containing relevant literature, while Biaothanatoi only refers to a very questionable source: the research of Fred Jonker and Ietje Jonker-Bakker.
Since I follow the discussion about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands since 1994, I am very well informed about the ins and outs of this discussion. Therefore I asked Biaothanatoi several times to stop replacing my neutral text by his biased text. Since he refuses this, I would like to ask you how he can be stopped.
Yours sincerely,
Criminologist1963 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You find the discussion between Biaothanatoi and me here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#POV_pushing_in_the_Netherlands_section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Neutral_stance_toward_satanic_ritual_abuse_in_the_Netherlands
Thank you for your advice Judith. I will try to discuss the status of my sources with everybody who doubts them and who wants to have more information. I have done research into satanic ritual abuse for years and I have published on this subject too, and I am always prepared to answer questions about the situation in the Netherlands concerning satanic ritual abuse.
D. Bachmann is editing the satanic ritual abuse page, but he has not edited the section about the Netherlands so far. Therefore, I am not sure if he has looked into it. Criminologist1963 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The article is on Afd but I think it only needs cleanup, a massive cleanup. I opted to notify you instead as I have no idea on how to fix it myself.-- Lenticel ( talk) 10:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
How can i join?? cheesepuffsaretasty!!! ( talk) 15:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
There is now a proposed barnstar for religion-related content at Image:REstar.png. If the members of this project would like to make this image, or a variation of it, the barnstar of this project, I think at this point all we would have to do is include it on the project page. Just letting you all know the at least potential award exists. John Carter 14:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
A couple of weeks ago I visited a monastery, with my study group. In the gift shop there was little book section where I found a small book by Nicholas of Cusa with the Latin title De pace fidei, On religious peace. It was written 1454, a few months after the Ottoman Turks sacked Constantinople. While Christian Europe called for revenge, this bishop wrote a work how representatives of the major religions should come before the throne of God and talk, rather to fight, to find a solution. Is it interesting and significant enough to add? I've done lots of minor edits, I've never really started a serious article. In case it might be good to create one, may I assume I'll get some help? -- Soetermans 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for you advice, John. I haven't finished the book yet, so when I do I'll try to make a small summary and drop a line over those other WikiProjects. -- Soetermans 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).
This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. -- Quiddity 19:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. We have a new article, Jewish-Christian Gospels: Patristic Citations. I don't know what to make of it. Would you have a look at it please? -- Malcolmxl5 00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a touchy subject, so I want some opinions on the article Mesoamerican reconstruction. I, myself, am an Aztec recon and there IS a community for it. But its not "established" religion, unlike the likes of Asatru. So is this a valid article? I mean there are multiple wiki rules to be considered, including reliability on references. I really do not believe there is much or any "scholarly" sources on the subject. All I know is my friend's website, but it may be considered by wiki to be a personal one. Xuchilbara ( talk) 00:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should create a work group of folks interested in articles related to Unitarian Universalism. Is anyone interested in being on such a work group? Aleta ( talk) 03:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, enough interest has been expressed that I've started a page for the workgroup at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group. Aleta 19:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
With much regret I have proposed this article for deletion, the discussion is here. It doesn't seem possible to have a single article on such a topic that is reliably sourced without its being at best an original research synthesis. There also seems to be difficulty complying with WP:NPOV on the subject. There seems to be no way to determine, for example, what weight to give opinions. A number of articles seem to be dumping grounds for POVs and their pushers, but there doesn't seem to be a practical way to construct a policy-compliant article. If I am wrong in this I could not be more pleased. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 03:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, The purpose of life is a Topic that we can say forms the crux of the religions around the world and having it as a central part of this whole post is of utmost importance. While every religion has tried to present its own way of what the purpose of life is there is absolutely no doubting the fact that the decision of finding ones own purpose is to be left to that Individual himself about how he or she feels about it.Even though there is no unanimity about the same trying to shape others views of purpose of life has been a bane of all religions and no matter what amount of force was used or methods employed the question still is so complex that people are not able to find content suitable to be listed here. I request learned men on the editorial board to forget the complex multitude of religious scriptures and let us try and make it a simple one line question as to what is that that to you for now which can be defined as your own purpose of life and leave it at that.I would sure like to be interacting with men of knowledge to complete this section and see it online and complete in the days to come.
Anand Damani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damaniindia ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I recently created Category:Religious sanctuaries and Category:Historical religious sanctuaries, which may or may not merit inclusion. User:Athinaios raised some issues about these categories (see this), and I thought I'd bring the discussion to a broader audience. I'll defer to this project how to handle those categories, and how to deal with the issues raised. Mind matrix 16:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be one of the more active project groups in Wikipedia, so I wonder how many of you would be interested in contributing a knowledge of religious gerontology to the articles on aging and gerontology? Perhaps some of you might like to join a newly proposed Wiki-project group - see my plea at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COUNCIL/P#Gerontology
While I am here, you might also also be interested in my proposal at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COUNCIL/P#Transpersonal_Studies I know that I have said that being more towards Exopedianism than metapedianism, I tend not to join project groups, but I might make exceptions here if enough interest can be gathered in these proposals.
ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
There are two proposals to merge Holy anointing oil, one to merge it with Shemen Afarsimon and one to merge it with Chrism. Please see Holy anointing oil for discussion locations. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 04:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)