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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The three lists called TC's in the OT or in popular conception have been listed side-by-side, stably, for a year and a half. There's now an edit war pushing to delete one of them, which has its own article. IMO, the main article should cover all points of view; if some editors want to cover only the traditionalist POV, then the article should be renamed 'traditionalist account of the TCs' or some such. — kwami ( talk) 00:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see my proposal here and comment/vote. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I request that anyone please add their support/oppose rationale to the debate regarding the lede to Meditation, in the following thread;
I emphasize my request for brief reasoning. This debate has a history (on the talk page); my role has simply been to try and get things on-track, to form a consensus.
I am posting here, and on the other two project group talk pages which are listed on that pages talk.
I would be very grateful for some help, to resolve this issue. Many thanks, Chzz ► 19:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I started cleaning up the page Economics of religion and added a religion project template on the talk page. If that's a problem, just take it down, but I thought it in the scope of your project. Thanks!... Ocaasi ( talk) 10:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
We are discussing whether the title of the article should be left at Dean (Christianity), moved back to Dean (religion), or moved to something else entirely like Dean (ecclesiastical office). Opinions are welcome! bd2412 T 17:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Religion and sex integration and Sex segregation and religion need serious revision. I've already cut out a lot of redundant cut-and-paste material, and what is left looks like two halves of a set of notes for an early draft for an essay, rather than an encyclopedia article. I suggest that they first need to be merged, and then extensively revised, to create a single coherent article. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Origin of sex segregation looks like it is need of similar treatment. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Wanna talk about moving this back (officially)...I think the word "Shinto" is restrictive and misleading. DaAnHo ( talk) 07:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Since there is at least one editor arguing against the move, it would be good to get more input on this proposed move at Talk:Ryukyuan Shinto. • Astynax talk 08:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments would be appreciated at an RfC about the best title for the Christ myth theory. See the discussion here. The article is about the theory that Jesus of Nazareth did not, or probably did not, exist as an historical being. Should it be moved from Christ myth theory to, for example, Jesus myth theory? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
In the Cainitic line related in Genesis 4:17-24, Naamah is the daughter of Cainitic Lamech, and sister of Tubal Cain, mentioned at Gen 4:22. Most Bible commentators are puzzled at her inclusion in these verses as she does not appear in other accounts. The 16th century theological historian, John Gill, (mentioned on your 'Naamah,' page,) suggests that she is the wife of Ham, and in this he seems correct, for by being a descendant of Cain, and therefore carrying the curse stated at Gen.4:11-12, she would carry the hereditry characteristics of Cain's wickedness. Most Bible commentators are of the opinion that Cain's line ended with the global Flood of Noah's day, however a study of the four sons of Ham, reveals a distinct rebellious, and violent streak, namely, (a)'Cush,' Ham's first son, gives birth to Nimrod an opposer of God and builder of the tower of Babel in Gen.11:4. (b)'Mizraim,' the second son, was the founder of the first World Power, Egypt. (c)'Put,' third son of Ham, was the progenitor of the Libyans, Moors,and the Berebers, of the Barbary Coast, (where the name Barbarians originates.) (d)'Canaan,' fourth son, was cursed by Noah, in Gen9:25-27, and whose descendants settled in the Promised Land, prior to Abraham's perusal by God in Gen.12:5,6. This indicates, that, rather than the line of Cain being destroyed at the Flood, the wicked trait was actually carried through the Floodwaters by Ham's wife, Naamah. To support this, one only has to look at Joshua15:41, which names one of the townships assigned by lot to Judah as Naamah, in the distribution of the land of Caanan to the Nation of Israel. This township, was obviously named under Caananite possession, as a commemorative title honouring the mother of the Caananites, Naamah herself. Additional support is given in Job2:11, which defines one of the three comforters as being 'Zophar the Naamathite.' This understanding, now gives reason for Naamah being mentioned in Gen.4:22, not as an afterthought, but rather as a clue to the trait of wickedness being carried through the Flood waters, on the Ark itself, and subsequently to flourish in the post flood world, and so apparent in present world conditions!
I would be interested in your thoughts on this, Trevor Laidler. E mail;- m.laidler@sky.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superartist ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I think people here should have been notified about this RfC. The underlying issue: if we know the religion of a book or article on religion, can we infer from that that the person is expressing the "POV" of his or her own religion? My answer is of course sometimes but not always and we cannot assume. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. AFD discussion is at, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Fresh eyes would be appreciated on an RfC about whether, in using in-text attribution for sources on the Historicity of Jesus, we should include whether that source is an ordained minister or similar. See Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#RfC_on_in-text_attribution. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see repeated edits by R3ap3R.inc ( talk · contribs), replacing the word "Church" to refer to Scientology, instead adding the word "cult".
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 23:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
There is demand for a criticism section at Catholicism, but several of the editors have stated that it is against Wikipedia policy. Neither does the article Catholic Church include a criticism section. Other articles about religions, religious groups, and religious organisations have criticism pages, why are the well known controversies of the Catholic church absent?
I don't care which way it goes, but we should do one thing or the other. If it is a rule that the Catholic Church can not be criticised, then no religion, religious group, or organisation should be criticised. If the criticism section for one article is kept, then well known and pointful controversies should be added to all religious articles at some point.
