Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Template:Paganism

I see that the page Template:Paganism says "A general consensus has been agreed that this template should only be placed on articles that are about general Paganism,". But the template itself seems to include most non-Abrahamic, folk, and ethnic religions although Paganism says " modern ethnologists often avoid referring to non-classical and non-European, traditional and historical faiths thus broadly in favour of less ambiguous concepts (e.g. polytheism, shamanism, pantheism, oranimism)." I agree with that - we shouldn't be calling, for instance, Native American religion pagan, which is implied by the template. I ran into this after seeing the template added to a number of articles that don't mention paganism.[1] Can we just remove the non-pagan sections from it? Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Native ceremonial people see "pagan" or "Pagan" as an insult. There are even members of other traditional cultures who do not want any association with the NeoPagan community. Many Native religions are considered by their adherents to be monotheistic or henotheistic, not polytheistic, so they don't even belong in a polytheism category. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree, as well. While I disagree with Kathryn's logic of evaluating the applicability of a label based on a subject community's general opinions of terminology (if the shoe fits, we shouldn't tepidly avoid the situation), Dougweller makes a good case for the clean up of {{Paganism}}. If general consensus established the template is only for articles on paganism in general, than that is its scope. It should not direct readers to articles outside its scope. Additionally, even if it was decided that the template should list pagan religions, I've encountered a great deal of academic literature corroborating that statement from Paganism. Listing traditional belief systems such as that of the Native Americans would still be off topic. —Sowlos  04:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I also agree, mainly for Kathryn's reasons that are easiest for me to follow. And absolutely we consider a "subject community's general opinion for how they are to be labeled, refusing to do so is the questionable logic I should think.Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree that Native American and other religions of indigenous people (any continent) are not "paganism," which has a very specific meaning, particularly to those who are pagans. Montanabw(talk) 21:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Four-paragraph leads -- a WP:RfC on the matter

Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Kent Hovind peer review

I have submitted the article Kent Hovind for peer review. He is an American evangelist and creationist. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutral notice of RfC on Investigative Project on Terrorism

Is here:Talk:Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism#RFC:_Does_the_use_of_the_Islamophobia_template_in_this_article_violate_wikipedias_policy_on_NPOV.3F.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Scripture quotes in Forced conversion article:

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:

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

Ramarkal Mettu

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)

What's the difference between a knowledge deity and a wisdom deity

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)

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)
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)
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)

Gods, goddesses and deities

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)

Categorisation

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)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Religion At Wikimania 2014

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)

Possible wikisource documents?

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)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom of Worship (painting)/archive1

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)

Salvation sect

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)

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)

  • 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)
PS. The BLP is up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahae. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
Yes, thanks John. Amusingly true about Wash P. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
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)

Relevant RfC

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)

Proposal to exclude wp:fringe for religious subjects

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)

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

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)

WP:BISHOP revision

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! DBD 16:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

More eyes needed

Dorje Shugden controversy and related pages would very much benefit from more impartial eyes. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Religion at Wikimania 2014(updated version)

Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Messy Christian saints category

Hello everyone, I would like to draw your attention to the following CfD discussions:

  1. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_28#Category:2nd-century_Christian_saints about Category:2nd-century_Christian_saints and all similar XXth-century Christian saints categories
  2. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_28#Category:Christian_saints_by_century about Category:Christian_saints_by_century versus Category:Christian_saints_by_period

Problems:

  • The biggest problem here is the gender classification. The general saints categories mainly contain males as single articles - while female saints are put in a separate subcategory beneath it, which is certainly not correct. But the discussion is confounded by children saints and married couple saints.
  • A lesser problem is that there is a duplicate classification in time, the original classification was by century, while the new classification is by period and makes use of the old century subcategories. However, this problem not only occurs for the main saints categories but also in each of the respective female saints subcategories that I mentioned in the point before.

In the CfD discussion I made some proposals but it was suggested that people have a look at this category structure more thoroughly. Are you willing to do that here? Thanks in advance for your answer. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Members of this project...

...might be interested in this discussoion. BMK (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible wikisource religion project?

