Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Swastika in Hinduism

Some users have decided to remove the Swastika of all Hinduism related templates despite the fact it is the most prevalent symbol in Hinduism. Please join the discussion here. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

B9 hummingbird hovering

Expression of interest in project collaboration: I noticed this Project mentioned on the Singing Bowl article and I would like to be involved. May somebody please join the dots for me when convenient?

Thanking you in anticipation B9 hummingbird hovering 13:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Judaism

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:

1. No-one has the right to take upon themselves to be the controlling "project" for every religion on Earth!
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism has been, and shall remain an independent project and will not accept interference in its work based on the assertion that editors not familiar with Judaism's traditions have a self-appointed "right" to interfere with Judaism-related articles by mere dint of being members of a "religion" project.
3. So far, as of 12/21/06 the mere six members of this project, are mostly Christian, (as self-described on their user pages) and raises the question, why don't they do their work in Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity (81 members as of 12/21/06)? How can a project with six members "pass judgment" on other projects with one hundred and twenty four members?
4. What will members of other projects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam (64 members as of 12/21/06) think and react when "religion project" editors will advise what's best for Islam-related articles or not?
5. Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism adheres to WP:NPOV and is one of the oldest Wikipedia projects with over one hundred and twenty members (as of 12/21/06), a number of whom are respected sysops as well, highly knowledgeable about many matters relating to Category:Jews and Judaism.
6. It would not be advisable for anyone to interfere with Judaism-related articles or Hebrew Bible-related topics that ignores the broad based consensus and general agreement that exists between Jewishly-oriented editors of Judaic articles, many of which touch upon Jews because being Jewish includes being both a part of Judaism as well as being part of an ethnicity, and a project on "religion" alone cannot and does not have the scope to touch upon issues that effects not just Jews and Judaism, but also Israel and Jewish history, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history (with 33 members as of 12/21/06) and a broad range of related issues and projects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture (19 members as of 12/21/06) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel (23 members as of 12/21/06).
7. Finally, Wikipedia is not the forum to create a de facto neo-"ecumenical project" which is only bound to cause confusion and resentment and will result in confusion and chaos and inevitabley violate Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms.

Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see the response on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism page. Also please try to address others in a more civil manner in the future. Badbilltucker 15:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Touching on Judaism, I have made proposals about the organisation of Antisemitism and related articles on that article's talk page and would be grateful for any comments.Itsmejudith 18:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why have you removed my postings on this subject? Are you too afraid to entertain the truth of others?

Buddhism

I've been deleting attempts to orgainze Buddhist categories that include the concept Asceticism - I appreciate the efforts at creating article pages and improve categorization, that's definately a good thing! However, the reason I'm deleting Asceticism is that the Buddha taught against that concept. Tthe Middle Way is a central tenet of Buddhism. Every Buddhist child knows the story of Gautama Buddha that he left his life as a prince and went to live with the ascetics but denounced that path, he lived a life of hedonism, but rejected that path as well. He preached that nether extreme will lead one to truth. The wiki article on Monasticism states that Buddhist monasticism grew from the ascetic tradition (which clearly isn't true), however there is no citation for that section. I would guess that the person who added this section drew from a source written by a Westerner, possible an older text. As early as the 30's, translations of Buddhist texts were popular, but not very accurate, since the translators did not understand Buddhism but drew from their own world view and paradigms. I'll look for a better source for the Buddhist monasticism section of the Monasticism article. Working on the cateogories is a really good idea and the heavy lifting, I can do the housekeeping for the minor details like this, as I'm sure members of individual religion projects will do as well. Nightngle 15:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, if you are going to do this, please do more than simply remove what is currently an existing parent category from the list, and try to change the categorization of a category, or of a given article, outright. I am in no way defending the existing categorization scheme by saying this. Please understand that I (I think?) did not place any of these articles in their current categories, and I don't know who did. I also don't know how some of the categories wound up where they did. Right now Category:Jainism is actually, through progression, actually a second-or-third generation subcategory of Category:Jesus, and I am frankly astonished at that. That is one of the reasons why I am working to create these lists. If you are going to change any categorization of articles or categories, however, please indicate as much here, so that all of the lists can be changed accordingly. Badbilltucker 15:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I will and I agree that there are many astonishing categories and articles out there. I'm not as dedicated an editor as you (I work full time and have to steal a few minutes here and few there to work on wiki stuff) and it does take me some time to follow all the threads and get all the projects done. I'm also a member of Project Buddhism and I'm slowly but surely working on a number of to-do lists. On the other hand, a quick review of the category Asceticism, I'm not seeing any more Buddhist articles. Obviously, that category can't be deleted, it applies to lots of other articles, just not Buddhist ones. I've changed the two monastic ones that were mis-categorized. Thanks, Nightngle 16:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