Some have stated that "controversies should be worked into the rest of the article". Perhaps. But the Catholicism article says nothing about child molestation, child abuse, gay marriage, war support, etc. -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 21:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
91.182.53.128 ( talk) 09:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There is an AFD for The Most Hated Family in America, which is a television documentary film that was written and presented by the BBC's Louis Theroux about the family at the core of the Westboro Baptist Church (info from lede of article).
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 18:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, like we need another one, right? Anyway, I have noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Islam and Controversy task force has been kind of dead lately, but think that maybe having a specific group of editors who would be actually interested in weighing in on articles related to religious controversies, whether the religion itself is the controversial aspect or some part of it is. So, in effect, if we could get together a group of editors who would be willing to work on the topics which are controversial. There are a lot of articles relating to religion, whether scandals associated with religion, controversial beliefs, sometimes controversial practices, and in some cases just some groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses about which there seems to be a bias toward negative outside comments, with little positive internal comment existing. Some topics, like Satanism, Scientology, some of the other NRMS, and others, are even entirely under existing arbitration rulings. Improving these articles, and finding objective editors willing to work on them, can be difficult, as a lot of us know. I acknowledge my own weakness in a lot of this material, but I would be willing to help gather some of the materials to be used as reference. And, of course, if other subprojects become inactive, or if problems regarding certain topics are (temporarily, at least) resolved, this could be used as a merger subproject which could help ensure that the articles don't get degraded. Anyone interested? John Carter ( talk) 20:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Religion articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Relevant AFD, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bridge (2006 drama). -- Cirt ( talk) 06:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Afterwriting has reverted my rerating of Catholic Church to "Start" class for its projects. I have said before there that "B" was probably untenable in the current state of the article, and seeing what has become of the lead section recently this is now clearly the case. Apart from the history and doctrine sections, the other parts of the article are, apart from anything else, much too short to be anything but "start" for a subject this size, and, as people are constantly complaining, many important aspects of the church are simply not mentioned. I'm happy to see what others think, especially those not involved in recent editing, but a start rating seems inevitable at present. Please comment at Talk:Catholic_Church#Article_class. Johnbod ( talk) 12:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There is discussion at Mary (mother of Jesus) about merging the article Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) into the article. To note,t here was an article Blessed Virgin Mary that was already merged into Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). The question is whether or not each denomination should have there own article for religious figures, for Catholics, protestants, Lutherans, Anglicans, Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians and so forth. And if Mary receives this, then surely Jesus, God and Moses, to name a few, will follow. If you would direct your attention there and comment as to whether or not the article should be merged or if each denominational branch should be allowed to receive there own article, it would be much appreciated. 173.24.117.126 ( talk) 16:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Judaism and violence#Rfd thoughts It just closed yesterday. Thanx The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 18:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Jerusalem over how the article should word certain issues. Some editors want the word "proclaimed" to be added to the first sentence of the article to describe it as the "proclaimed capital" of Israel as the international community does not recognise it as the capital of Israel, others disagree and think the status quo which has existed for about 3 years should remain (something that has been debated many times over the years but retained), and several compromises have also been suggested. The issue has now also spread to other matters, with some editors wanting it to say "proclaimed flag", "proclaimed mayor" , "proclaimed coat of arms" etc, to also highlight the fact the international community does not recognise the status of Jerusalem. This matter could have implications for other articles if changes are made and a similar pattern followed. So input from other editors would be helpful. Thanks BritishWatcher ( talk) 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Discussions at Mary (mother of Jesus) has shown some messy article making. There are apparantly several similar and overlapping articles that exist, such as Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), Catholic views on Mary, Roman Catholic Mariology and so on. We need to round these up and prevent repetitive and redundant articles.
Mary (mother of Jesus) needs to be moved to Mary, and the disambiguation at Mary be moved to [[Mary (disambiguation).
Each religion or denomination should have a subarticle in the form of "<Name of religion or denomination> views on Mary".
Could this be accomplished? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I am posting this here for the purposes of basically centralized discussion, although I am linking to this discussion on the talk pages of all the projects and groups being discussed.
I would like to suggest that the scope of the following groups and projects be altered as follows:
Ongoing AFD deletion discussion for this article, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Rodriguez (3rd nomination). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 09:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the Proposed workgroups at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion#Potential work groups, you will first see a list of what the 2nd edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion classifies as its most basic religious articles. Some of them are currently redlinks, and others are redirects to other articles. So, for a lot of material about what one of the most reliable sources out there considers the basic religious content, we have fairly weak content for a lot of the most basic religious content. If anyone would be interested in developing those basic articles, or creating them if they don't exist, the quality of our content would probably benefit dramatically. John Carter ( talk) 17:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 20:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that on articles like Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, and Gospel of John, some editors are pushing a POV. They define a set universe of "mainstream scholarship" and used that to define what the "scholarly consensus" is. No evidence is ever given that this is what the "mainstream" is, it is just assumed and requests for evidence are ignored. Not only that, but this fake-mainstream is even often described as the "consensus". This universe just so happens to include and be personified by skeptics and atheists like Bart Ehrman or the ultra-controversial Jesus Seminar. Actually Ehrman and Jesus Seminar members are often the most heavily cited sources. Any scholars who deviate from this view are labeled "fringe" and their views dismissed. Most scholars actually deviate from what is defined by certain editors as "mainstream", but this nice little definition allows the majority to be dismissed as "fringe". Evidence that these people represent the "mainstream" is never given, editors just demand that one accepts it because "that's what everyone knows". With this, direct quoted evidence that they don't represent the mainstream is dismissed and never taken seriously. If they make claims that are well cited, these claims are deleted outright for no reason other than they don't fit in with this artificially defined universe of what is "mainstream". Wikipedia is ruled by what the majority of editors on a given article think about a topic, not what the "correct" or "mainstream" view is. These edits don't represent the "mainstream" view, but a heavily skewed POV. As such, these articles are badly biased on certain points, especially authorship.