There are already several works of a religious nature available at wikisource, including sacred texts, reference works on religious topics, general reference works with a substantial amount of content on religious topics, etc. Several of these works could be directly used in developing content here. Many others exist as well. And, with the comparatively recent page-by-page indexing, most of the are already broken up into fairly easily accomplished units. Would there be any editors interested in helping to basically proofread those texts? John Carter (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

School prayer by Muslims in the United States

Should we add information about Islamic school prayer in the United States into this article? Articles, like this, discuss it. --George Ho (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the article doesn't really discuss voluntary student-led prayer at the moment. It would be inappropriate to add a minor story on voluntary Muslim prayer when the big story, at least in the US, is voluntary Christian prayer. If you were interested in expanding the article, the possibility of inclusion might open up, but even so, being able to dismiss students to go to voluntary religious activities is such a minor issue that I think some huge expansion would need to take place in order to justify it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm... I guess this article doesn't mention voluntary Islamic prayer, just hall-pass prayer. --George Ho (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw. The prayer is not mandated or led by school officials, and it's also not student-led in a way that becomes coercive through the school's imprimatur (like the student-led prayer over the loudspeaker or at a graduation ceremony). Students are being allowed to leave class because they want to pray. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Should Islamophobia be included in the main Discrimination sidebar

See discussion here at Template_talk:Discrimination_sidebar#Inclusion_or_removal_of_Antisemitism.2C_Anti-Masonry_and_Islamophobia Jonpatterns (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Sydney/Auckland Society of The Guardians

Hi, this page has Kabbalah and Occult tags on it, but the related IP edits seem to be spilling over into editing Christology articles so not sure what to think the scope it. Can someone please check out these latest edits and see if they match up to source and content. Reverted a couple of the Song of God related edits for quite wild WP:OR and the Auckland IP just put them straight back, so is probably going to need more eyes sooner rather than later. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Eclogue 4

I just wrote an article for Virgil's Eclogue 4. Feel free to look over it, make corrections, and ping me if you need any of the texts I cited if you want to verify/check what I wrote. I'd particularly like it if someone can double-check my Latin translations (there's only a few, and they're short). Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Afterlife

There is a discussion regarding certain sections of the article Afterlife now taking place on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Comments from interested editors are welcome. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Davidic line

H. Wayne House Israel: Land and the People 1998 114 "And yet, Judah has also been without a king of the Solomonic line since the Babylonian exile. Because of Jeremiah's curse on Jehoiachin (Coniah) in the early 500s BC (Jer. 22:30), the high priests of Israel, while serving as the ...

An editor has objected to/removed this source because the author is expressing a "POV christological" view (which is presumably the case). Since the idea of "Jeremiah's curse on Jehoiachin (Coniah) in the early 500s BC (Jer. 22:30)" being a curse on the "Solomonic line" is widely disseminated in Catholic and Protestant literature, it's presumably notable, and as we don't have a separate Solomonic line article, Davidic line is the article it would be covered in. So can someone perhaps dig out a more acceptable source which isn't "POV christological" ? Many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have proposed a number of possible source titles, academic, secular Jewish, and Christian. Comments from anyone here on which of these authors would be suitable WP:RS, or to supplement sources, are very welcome. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Aisha's age at the time of consummation of her marriage to Muhammad

Comments are needed on the following matter: Talk:Child marriage/Archive 1#Fringe opinion on Aisha's age of marriage. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism and Sikhism needs some TLC

If there are any subject matter experts who could give the article some needed attention, or anyone who has a machete and can clean out enough of the mess that others would have a decent frame from which to build. Thanks!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion that members of this Wikiproject may be interested in. The discussion is at DRN:Gospel of Matthew and the content dispute concerns when the Gospel of Matthew was written. Feel free to add a new section for your initial comments or drop me a line on my talk page and I will add it for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Per a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

Per a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#LGBT critics categorization? wider input is sought in that discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Cru (Christian organization)

The article has major issues with sourcing, as I have noted on the talk page. I've started to trim it of unsourced claims, and self-sourcing. It needs people who can build up the article by finding reliable sources. Anyone who can help would be appreciated. I will of course try my best, but I don't really know much about the organization actually.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC in progress

There is a Request for comments in progress at Talk: Artificial intelligence. The question has to do with the content of the lede of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris article needs neutral eyes

The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University could use some neutral and experienced eyes on it at this point, having recently emerged from an edit war between sockpuppets imposing unclear "accuracy" and a couple of WP:SPA pro-Kumaris accounts reverting back. The sockpuppets have been banned and the two SPAs are now cleaning up the article. A neutral editor with some awareness of Brahma Kumaris who can help make sure the article is accurate and neutral and not omitting or underplaying anything important would be appreciated. --McGeddon (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about them, but I've added the page to my watchlist. There was a similar problem with the Providence (religious movement) page in the past. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Religion in Iceland

In the Religion in Iceland article there is a pie chart showing the percentage of people formally affiliated with various denominations (or combo of denominations) according to the government records. I've been careful to give the actual denomination name (or English equivalent) used by the government but another editor keeps changing the names (he insists on Evangelical Lutheranism for the slice for the Evangelical Lutheran Church [aka Church of Iceland, the state church] and ignoring that there are other Lutheran denominations in a different slice that would also likely characterize themselves as part of Evangelical Lutheranism). I'm now requesting a third party look from some in the religion project in case I'm blowing things out of proportion or misunderstand what should be done. BTW what should be put as religion in the country infobox for Iceland; I'm unsure on what the policy is? Should it be the state church aka Church of Iceland or should it be the predominate religion, Christianity or something else? --Erp (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Vijayanagara literature in Kannada considered for Main Page

There is an ongoing discussion on whether to feature the WP:FA quality article Vijayanagara literature in Kannada on the Main Page.

