Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Religion and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Religion Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Religion and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

I have objected to the use of lengthy scripture quotations in the forced conversions article and have tried to remove them. An ip editor opposes it, and we're kind of in a deadlock. I would like others to chime in on this issue to hopefully build some kind of consensus. The issue is being discussed here:

• Talk:Forced_conversion#Removed_quotes_from_Islamic_scripture

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. For those interested in Hinduism. I stumbled across a stub for Ramarkal Mettu. I'm not sure if should be linked from the Ramayana template or perhaps merged or deleted. I'm working on de-orphaning some old articles, and it would be great for this to be de-orphaned. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#When_is_a_subject_non-religious_and_when_is_it_religious.3F. I think the demarcation line between science editing and religion editing policies should be mentioned here, because it is pertinent to this wikiproject. Andries (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should be seen in the context of a supporter of Sai Baba wanting to portray the conjuring tricks which were his hallmark as "miracles". That would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV. It's as inappropriate as allowing articles on fundamental Baptism to pretend that the flood was literal or that the earth is 6,000 years old. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. And a pointless proposal as a decision here would have no force. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was archived here Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_41#When_is_a_subject_non-religious_and_when_is_it_religious.3F. JzG/Guy is totally wrong about my background and my motivation. Andries (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Knowledge deities and Category:Wisdom deities. One article in Wisdom deities is List of knowledge deities which is in both categories. Is there really a difference? Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As there are no Knowledge deity (redirects to list) or Wisdom deity articles with reliably sourced references (the list is also unreferenced) showing notability of these as categories in a broadly accepted typology, these begin to appear to be OR classifications. Few would be the deities – even foolish and trickster spirits and demigods – to which knowledge/wisdom and/or transmission of knowledge/wisdom in some form has not been ascribed. There have been typologies put forth by individual scholars which have included "Wisdom" deities, based on archetypical attributes, but nothing I've yet come across would indicate academic consensus to underpin either of these categories. While knowledge and wisdom are different things, the Knowledge category would be better merged into the Wisdom category on the basis that scholars ascribe wisdom attributes to many of what are listed as knowledge deities. • Astynax ^talk 17:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with that. Current categorization seems arbitrary, with quite a bit of overlap and others who should be in the other category too but aren't. Huon (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that what a deity is called - ie wisdom or knowledge - is more or less random and may even depend on the language spoken by the person writing. We can probably find deities who have been called both by different scholars. We need to agree what should be merged into what and go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion with a proposal. I agree that Knowledge should be merged into Wisdom, but then what do we do about the List article? Of course that's a separate issue. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've got Category:Mesopotamian goddesses and Category:Mesopotamian deities and there's been some rapid movement of articles from the latter to the former (and the masculine equivalent). Besides the fact that deity is genderless, any comments? Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to encourage a project aimed at revising (and simplifying) the categorisation. For example, I found "religious occupations" -> "religious workers" -> "clergy" as categories. But they all three contained a lot of clergy. Why not merge the three categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone interested in working on an article for the Salvation sect? The prior version was deleted because it had some issues with tone and sourcing, so it came across like an attack page. I don't think that this was necessarily their intent, but I can see where it was tagged and deleted as such. There is merit in having an article for the page and we do have a new editor that is interested in creating the page, User:PeterDaley72. However as this will be a fairly sensitive subject and he is a new user, I would recommend that he have someone help him create the article to ensure that all of the CYA stuff is met for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you TokyoGirl. Just for some background, the sect is linked to the owner of the Sewol ferry that sank last month. The owner, Yoo Byueng-eun, is now a fugitive: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2014/05/116_157690.html Perhaps I'm not totally impartial as I have operated a site regarding Korea cults for the past ten years: www.jmscult.com, but I have been collecting articles on the Salvation Sect and its leader for the past month here: http://jmscult.com/forum/index.php?board=117.0 There are certainly no shortages of articles recently and more are expected. PeterDaley72 (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm partially available, though title probably can't be "sect" nor Salvation Sect despite ko:구원파 ja:救援派 having technically that title. In English "Sect" is a term of religious abuse ... on the other hand 기독교복음침례회(基督敎福音浸禮會) Christian Gospel Baptist Church is probably anodyne and ambiguous. Also imho will need WP:BLP caution re Yoo Byeong-eun and should be kept stub-short until books catch up with newspapers. None of those cult-buster sites will be usable, and the Korean press isn't always renowned for Washington Post or Financial Times level objectivity. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The BLP is up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahae. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME would be relevant, particularly regarding the common name in English, considering that is the language of this wiki. Also, I do note that the Washington Post itself isn't always renowned for Washington Post level objectivity. I can't tell how old this group might be, or how much attention in general it may have received, but we would be obliged to keep the main article as neutral as possible, meaning its content would probably have to be roughly analogous to that of similar bodies here. At present, any article on the founder should also probably be as generic and bland as possible: where he was born, where he went to school, family details, generic business activities, that sort of thing, with only a little information about the existing warrant and his having not yet turned himself in. Also, WP:1E might qualify regarding a separate biography if the incident is the only thing about him which has been the central topic of independent news sources not of a particularly local nature, as that is one of the factors in notability. Maybe, at present, the best way to go would be for someone to start a user space page with draft article(s), which could then be reviewed and checked for any problems before being moved into mainspace?

P.S.: For the "breaking news" aspects of this topic, it would certainly be possible to write up a story on recent events in wikinews's domain. Stories of this type are more or less the primary reason that entity exists anyway. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks John. Amusingly true about Wash P. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we might as well move on this now that the initial hysteria has died down and the BLP AFD has been concluded as keep. I've started Salvation Sect (Korea) as a stub ... though don't think that is an acceptable title for the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious if anyone would be interested in maybe adding some public domain documents to wikisource? And, if so, which would be most useful? I know that there are a lot of public domain sources on religion out there, including I think all of the Sacred Books of the East, for instance, as well as some admittedly older reference books and other sources. Which if any do you all think would be most useful to the editors and readers here, and why? It would of course be great if you were also willing to help work on the material there, which I can say from experience generally isn't that difficult, although some diacritical marks not commonly used in English, and often not with specific keyboard keys for them, appear rather frequently in some texts. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to participate at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom of Worship (painting)/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to take part in the current RfC at Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy#RfC on restoring last stable version of this article. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've started a discussion about revising the WP:BISHOP guidelines HERE. Please add your comments and invite everyone you think would be interested. Thanks! Dan BD 16:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please note that Anubis, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team[reply]

There is an RFC at Talk:Muhammad/images. 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]