I would like some non-involved editors to take a look at these pages and the talk pages to see what they think. RomanHistorian ( talk) 00:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Could I have some help please, on the articles Muhammad in the Bible and Ali in the scriptures? English is not the first language of the articles' creator, and he has asked for help on what appear to be good-faith articles. I've tried copyediting a bit, but it's difficult to tell which of the claims the articles make of references pointing to the arrival of Muhammad and Ali in the Bible are mainstream Shi'a theology as he claims, and which are original research per WP:NOR. Muhammad in the Bible in particular contained a line beginning "I have found...", which points to WP:NOR, if I'm reading his English correctly. All help and advice will be gratefully received. Thanks, Top Jim ( talk) 10:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Homosexuals Anonymous is a new article about a 14 step program which I think falls into the category of conversion therapy. The article contains essentially no information on the scientific / medical views of attempts to alter an individual's sexual orientation / identity, and I consider it unbalanced and (at present) unencyclopedic. It has recently been nominated to appear on the main page under the DYK project - nomination here. I am posting here to invite comment on the article or the nomination, or editing contributions. I have posted a similar notice at the Psychology WikiProject and the LGBT Studies WikiProject, and am willing to notify any other projects that might have contributions to make. I don't mean to violate WP:CANVASS and I would welcome any contributions from any editor, irrespective of whether their views on the article or the nomination are in agreement with mine or not. EdChem ( talk) 13:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I just created a stub article Pious fiction, and it could use a lot of editing. I know WP is not a dictionary, but pious fiction seems to be a fairly significant concept that could be helpful to readers of the encyclopedia. WP does have articles on Trope (linguistics) and Deus ex machina which are articles that also fall halfway between a dictionary and an encyclopedia, so articles on terms like pious fiction are not unprecedented. -- Noleander ( talk) 07:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Fresh eyes are needed for an RfC at Talk:Christianity and violence#Should article be limited to material related to violence?. Thanks . -- Noleander ( talk) 17:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
This AfD might be of interest since the parent article, Discordianism is a part of this project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discordian calendar (2nd nomination). Jaque Hammer ( talk) 09:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
There are a lot of issues relating to religion which cross denominational or faith guidelines, as well as a lot of stories and developments that do. It is sometimes hard to get together editors to determine how much, if any, content regarding these issues should be added to articles, or which articles it should be added to, or whether some separate multi-religious article should be created for the idea as a whole.
Also, there are, honestly, a lot of religious topics and Wikipedia groups which would benefit from the input of additional editors. Also, right now anyway, I see only one FA, Bahai Faith, which is the main article on that religion. That could definitely bear improvement. And, of course, there are a few articles and topics which are the topic of seemingly unending argument and discussion, with much of that discussion being less than productive. Maybe finding some ways to, maybe, temporarily resolve those discussions might be of benefit.
I was wondering if there would be any interest, maybe around the first of the year, to hold some sort of meeting on some page or other around here, where we could discuss new sources on religious topics, any concerns some of us might have regarding some articles or topics we think would benefit from additional input, how to, maybe, get some of the other main articles up to FA, and any other issues that might arise. Then, maybe, if there is interest, we might be able to come up with a few plans to address these concerns.
Anyway, any interest? John Carter ( talk) 18:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
71.11.226.86 ( talk) 20:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Hello y'all! (back from vacation?) I read the guideline by John. Looks great! And I would like to start off the page for Buddhism. Please make the skeleton so I can try (just try for your collective approval). I have the full text of Tripitaka that could be converted into readable and typable Pali (means rows in Sanskrit), which I'd like to put up here with each word's meaning popping up as a tool tip (achieved by using the 'title' tag in HTML for each word.) That would allow any reader to try and figure out what a statement means, and write the translation.