You may participate at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Vijayanagara literature in Kannada.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Church History CfD

A new category "Church History" was created which has been nominated for deletion. Please participate in the discussion here: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 31. Ignocrates (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Help with template conversion

Hi folks, crossposting from the (seemingly not very active) Wikiproject Islam. I could appreciate if someone could help me with finishing merging infobox mosque. Discussion at Template talk:Infobox religious building#Merge Template:Infobox mosque. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Revisionism on Exorcism

A user seems to be eager to edit war over that Exorcism is pseudoscience, however, they have no sources to support such pseudohistorical revisionism. See Talk:Exorcism#Lead change. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Atonement

I have created a draft at Draft:Atonement to supplant the WP:DABCONCEPT disambiguation page currently at Atonement. Any assistance in getting this page in shape to be moved to mainspace would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would like to volunteer to work as a hobby of course those entries that require 'Expert attention', if I may ...The 'infamous', the one and only, 'Charlie Brown' 23:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a notice about Category: articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. The 'infamous', the one and only, 'Charlie Brown' 23:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieFerry (talk • contribs)

Consecration

Consecration has a banner; note the date (emphasis added):

Six years? ISTM that the banner ought to be either heeded or deleted. (Please don't tell me to be bold and take appropriate action. I do so when I can, but I'm not appropriately expert here.) Please {{ping}} me if you want my involvement. --Thnidu (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Magical vs Mystical discussion

I started a discussion about using "mystical" instead of "magical" on religious pages over in the Wikiproject:Occult.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 01:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears that our debate has resulted in the following conclusion:
  1. Magic is a specific type of mysticism.
  2. Unless a religion specifically considers its beliefs and/or practices to be "magical" the word "mystical" should be used except:
  3. In the case that a religion has not specified, but the mystical nature of the belief/practice uses physical objects it should be considered magic.
come on over and contribute if you have something to add. --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 14:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That is not the consensus at all. I've specifically argued against magic being a specific type of mysticism (instead saying that while they can overlap, they are distinct), and User:A. Parrot started off with ""Magic" is an awkward word, but "mystical" is not an adequate replacement in most cases. Much of what the Greeks and Romans called "magic" (magia in Latin, γοητεία in Greek) was ritual, often without mystical connotations—for instance, cursing people."
Point 3 is an aniconistic and anti-liturgical gross oversimplification that would render most religions magical except European Reformationism and American Restorationism. Prayer with prayer beads, yogic meditation, and even ceremonies to identify with a Buddha or Loa can be both physical and mystical without being magical. The discussion there explained that magic is concerned with material benefit, which could arguably include Prosperity Gospel and New Thought (both at home in Reeformationist and Restorationist churches), but doesn't necessarily include even Loa-possession (if the altered state of mind is not further interpreted as enabling the power to change the material world). Physical benefit is the key feature, but still not a defining one as (as A. Parrot pointed out) theurgy often had no material goal.
Point 1 is still your original position, unmodified. And yet you claimed at WP:Occult that your "initial perception has been proven wrong." You appear to have only paid attention to what additional points you need to include to maintain your original position, rather than admit it was proven wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Ian. Frankly, you don't seem to have absorbed much of what we said. Granted, my comment was very long and complicated, but it's such a complex issue that you really have to absorb that stuff. My most basic argument is that the use of the word should depend on the circumstances.
Articles on traditions like Thelema that specifically call their rites "magic" or "magick" have to use those terms. In most other cases, "magic" is a disparaging term applied to any ritual by people who saw it as strange or disreputable. The Romans regarded Egyptian, Chaldean, and Persian priests as magicians because their religions were weird (but often fascinating); curse tablets were a native Roman practice, but regarded by most people disreputable; early Christians thought all paganism was bad and therefore called it "magic". One of the scholars who has written on the subject (can't remember where) put it something like this: "What we do is religion; what they do is magic."
Because the word has always had negative connotations, scholars of religion have been moving away from the term for a few decades, but that doesn't apply across the board. We have to use the terms used by the most up-to-date scholars in every relevant field. Anthropologists probably shy away from the word nowadays. Experts on Greco-Roman religion will still refer to magic as the Greeks and Romans used the term, as a vague term for the weird underbelly of their religious world. Egyptologists still use the word out of habit, even though there really was no distinction between magic and religion in ancient Egypt, at least before the Greeks showed up. Experts on western esotericism will still discuss the term, because it was used in the western world to refer to many occult/esoteric practices.
And mysticism is still not the right word in most cases, because so many "magical" practices were rituals for very un-mystical purposes. A. Parrot (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Christmas and holiday season