Tripitaka (Sanskrit: tri = three; pitaka = wicker basket) is about 1100(?) books that were written 92BC in Lanka in Buddha's language Magadhi, categorized into 3 groups, rules for monks (vinaya), general reading (sutta) and deeper concepts (abhi-dhamma). That is believed to be the entire gospel. Someone give me a hand. Thanks.JC Ahangama 71.11.226.86 ( talk) 20:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest a move back, in order to avoid defining saints and djinns as "deities". Comments are welcome at Talk:Tutelary deity. JoergenB ( talk) 21:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.truthaboutscientology.com_usage_in_BLPs. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion that needs expert input. There are editors claiming that historians of religion, unless employed by a department of history specifically, are not really "historians". The same is true, evidently, regarding ancient historians, who again, are do not have appointments in departments of history. The dispute arose when editors began to claim that Paula Fredriksen is not a proper "historian". I was under the impression that she was one of the most renowned living historians of ancient Christianity, but apparently I'm wrong because she is a "historian of religion" without an appointment in a department of history. Any input would be helpful. See Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#NPOV_tag. Thanks greatly. Griswaldo ( talk) 17:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is obviously written with a particular point of view in mind. It is filled with original research. It needs to attention of a few savvy editors with good sources. Due to the current POV and structure, it may be necessary to rewrite entire chunks and make some drastic changes to the current structure. Any assistance and improvement would be appreciated! Vassyana ( talk) 03:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths related to Scientology The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 22:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion as to the notability of clergymen at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Clergymen that may be of interest to members of this project. J04n( talk page) 15:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Criticism of Islam is not developing well and has become considerably less encyclopedic than most of the other criticism sections. It could use some academic attention IMO. Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 14:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 29#Category:Antitrinitarianism. Mangoe ( talk) 13:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Abraham Varghese. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 14:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If an editor familiar with the Samaritans could look over and improve Aharon ben Ab-Chisda ben Yaacob, it would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks! -- Vassyana ( talk) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I recently started playing with " Wordles'" and thought they could be an interesting tool to help review the balance in Wikipedia articles. For example, the Religion article looks quite heavy on the sublect of Christianity to me. If so, is that intentional? As it should be? Does a visual aid like this help discussions about balance? What do you think? RichardF ( talk) 19:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Borock. I agree Christianity is the most "prevalent" religion, but I still was surprised by the relative prominence of the "Christianity"/"Christian" terms in the wordle. For the fun of it, I did a more boring word frequency count of the four largest religious movements in the Religion article and compared those to their corresponding global percentages.
Religion Movement Terms |
Movement | Terms freq. | Relative % Dif | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Global % | Relative % | N | Relative % | ||
Christianity/Christian | 32% | 36% | 55 | 47% | 11% |
Islam/Muslim | 21% | 24% | 25 | 21% | -2% |
Buddhism/Buddhist | 21% | 24% | 20 | 17% | -7% |
Hinduism/Hindu | 15% | 17% | 18 | 15% | -2% |
Total | 89% | 100% | 118 | 100% | ------ |
What I take from this comparison of relative term frequency percents to relative global movement percents, is that Christianity still appears to be over-represented in the article, based on its global prevalence. While the table confirmed the wordle, it sure was faster, easier, and funner to make the wordle than to make the table. Also, if it weren't for the wordle, I wouldn't have noticed the imbalance or bother to make the table.
So descriptively, the table and the wordle do show a relative imbalance in movement coverage. However, the editorial questions still remain. Should anything be done about the coverage imbalance? If so, what?
In any event, using the Wordle app was a fun exercise. Do any other articles seem to be itching for their own wordle? Regards, RichardF ( talk) 03:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-missionary. The article is supported by this project. Borock ( talk) 20:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Check out the proposed wikiproject Conservatism here.
Is Currently up for Featured article review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/L. Ron Hubbard/archive2 The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 18:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I started the article Christian deism but without realizing there already was an article at Christian Deism, but I don't want to lose the material that I wrote, which is useful to the article since it is references missing from the article. DeistCosmos ( talk) 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
We have an article Anglican divine (actually a redirect to a section of Anglicism) but I keep running into Puritan divine and several other religions that used the title divine (sort of like elder I think). I'd start a stub for a common article for this use but don't know what to call it. Would it be Divine (title)? IS anyone clear about when this title or description is used? RJFJR ( talk) 20:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Jediism ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch is an obscure article about a niche religion (or "religion"). There are only a tiny handful of eyeballs on the article, and I'd appreciate some input on a couple of facets from editors experienced with this type of subject:
Thanks for the input. -- EEMIV ( talk) 22:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Some more knowledgeable eyes would be useful at Ritual decalogue where a slow editor war has been brewing over the lead. The discussion on the talk page seems deadlocked between the same three editors. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is a PBS program that could be a good source:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 09:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a ongoing discussion on inclusion of this information at Talk:Akshardham (Delhi). Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 07:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
If you know something about theocracies, please respond at Category talk:Former theocracies. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 02:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, it looks like we might actually get around to having the meeting discussed above on this page. The first draft can be found at User:John Carter/Religion meeting. Please feel free to add to the page, or make comments about what is already there. I figure to send it out into wikipedia space around the first of the month, for, I hope, broader input. John Carter ( talk) 15:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome.