Christmas and holiday season has been proposed to be renamed, for the discusssion, see talk:Christmas and holiday season -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Category discussion about theologians

See following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_20#Category:Theologians. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia:WikiProject Cosmology

There is a new project, listed above, which by its founder was apparently intended to deal with the topic of Physical cosmology, but which may also, potentially, deal with the topic of philosophical and mythological/religious cosmology. If there are any individual editors who would be interested in working on philosophical/religious cosmology specifically, they are free to indicate as much, presumably first on the project talk page to see if the other editors would be interested in finally establishing the scope of the project as cosmology as a whole rather than specifically physical cosmology. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Ceres"

Stale
 – Discussion closed, as "no consensus".

The primary topic of "Ceres" is under discussion, see talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Falun Gong and related articles are all subject to discretionary sanctions given the history of POV pushing of all sorts. Unfortunately, I think that they may also have been lacking in a lot of independent eyes on them lately, and that may well have led to a serious warping of the content to the support of one side or another. More eyes are definitely welcome. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Urgent need for uninvolved input in the Landmark Worldwide/Werner Erhard content area

There are numerous issues both with the content of the articles relating to est/Werner Erhard/Landmark Worldwide and perhaps the conduct of perhaps several individuals who have historically been among the most involved in that topic area. Given the nature of recent events, I think there is now a desperate need for as many individuals as possible to take part in the discussion. As many experienced and knowledgable editors as possible are both very much welcome, and, I think, maybe sorely needed. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to move Methodism to Child Project

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Methodism Jerodlycett (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding individual vs. group in a BLP

Basically, there is a bit of a long-term argument at the BLP article Daisaku Ikeda‎ regarding his being expelled from a religious group to which he had belonged, specifically regarding whether his biography article should specifically include mention of the fact that all the other members of a smaller group to which he belonged were expelled at the same time. I have a feeling that sort of thing has happened a lot with various religious groups over time, and I think it would be useful if anyone interested went to the article talk page to indicate how to discuss the expulsion/excommunication of a member of a splinter group when that expulsion was of the entire splinter group as a whole. I suppose a related question, which might or might not be directly applicable here, is whether an expulsion order which specifically names certain individuals personally and a group in general is sufficient cause to indicate in the biography article that the individual as an individual was specifically expelled from the organization. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"Female divinities", the moves

As a notification, articles that are not already disambiguated with (deity) or (deities) in the following content have been given these disambiguations. My personal interest in compiling this list was partly to see the difference between the treatment of "gods" and "goddesses" in terms of the ratio between (mythology) and (god) / (goddess) etc. disambiguations. Entries marked with question marks have not been moved but are marked in case another editor wants to make a move. I have made the moves and produced the list in case results may influence contributions to the RfC above. GregKaye 15:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved articles in Category:Aboriginal goddesses: Wala (goddess)

Moved articles in Category:African goddesses: Abuk (mythology)

Moved articles in Category:Anglo-Saxon goddesses: Frige (Anglo-Saxon goddess) Rheda (mythology)

Moved articles in Category:Armenian goddesses: Nane (goddess) Tsovinar (goddess)

Moved articles in Category:Asian goddesses: Nana (Afghan goddess)

Moved articles in Category:Briton goddesses (possibly moving to Category:Goddesses of ancient Britain): Beira (mythology) Brigantia (goddess)

Moved articles in Category:Chinese goddesses: Bai Mudan (mythology) Marici (Buddhism) Mazu (goddess)

Moved articles in Category:Egyptian goddesses: Category:Egyptian goddesses Bat (goddess) Neper (mythology) Nu (mythology) Nut (goddess)

Moved articles in Category:Estonian goddesses: Akka (spirit)

From this point I won't delete existing references with ".. (deity)" disambiguations. In the case of cross cultural deities, if there are any, deities may already have been mentioned.