John Carter (
talk)
Automated message by
Project Messenger Bot from
John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011
Church maintenance is a nearly completely orphaned article, i.e. it lacks a reasonable number of other articles that link to it. Work on it! Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Could someone from this project please let us know if Rosie O'Donnell should be a part? And remove the template if not? Jnast1 ( talk) 22:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Rosie O'Donnell#Removal of templates from Wikiprojects
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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The three lists called TC's in the OT or in popular conception have been listed side-by-side, stably, for a year and a half. There's now an edit war pushing to delete one of them, which has its own article. IMO, the main article should cover all points of view; if some editors want to cover only the traditionalist POV, then the article should be renamed 'traditionalist account of the TCs' or some such. — kwami ( talk) 00:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see my proposal here and comment/vote. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I request that anyone please add their support/oppose rationale to the debate regarding the lede to Meditation, in the following thread;
I emphasize my request for brief reasoning. This debate has a history (on the talk page); my role has simply been to try and get things on-track, to form a consensus.
I am posting here, and on the other two project group talk pages which are listed on that pages talk.
I would be very grateful for some help, to resolve this issue. Many thanks, Chzz ► 19:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I started cleaning up the page Economics of religion and added a religion project template on the talk page. If that's a problem, just take it down, but I thought it in the scope of your project. Thanks!... Ocaasi ( talk) 10:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
We are discussing whether the title of the article should be left at Dean (Christianity), moved back to Dean (religion), or moved to something else entirely like Dean (ecclesiastical office). Opinions are welcome! bd2412 T 17:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Religion and sex integration and Sex segregation and religion need serious revision. I've already cut out a lot of redundant cut-and-paste material, and what is left looks like two halves of a set of notes for an early draft for an essay, rather than an encyclopedia article. I suggest that they first need to be merged, and then extensively revised, to create a single coherent article. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Origin of sex segregation looks like it is need of similar treatment. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Wanna talk about moving this back (officially)...I think the word "Shinto" is restrictive and misleading. DaAnHo ( talk) 07:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Since there is at least one editor arguing against the move, it would be good to get more input on this proposed move at Talk:Ryukyuan Shinto. • Astynax talk 08:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments would be appreciated at an RfC about the best title for the Christ myth theory. See the discussion here. The article is about the theory that Jesus of Nazareth did not, or probably did not, exist as an historical being. Should it be moved from Christ myth theory to, for example, Jesus myth theory? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
In the Cainitic line related in Genesis 4:17-24, Naamah is the daughter of Cainitic Lamech, and sister of Tubal Cain, mentioned at Gen 4:22. Most Bible commentators are puzzled at her inclusion in these verses as she does not appear in other accounts. The 16th century theological historian, John Gill, (mentioned on your 'Naamah,' page,) suggests that she is the wife of Ham, and in this he seems correct, for by being a descendant of Cain, and therefore carrying the curse stated at Gen.4:11-12, she would carry the hereditry characteristics of Cain's wickedness. Most Bible commentators are of the opinion that Cain's line ended with the global Flood of Noah's day, however a study of the four sons of Ham, reveals a distinct rebellious, and violent streak, namely, (a)'Cush,' Ham's first son, gives birth to Nimrod an opposer of God and builder of the tower of Babel in Gen.11:4. (b)'Mizraim,' the second son, was the founder of the first World Power, Egypt. (c)'Put,' third son of Ham, was the progenitor of the Libyans, Moors,and the Berebers, of the Barbary Coast, (where the name Barbarians originates.) (d)'Canaan,' fourth son, was cursed by Noah, in Gen9:25-27, and whose descendants settled in the Promised Land, prior to Abraham's perusal by God in Gen.12:5,6. This indicates, that, rather than the line of Cain being destroyed at the Flood, the wicked trait was actually carried through the Floodwaters by Ham's wife, Naamah. To support this, one only has to look at Joshua15:41, which names one of the townships assigned by lot to Judah as Naamah, in the distribution of the land of Caanan to the Nation of Israel. This township, was obviously named under Caananite possession, as a commemorative title honouring the mother of the Caananites, Naamah herself. Additional support is given in Job2:11, which defines one of the three comforters as being 'Zophar the Naamathite.' This understanding, now gives reason for Naamah being mentioned in Gen.4:22, not as an afterthought, but rather as a clue to the trait of wickedness being carried through the Flood waters, on the Ark itself, and subsequently to flourish in the post flood world, and so apparent in present world conditions!
I would be interested in your thoughts on this, Trevor Laidler. E mail;- m.laidler@sky.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superartist ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I think people here should have been notified about this RfC. The underlying issue: if we know the religion of a book or article on religion, can we infer from that that the person is expressing the "POV" of his or her own religion? My answer is of course sometimes but not always and we cannot assume. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. AFD discussion is at, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Fresh eyes would be appreciated on an RfC about whether, in using in-text attribution for sources on the Historicity of Jesus, we should include whether that source is an ordained minister or similar. See Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#RfC_on_in-text_attribution. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see repeated edits by R3ap3R.inc ( talk · contribs), replacing the word "Church" to refer to Scientology, instead adding the word "cult".
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 23:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
There is demand for a criticism section at Catholicism, but several of the editors have stated that it is against Wikipedia policy. Neither does the article Catholic Church include a criticism section. Other articles about religions, religious groups, and religious organisations have criticism pages, why are the well known controversies of the Catholic church absent?
I don't care which way it goes, but we should do one thing or the other. If it is a rule that the Catholic Church can not be criticised, then no religion, religious group, or organisation should be criticised. If the criticism section for one article is kept, then well known and pointful controversies should be added to all religious articles at some point.
Some have stated that "controversies should be worked into the rest of the article". Perhaps. But the Catholicism article says nothing about child molestation, child abuse, gay marriage, war support, etc. -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 21:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
91.182.53.128 ( talk) 09:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There is an AFD for The Most Hated Family in America, which is a television documentary film that was written and presented by the BBC's Louis Theroux about the family at the core of the Westboro Baptist Church (info from lede of article).
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 18:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, like we need another one, right? Anyway, I have noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Islam and Controversy task force has been kind of dead lately, but think that maybe having a specific group of editors who would be actually interested in weighing in on articles related to religious controversies, whether the religion itself is the controversial aspect or some part of it is. So, in effect, if we could get together a group of editors who would be willing to work on the topics which are controversial. There are a lot of articles relating to religion, whether scandals associated with religion, controversial beliefs, sometimes controversial practices, and in some cases just some groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses about which there seems to be a bias toward negative outside comments, with little positive internal comment existing. Some topics, like Satanism, Scientology, some of the other NRMS, and others, are even entirely under existing arbitration rulings. Improving these articles, and finding objective editors willing to work on them, can be difficult, as a lot of us know. I acknowledge my own weakness in a lot of this material, but I would be willing to help gather some of the materials to be used as reference. And, of course, if other subprojects become inactive, or if problems regarding certain topics are (temporarily, at least) resolved, this could be used as a merger subproject which could help ensure that the articles don't get degraded. Anyone interested? John Carter ( talk) 20:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Religion articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Relevant AFD, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bridge (2006 drama). -- Cirt ( talk) 06:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Afterwriting has reverted my rerating of Catholic Church to "Start" class for its projects. I have said before there that "B" was probably untenable in the current state of the article, and seeing what has become of the lead section recently this is now clearly the case. Apart from the history and doctrine sections, the other parts of the article are, apart from anything else, much too short to be anything but "start" for a subject this size, and, as people are constantly complaining, many important aspects of the church are simply not mentioned. I'm happy to see what others think, especially those not involved in recent editing, but a start rating seems inevitable at present. Please comment at Talk:Catholic_Church#Article_class. Johnbod ( talk) 12:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There is discussion at Mary (mother of Jesus) about merging the article Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) into the article. To note,t here was an article Blessed Virgin Mary that was already merged into Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). The question is whether or not each denomination should have there own article for religious figures, for Catholics, protestants, Lutherans, Anglicans, Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians and so forth. And if Mary receives this, then surely Jesus, God and Moses, to name a few, will follow. If you would direct your attention there and comment as to whether or not the article should be merged or if each denominational branch should be allowed to receive there own article, it would be much appreciated. 173.24.117.126 ( talk) 16:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Judaism and violence#Rfd thoughts It just closed yesterday. Thanx The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 18:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Jerusalem over how the article should word certain issues. Some editors want the word "proclaimed" to be added to the first sentence of the article to describe it as the "proclaimed capital" of Israel as the international community does not recognise it as the capital of Israel, others disagree and think the status quo which has existed for about 3 years should remain (something that has been debated many times over the years but retained), and several compromises have also been suggested. The issue has now also spread to other matters, with some editors wanting it to say "proclaimed flag", "proclaimed mayor" , "proclaimed coat of arms" etc, to also highlight the fact the international community does not recognise the status of Jerusalem. This matter could have implications for other articles if changes are made and a similar pattern followed. So input from other editors would be helpful. Thanks BritishWatcher ( talk) 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Discussions at Mary (mother of Jesus) has shown some messy article making. There are apparantly several similar and overlapping articles that exist, such as Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), Catholic views on Mary, Roman Catholic Mariology and so on. We need to round these up and prevent repetitive and redundant articles.
Mary (mother of Jesus) needs to be moved to Mary, and the disambiguation at Mary be moved to [[Mary (disambiguation).
Each religion or denomination should have a subarticle in the form of "<Name of religion or denomination> views on Mary".
Could this be accomplished? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I am posting this here for the purposes of basically centralized discussion, although I am linking to this discussion on the talk pages of all the projects and groups being discussed.
I would like to suggest that the scope of the following groups and projects be altered as follows:
Ongoing AFD deletion discussion for this article, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Rodriguez (3rd nomination). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 09:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the Proposed workgroups at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion#Potential work groups, you will first see a list of what the 2nd edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion classifies as its most basic religious articles. Some of them are currently redlinks, and others are redirects to other articles. So, for a lot of material about what one of the most reliable sources out there considers the basic religious content, we have fairly weak content for a lot of the most basic religious content. If anyone would be interested in developing those basic articles, or creating them if they don't exist, the quality of our content would probably benefit dramatically. John Carter ( talk) 17:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 20:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that on articles like Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, and Gospel of John, some editors are pushing a POV. They define a set universe of "mainstream scholarship" and used that to define what the "scholarly consensus" is. No evidence is ever given that this is what the "mainstream" is, it is just assumed and requests for evidence are ignored. Not only that, but this fake-mainstream is even often described as the "consensus". This universe just so happens to include and be personified by skeptics and atheists like Bart Ehrman or the ultra-controversial Jesus Seminar. Actually Ehrman and Jesus Seminar members are often the most heavily cited sources. Any scholars who deviate from this view are labeled "fringe" and their views dismissed. Most scholars actually deviate from what is defined by certain editors as "mainstream", but this nice little definition allows the majority to be dismissed as "fringe". Evidence that these people represent the "mainstream" is never given, editors just demand that one accepts it because "that's what everyone knows". With this, direct quoted evidence that they don't represent the mainstream is dismissed and never taken seriously. If they make claims that are well cited, these claims are deleted outright for no reason other than they don't fit in with this artificially defined universe of what is "mainstream". Wikipedia is ruled by what the majority of editors on a given article think about a topic, not what the "correct" or "mainstream" view is. These edits don't represent the "mainstream" view, but a heavily skewed POV. As such, these articles are badly biased on certain points, especially authorship.