Moved articles in Category:Etruscan goddesses: Albina (mythology) Cel (goddess) Losna (mythology) Mania (deity) Turan (mythology) Uni (mythology)

Moved articles in Category:Finnish goddesses: Akka (deity) Kalma (goddess) Rauni (deity)

Moved articles in Category:Gaulish goddesses: Brigantia (deity) Gontia (deity) Souconna (mythology)

Moved articles in Category:Germanic goddesses: Zisa (goddess)

Moved articles in Category:Goddesses of the indigenous peoples of North America: Tia (goddess)

Moved articles in Category:Greek goddesses: Aegiale (daughter of Helios) Aletheia (mythology) Ananke (mythology) Apate (deity) Arke (mythology) Asia (mythology) Astraea (mythology) Aura (deity) Bia (mythology) Chione (daughter of Boreas) Dia (mythology)? Dike (mythology) Dione (Titaness) Dysnomia (mythology) Eirene (Greek goddess) Eris (mythology) Ersa Eucleia Eukarpia (theonym) Eunomia (goddess) Euphrosyne (mythology) Eupraxia (mythology) Eurynome (Oceanid)? Gaia (mythology)protected Galene (mythology) Harmonia (mythology) Hebe (mythology) Homonoia (mythology) Ialysos (mythology) Iris (mythology) Kakia (mythology) Kale (mythology) Lachesis (mythology) Limos (mythology) Maia (mythology) Maniae (mythology) Mene (goddess) Metis (mythology) Nemesis (mythology) Nesoi (mythology) Nike (mythology) Pallas (daughter of Triton) Philotes (mythology) Phoebe (mythology) Planē (mythology) Talk:Pomona (deity) Potamides (mythology) Rhea (mythology) Rhode (mythology) Thalia (Grace) Thalia (nymph)? Thesis (goddess)

Moved articles in Category:Forms of Parvati: Sati (goddess)

Moved articles in Category:Inuit goddesses: Akna (Inuit mythology) Malina (mythology) Sedna (mythology)

Moved articles in Category:Irish goddesses: Anu (goddess) Danu (Irish goddess)

Moved articles in Category:Lithuanian goddesses: Dalia (mythology)

Moved articles in Category:Mesopotamian goddesses: An (goddess) Antu (goddess) Aya (goddess) Ki (goddess) Mami (goddess) Sirara (goddess) Siris (goddess) Uras (mythology)

Moved articles in Category:Arabian goddesses: Nuha (deity)

Moved articles in Category:Māori goddesses: Rohe (mythology)

Moved articles in Category:Norse goddesses: Hel (being)

Moved articles in Category:Ásynjur: Nanna (Norse deity) Sól (sun) Syn (goddess)

Moved articles in Category:Polynesian goddesses: Hina (goddess) Nuakea (deity)

Moved articles in Category:Roman goddesses: Agenoria (goddess) Annona (goddess) Aura (mythology) Aurora (mythology) Bellona (goddess) Ceres (deities) Concordia (mythology) Cuba (mythology) Decima (mythology) Diana (mythology) Dies (mythology) Egeria (mythology) Fauna (goddess) Feronia (mythology) Fides (goddess) Flora (mythology) Fornax (mythology) Fulgora (mythology) Gallia (goddess) Iana (goddess) Juno (mythology) Laetitia (goddess) Libera (mythology) Lima (mythology) Lua (goddess) Lucina (goddess) Luna (goddess) Mania (mythology) Morta (mythology) Murcia (mythology) Nona (mythology) Partula (goddess) Pax (mythology) Pellonia (mythology) Pomona (mythology) Puta (mythology) Roma (mythology) Salacia (mythology) Terra (mythology) Tutelina (goddess) Vallonia (mythology) Venus (mythology) Vesta (mythology) Victoria (mythology) Virtus (deity)

Moved articles in Category:Slavic goddesses: Kostroma (deity) Lada (goddess) Zaria (goddess) Živa (goddess)

Moved articles in Category:Tagalog goddesses: Tala (goddess)

Moved articles in Category:Vodou goddesses: Marinette (Vodou)?

GregKaye 15:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I highly suggest that you read the talk pages for these figures before making some of these moves. For example, Hel (deity) needs to be moved back to Hel (being) because the figure does not fall within those parameters in either the original sources nor in specialized scholarship handling the topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with the above. Actually, I might also favor Hel (Norse) or Hel (Norse ruler) or some sort of equivalent myself, with, if necessary Hel (Norse location) being used as well. "Being" I regret to say isn't much of a disambiguation - lots of things count as "beings". If, as I tend to think, admittedly without a great deal of evidence, she is more regularly referred to than the location, it might be possible to use the shorter Hel (Norse) for the personage. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, GregKaye, for swiftly addressing the issue and taking action. John Carter, the usage of "being" in this case is basically just to disambiguate the figure from the location. There's probably also something to be said about a extra-Norse notion of this particular figure, albeit the article doesn't go into much detail outside of that outside of Grimm at the moment, which creates an issue with the "Norse" specifier. There's also often a problem with ambiguity in the source texts about whether or not the being is referred to versus the location (or both at the same time) which the article needs to further address. It's a confusing situation, especially if we're looking for clear cut categories, but fortunately one that we can be flexible about here. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
:bloodofox: In my 09:56, 17 February 2015 edit further up the page I began to indicate my thoughts that "(being)" is, as far as I can remember, the worst and least specific disambiguation that I have yet come across and that I can conceive. The simple fact that it does not disambiguate from human being should illustrate the point. Any of the suggestions by John Carter would be an improvement. This, however, does not excuse my rushing ahead in error. GregKaye 22:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The issue here is that it simply disambiguates the figure from the location. All of the suggestions he provides have an issue. For additional discussion going back a decade, see the Hel (being) talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Male divinities", the moves