I would like some non-involved editors to take a look at these pages and the talk pages to see what they think. RomanHistorian ( talk) 00:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Could I have some help please, on the articles Muhammad in the Bible and Ali in the scriptures? English is not the first language of the articles' creator, and he has asked for help on what appear to be good-faith articles. I've tried copyediting a bit, but it's difficult to tell which of the claims the articles make of references pointing to the arrival of Muhammad and Ali in the Bible are mainstream Shi'a theology as he claims, and which are original research per WP:NOR. Muhammad in the Bible in particular contained a line beginning "I have found...", which points to WP:NOR, if I'm reading his English correctly. All help and advice will be gratefully received. Thanks, Top Jim ( talk) 10:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Homosexuals Anonymous is a new article about a 14 step program which I think falls into the category of conversion therapy. The article contains essentially no information on the scientific / medical views of attempts to alter an individual's sexual orientation / identity, and I consider it unbalanced and (at present) unencyclopedic. It has recently been nominated to appear on the main page under the DYK project - nomination here. I am posting here to invite comment on the article or the nomination, or editing contributions. I have posted a similar notice at the Psychology WikiProject and the LGBT Studies WikiProject, and am willing to notify any other projects that might have contributions to make. I don't mean to violate WP:CANVASS and I would welcome any contributions from any editor, irrespective of whether their views on the article or the nomination are in agreement with mine or not. EdChem ( talk) 13:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I just created a stub article Pious fiction, and it could use a lot of editing. I know WP is not a dictionary, but pious fiction seems to be a fairly significant concept that could be helpful to readers of the encyclopedia. WP does have articles on Trope (linguistics) and Deus ex machina which are articles that also fall halfway between a dictionary and an encyclopedia, so articles on terms like pious fiction are not unprecedented. -- Noleander ( talk) 07:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Fresh eyes are needed for an RfC at Talk:Christianity and violence#Should article be limited to material related to violence?. Thanks . -- Noleander ( talk) 17:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
This AfD might be of interest since the parent article, Discordianism is a part of this project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discordian calendar (2nd nomination). Jaque Hammer ( talk) 09:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
There are a lot of issues relating to religion which cross denominational or faith guidelines, as well as a lot of stories and developments that do. It is sometimes hard to get together editors to determine how much, if any, content regarding these issues should be added to articles, or which articles it should be added to, or whether some separate multi-religious article should be created for the idea as a whole.
Also, there are, honestly, a lot of religious topics and Wikipedia groups which would benefit from the input of additional editors. Also, right now anyway, I see only one FA, Bahai Faith, which is the main article on that religion. That could definitely bear improvement. And, of course, there are a few articles and topics which are the topic of seemingly unending argument and discussion, with much of that discussion being less than productive. Maybe finding some ways to, maybe, temporarily resolve those discussions might be of benefit.
I was wondering if there would be any interest, maybe around the first of the year, to hold some sort of meeting on some page or other around here, where we could discuss new sources on religious topics, any concerns some of us might have regarding some articles or topics we think would benefit from additional input, how to, maybe, get some of the other main articles up to FA, and any other issues that might arise. Then, maybe, if there is interest, we might be able to come up with a few plans to address these concerns.
Anyway, any interest? John Carter ( talk) 18:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
71.11.226.86 ( talk) 20:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Hello y'all! (back from vacation?) I read the guideline by John. Looks great! And I would like to start off the page for Buddhism. Please make the skeleton so I can try (just try for your collective approval). I have the full text of Tripitaka that could be converted into readable and typable Pali (means rows in Sanskrit), which I'd like to put up here with each word's meaning popping up as a tool tip (achieved by using the 'title' tag in HTML for each word.) That would allow any reader to try and figure out what a statement means, and write the translation.
Tripitaka (Sanskrit: tri = three; pitaka = wicker basket) is about 1100(?) books that were written 92BC in Lanka in Buddha's language Magadhi, categorized into 3 groups, rules for monks (vinaya), general reading (sutta) and deeper concepts (abhi-dhamma). That is believed to be the entire gospel. Someone give me a hand. Thanks.JC Ahangama 71.11.226.86 ( talk) 20:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest a move back, in order to avoid defining saints and djinns as "deities". Comments are welcome at Talk:Tutelary deity. JoergenB ( talk) 21:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.truthaboutscientology.com_usage_in_BLPs. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion that needs expert input. There are editors claiming that historians of religion, unless employed by a department of history specifically, are not really "historians". The same is true, evidently, regarding ancient historians, who again, are do not have appointments in departments of history. The dispute arose when editors began to claim that Paula Fredriksen is not a proper "historian". I was under the impression that she was one of the most renowned living historians of ancient Christianity, but apparently I'm wrong because she is a "historian of religion" without an appointment in a department of history. Any input would be helpful. See Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#NPOV_tag. Thanks greatly. Griswaldo ( talk) 17:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is obviously written with a particular point of view in mind. It is filled with original research. It needs to attention of a few savvy editors with good sources. Due to the current POV and structure, it may be necessary to rewrite entire chunks and make some drastic changes to the current structure. Any assistance and improvement would be appreciated! Vassyana ( talk) 03:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths related to Scientology The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 22:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion as to the notability of clergymen at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Clergymen that may be of interest to members of this project. J04n( talk page) 15:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Criticism of Islam is not developing well and has become considerably less encyclopedic than most of the other criticism sections. It could use some academic attention IMO. Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 14:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 29#Category:Antitrinitarianism. Mangoe ( talk) 13:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Abraham Varghese. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 14:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If an editor familiar with the Samaritans could look over and improve Aharon ben Ab-Chisda ben Yaacob, it would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks! -- Vassyana ( talk) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I recently started playing with " Wordles'" and thought they could be an interesting tool to help review the balance in Wikipedia articles. For example, the Religion article looks quite heavy on the sublect of Christianity to me. If so, is that intentional? As it should be? Does a visual aid like this help discussions about balance? What do you think? RichardF ( talk) 19:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Borock. I agree Christianity is the most "prevalent" religion, but I still was surprised by the relative prominence of the "Christianity"/"Christian" terms in the wordle. For the fun of it, I did a more boring word frequency count of the four largest religious movements in the Religion article and compared those to their corresponding global percentages.
Religion Movement Terms |
Movement | Terms freq. | Relative % Dif | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Global % | Relative % | N | Relative % | ||
Christianity/Christian | 32% | 36% | 55 | 47% | 11% |
Islam/Muslim | 21% | 24% | 25 | 21% | -2% |
Buddhism/Buddhist | 21% | 24% | 20 | 17% | -7% |
Hinduism/Hindu | 15% | 17% | 18 | 15% | -2% |
Total | 89% | 100% | 118 | 100% | ------ |
What I take from this comparison of relative term frequency percents to relative global movement percents, is that Christianity still appears to be over-represented in the article, based on its global prevalence. While the table confirmed the wordle, it sure was faster, easier, and funner to make the wordle than to make the table. Also, if it weren't for the wordle, I wouldn't have noticed the imbalance or bother to make the table.
So descriptively, the table and the wordle do show a relative imbalance in movement coverage. However, the editorial questions still remain. Should anything be done about the coverage imbalance? If so, what?
In any event, using the Wordle app was a fun exercise. Do any other articles seem to be itching for their own wordle? Regards, RichardF ( talk) 03:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-missionary. The article is supported by this project. Borock ( talk) 20:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Check out the proposed wikiproject Conservatism here.
Is Currently up for Featured article review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/L. Ron Hubbard/archive2 The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 18:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I started the article Christian deism but without realizing there already was an article at Christian Deism, but I don't want to lose the material that I wrote, which is useful to the article since it is references missing from the article. DeistCosmos ( talk) 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
We have an article Anglican divine (actually a redirect to a section of Anglicism) but I keep running into Puritan divine and several other religions that used the title divine (sort of like elder I think). I'd start a stub for a common article for this use but don't know what to call it. Would it be Divine (title)? IS anyone clear about when this title or description is used? RJFJR ( talk) 20:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Jediism ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch is an obscure article about a niche religion (or "religion"). There are only a tiny handful of eyeballs on the article, and I'd appreciate some input on a couple of facets from editors experienced with this type of subject:
Thanks for the input. -- EEMIV ( talk) 22:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Some more knowledgeable eyes would be useful at Ritual decalogue where a slow editor war has been brewing over the lead. The discussion on the talk page seems deadlocked between the same three editors. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is a PBS program that could be a good source:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 09:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a ongoing discussion on inclusion of this information at Talk:Akshardham (Delhi). Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 07:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
If you know something about theocracies, please respond at Category talk:Former theocracies. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 02:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, it looks like we might actually get around to having the meeting discussed above on this page. The first draft can be found at User:John Carter/Religion meeting. Please feel free to add to the page, or make comments about what is already there. I figure to send it out into wikipedia space around the first of the month, for, I hope, broader input. John Carter ( talk) 15:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome.
John Carter (
talk)
Automated message by
Project Messenger Bot from
John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011
Church maintenance is a nearly completely orphaned article, i.e. it lacks a reasonable number of other articles that link to it. Work on it! Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Could someone from this project please let us know if Rosie O'Donnell should be a part? And remove the template if not? Jnast1 ( talk) 22:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Rosie O'Donnell#Removal of templates from Wikiprojects