Similar to the list related to the female types above:

Moved articles in Category:African gods Biher (god) Maher (god) ǃXu (god) Zamba (mythology)

Moved articles in Category:Anatolian gods Men (god)

Moved articles in Category:Arabian gods Abgal (god) Amm (god) Manaf (deity) Nasr (idol) Ruda (deity) Salman (myth)

Moved articles in Category:Chinese gods Bole (mythology) City God (China) Li Jing (deity) Muzha (deity) Nezha (deity) Wen Zhong (Shang dynasty)? Xuan Wu (god) Yama (East Asia) Zheng Lun (Fengshen Yanyi) Moved articles in Category:Dahomey gods Kokou (god)

Moved articles in Category:Egyptian gods Aker (god) Anti (mythology) Apis (god) Apt (Egyptian) Ash (god) Babi (mythology) Bata (god) Ha (mythology) Hapi (Nile god) Hapi (Son of Horus) Heka (god) Hu (mythology) Heh (god) Kuk (deity) Min (god) Neper (deity) Nu (deity) Rem (mythology) Set (mythology) Shed (deity) Shu (Egyptian god) Sia (god) Tutu (Egyptian god) Weneg (Egyptian deity)

Moved articles in Category:Etruscan gods Maris (mythology) Satre (Etruscan god) Semla (mythology) Sethlans (mythology)

Moved articles in Category:European gods Cragus (mythology)

Moved articles in Category:Finnish gods Rauni (deity) Surma (Finnish mythology) Tapio (spirit)

Moved articles in Category:Greek gods Aether (mythology) Alpheus (mythology) Aon (mythology) Apis (deity) Arche (mythology) Asterion (god) Atlas (mythology) Axius (mythology) Cephissus (Athenian plain) Cephissus (mythology) Corus (mythology) Deimos (mythology) Enipeus (mythology) Epimetheus (mythology) Eridanos (mythology) Evenus (mythology) Hymen (god) Hyperion (mythology) Iapetus (mythology) Kratos (mythology) Maron (mythology) Matton (mythology) Meander (mythology) Menoetius (mythology) Morpheus (mythology) Nilus (mythology) Nomos (mythology) Palaemon (mythology) Phanes (mythology) Phobos (mythology) Phosphorus (morning star) Pluto (deity) Talk:Pomona (deity) Pontus (mythology) Porus (deity) Stilbon (mythology) Telesphorus (mythology) Uranus (mythology)

Moved articles in Category:Irish gods Aed (god) Brian (mythology) Conand (mythology) Nechtan (mythology)

Moved articles in Category:Japanese gods Ebisu (deity)

Moved articles in Category:Korean gods Munsin (faith)

Moved articles in Category:Lakota gods Tate (god) Wi (mythology)

Moved articles in Category:Maya gods Chin (Mayan god)

Moved articles in Category:Mesopotamian gods Amurru (god) Ashur (god) Erra (god) Gaga (god) Gerra (god) Hani (god) Kulla (god) Kus (god) Lahar (god) Ma (deity) Ma (Sumeria) Neti (mythology) Shara (god) Sin (mythology) Tammuz (deity) Tutu (Mesopotamian god) Wer (god) Anzû (mythology)

Moved articles in Category:Middle Eastern gods Shahar (god)

Moved articles in Category:Māori gods Ao (mythology)

Moved articles in Category:Polynesian gods Makemake (mythology)

Moved articles in Category:Roman gods pages previously moved

Moved articles in Category:Slavic gods Boruta (mythology) Flins (mythology) Koliada (deity) Kresnik (deity) Lada (deity) Radegast (god) Rod (god) Triglav (mythology) Veles (god)

GregKaye 10:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

An RM for Mythology

I am thinking about submitting an RM for the Mythology article which would probably then lead to other RMs on related articles.

I'm thinking of proposing the title Ancient belief but wanted to check if there was a more appropriate title.

Perhaps titles with the word mythological in the title might be change according to the following example.

List of Greek mythological creatures → List of creatures in ancient Greek belief

To me its an NPOV issue.

GregKaye 22:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the other factors involved might be WP:COMMONNAME and maybe perhaps a slight problem that not all "mythology" is necessarily "ancient," although I cannot be as sure of that. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It is systemic bias when the beliefs of living people are regarded as beliefs while the beliefs of dead people are regarded as myths. WP:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names has an emphasis on a choice of titles whose meanings will be naturally understood but maybe this might be a request for a later stage. GregKaye 06:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is systemic bias to distinguish between living and dead religions in that way. That's why we have articles on Hindu mythology and Christian mythology. "Ancient belief" is therefore not an adequate replacement. Yes, the academic argument about where to apply the term mythology is nightmarishly complicated, but scholars have not abandoned the word. They certainly haven't replaced it with "ancient belief". Unless you want to spend the next six months looking through academic books about mythology to understand that debate, I'd really advise you not to touch this one. A. Parrot (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Right, and you have to remember that ancient religion didn't fetishize "belief" in the way that the creedal religions of today do. Mythology emphatically does not imply a canonical belief that members of the religious community need to ascribe to. Mythology is stories that people tell about god(desse)s and heroes. Such stories were often taken allegorically or metaphorically (as in Plutarch's De Iside et Osiride). Many contradictory stories could be told in the same breath about the same figure (as Ovid does in Fasti, for instance). Many pious people were openly dismissive of mythology—think of the hatchet job Plato makes Socrates do on Homer in the Republic; Cicero felt similar, though less extreme, reservations about mythology, despite being an augur. Mythology is not ancient belief; they're just two different things. Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think any name you could propose would be free of POV, because of the extent to which you do be fighting against the default term. In addition, I don't think it is uncontroversial to claim that Greek mythology was "believed" in the same way that, say, the Nativity story is believed by most modern Christians. Furius (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I have been coming to a similar conclusion. A way forward that has recently sprung to mind is to raise the issue of the issue of "Labels in religion and the myth of NPOV" on the talk page associated with WP:LABEL. I think I will do this shortly. GregKaye 07:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Religious leaders, religious workers

See this category discussion. Currently the discussion is just about USA and UK, the intention is to expand this to all countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

FAR Rabindranath Tagore

I have nominated Rabindranath Tagore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Demons

I noticed that demon lord / list of demon lords / Lord Demon are fiction topics while Demon Lord is a singer. Do we have an article or a section of an article on real-world religious/legendary/mythical demon lords? It seems odd to me that RPG D&D should occupy "demon lord" when demon lords are common fixtures in real world religion, myths and legends. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

What religion are you speaking of, IP? I have some familiarity with demonology, and so far as I know, that particular term isn't used.
We do indeed have articles on individual demons, as well as systems of demonology respective to particular cultures, religious traditions , and magical traditions (such as Goetia). Something that might be relevant to what you're talking about would be this article. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Eastern religious traditions, of the Far East, Southeast Asia, and South Asia -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
No, "demon lord" carries a specific connotation that has its roots in late medieval western ritual magic, such as that found in the Lesser Key of Solomon, where hell was divided into various nobilities in parallel to Europe at the time. To call something like an Asura who happens to also be a ruler, a Kuei of a noble, a Dharmapala or Lokapala, or even the Yama judges of Diyu a "demon lord" is an oversimplification ultimately rooted in western evangelical missionary work rather than an emic understanding.
It's like saying that the Abrahamic religions view Moses as a Dharma-codifying Tantrika, Jesus as a Bodhisattva, and Muhammad as a Sadhu; or referring to the avatars of Vishnu as Loas, Yidams as Orishas, or the Five Dhyani Buddhas as the Sophia Christs. Regardless of whatever religious value such comparisons have or lack, they're not good scholarship. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Describing beliefs

How should religious beliefs be described? I can’t find anything about this question here on the WikiProject page or at WP:RNPOV. Should we say, for instance, that the Earth was created by [deity], or that adherents of [religion] believe so, or that it happened according to [religion], or what? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If it matters, this question was prompted by the second sentence of Obatala. It just seems off to state a belief as a matter of fact—“human bodies were brought to life by Olorun’s breath.” —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)WP:RNPOV says:
NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as Rev. Carlin) believe This and That, and also believe that This and That have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days; however, influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work) certain sects — calling themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists — still believe This, but instead of That now believe Something Else."
In other words, the second option, "adherents of [religion] believe so." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Followup question: What is the word for belief in, or people who believe in, Orishas? Edit: Answered my own question, I believe. Yoruba religion. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Religion and mythology

See this category discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Best moves

Beyond the content of the "designation of divinities" discussion, I will develop a list of suggested moves for comment:

Crow (Australian Aboriginal mythology) → Crow (hero) or Crow (Aboriginal cultural hero)

→ maybe Crow (culture hero)? Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Kumari (children) → Kumari (Nepali religion)

This one needs to be considered carefully, since it concerns living people, and there could also be POV accusations whether the title accepts the kumari's divinity or reject it. I'd lean towards Kumari (devi) or Kumari Devi, but maybe the discussion should be taken to talk:Kumari (children). Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Q·L· Thanks for the comments, I wanted to leave time for response and have just put RMs for Crow and Eridanos. Would it be possible, if you so chose, for you to put the RM through for Kumari as you may have a better handle on the arguments. thanks GregKaye 20:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Finnish mythology → Finnish folklore as current title presents a POV prejudicial against Finnish neopaganists

I don't think it does. "Folklore" (apart from being a false friend in so many languages) could be seen as even more belittling than "mythology". Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It also, unfortunately, seems to overlook that there are a lot of items of "folklore" which are not necessarily "mythological," and such a move would, seemingly, force the two into one article, or prevent the other content from ever developing. I at least get the impression from the numerous Google returns here that Finnish folklore independent of mythology is probably a demonstrably notable topic in its own right, even if the relevant article hasn't been created yet. John Carter (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Eridanos (mythology) → Eridanos (river of Hades)

Sounds fine. Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye 08:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible "Library" project subpage

I think one thing that might be useful for a lot of the religious and mythic traditions with which we deal is maybe making available to interested editors a sort of "basic list" of sources which are useful on the topic. This might include any particular "sacred texts" of a given tradition, or foundational texts of separate systems or subsystems, and, maybe, where possible and appropriate, some other well regarded "reference" type sources, preferably in the public domain. It might where possible also be very useful to have files of these sources added to commons and/or wikisource, where the information from them can continue to be readily available to all editors, including newer editors. Would any of the other editors here be willing to maybe help do some of the groundwork to establish such a list, and, maybe, place files on commons and/or proofread texts on wikisource? John Carter (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"Library" page

I am in the process of going through the most recent edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion and getting together a list of those works in the various article bibliographies there for inclusion in a new project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Library that are currently in the public domain. Considering that the works included in that list are considered significant enough to be included in the generally shortish bibliographies of articles in that work, I think that they might, generally, be of some use in developing our content here. Eventually, I hope to add links to versions of the items listed at archive.org or elsewhere, and, maybe, include some of them at commons and/or wikisource for possible transcription there. Transcription would probably be most useful for those items which are only part of a given file or book, such as, for instance, encyclopedia articles. There are quite a few of those included in the bibliographies, however. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone up to any "missionary" work?

Considering that there is, or could be, a lot of content in the other WMF entities relating to topics that fall within the range of "religion," like tourist attractions for Wikitravel, books for wikisource, quotes for wikiquote, images for commons, definitions of terminology at wiktionary, and wikibooks, wikiversity, and even the Simple English wikipedia, among other entities, and it appears at least to me that a lot of the material which could be reasonably added there isn't being done, and/or we might in some cases be experiencing duplication of content across entities, I was wondering whether there might be any purpose in maybe starting a project subpage listing current efforts or requested future efforts at those other entities, and whether any of you might be willing to be involved? John Carter (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles with definitions, religious tracts, etc

I am not sure where to ask for assistance for well intentioned editor who is in danger of breaking our rules, all unknowing. They have generated multiple ill advised copes of an external mediawiki powered site in the mistaken belief that this is ok, and have been corrected. Currently they seem to be embarking on what I judge to be non notable articles with less than optimal referencing.

I am not discussing their behaviour, nor do I wish to. They are early in their career here and simply require guidance, so I am asking for a guide for them, one experienced in articles on religious matters, and ideally one whose knowledge includes Islam. If the knowledge does not include Islam then someone versed in the rules for this sector of Wikipedia will be fine. The editor is Ali.shakeri.1987 and I am about to tell them on their talk page that I have placed this request here. Fiddle Faddle 08:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Religion and mythology part 2

Category for discussion. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_20#Category:Religion_and_mythology. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infoboxes of individuals that have no religion.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Call for help on Lay preacher

Newly created short stub Lay preacher needs some content. I personally cannot help more since I know so little about religion and have no good sources. --Pitke (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

GAR Jainism

Jainism, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Rahul (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Gods of Egypt

The usage and primary topic of "Gods of Egypt" is under discussion, see talk:Gods of Egypt (film) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion/Archive_10&oldid=1140397183"