interreligious

I seek somone in order to gather a knowladgeble editoraial group that can launch Wikipedia: WikiProject Interreligious, having as first goal of interweaving parallel perceived totalitarian and triumphalism denominations and political and theological branches of the three Abramic faith.

I want to interweave articles like Islamism and Dominionism and its Jewish counterpart, if applicable, through having a structure of refereing to eachother in the articles and the "see also" section.

Also having a structure of refering to movements accused of terrorism like the christian Lord's Resistance Army, IRA and Loyalist Volunteer Force with the Muslim Al-Qa'eda, Hizbollah and such. Also, lets not forget the KKK and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the LTTE Black Tiger.

Possibly creating Totalitarian theologies or Religion and terrorism or something along that line that can give an overview of the those movements.

In short: Im a Muslim and tired of people forgeting that there where shit happening before self proclaimed "Muslims" organizations started to terrorize the world. America was in the hand of KKK, IRA where accused of terror in England, Africa was engulfed in the terror of LRA, and the Tamilian Tigers where wreking havoc in their part of the worl, but that was totaly ignored. Now, people seem to belive that the terrorist actions in the west are a new fenomena. Its not, its the media's etnocentric reports that give that impression.

I want to spread the truth, who's with me?

--Striver 05:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This is completely incoherent, in addition to being ungrammatical and misspelled. There is a word for religious dialogue between faiths, it is called Ecumenism, and it already has an article. Zora 06:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Zora, we all know that you love to pic on my grammar. Yes Zora, we know that you love to oppose me for shear joy. Yes Zora, you do know that i was not talking about creating a article about religious dialogues. --Striver 02:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Although im angry at the moment about having the reputation of my beatiful relioun geting sodomized by animals, this project could evolve to identifyng and interweaving other peacefull parallel articles like Names of God in Judaism - 99 Names of God, and creating parent articles to those when needed, maybe a Interreligious parallels article. Peace! --Striver 05:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Another existing article on this topic can be found at interfaith. Personally, I find interfaith to be more widely inclusive than ecumenism. Keesiewonder 00:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Striver. I hope that this project will be somewhere where articles about inter-religious topics can be discussed. Also, I hope that you and Zora can make peace as you are both editors that I have a lot of respect for.Itsmejudith 18:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Islam

The Islam article itself is the main priority at the moment. It was assessed for good article status but failed and some of us would like to get it ready to try again. If you visit the page you will see the To-Do list. Any comments here or on that article's discussion page very welcome.

There is a lot of perpetual edit-warring about all Islam-related articles. Some people seem to see religion as a zero-sum game, i.e. Islam's gain must be some other religion's loss. It would be nice to see more editors making visits to these pages as sometimes the informative purpose of the encyclopedia gets lots in the desire to shape articles in one way or another.Itsmejudith 18:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone, perhaps with more knowledge than me, help me in improving Alevi? --Hurax 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

When I was but three, I said: "You don't need a car or a boat or a house to be happy. We just need to be the brothers and sisters of the One Father that we truly are and we will save the world!" How about that, O Islam? Is not your Father Abraham worthy of respect? Are not you half brother to Jews? Even the Great Prophet recognized Jesus, and looks down from heavenly realms with Him in horror at what violence and hate have done to his great and godly work to bring wisdom to mankind! Please understand that America is not being represented by her people, but by multinational corporations who serve the golden calf, idol worshipers of money, guns, oil and drugs, a false god! Many of us here wanted to "bomb" Iraq with food and medicines, and not military dominion! unfortunately, we have not yet been heard in any realms but that of the Holy spirit whose name is above every other name. No respector of persons, god will honor what is in your heart, not your choice of religion or creed. What if my onlly creed is miracles? Will you help by believing in the Most High Good, O Gracious and Merciful One, whose Mercy endureth forever?!````

Happy King Day

From Commons.

I'm fulfilled in what I do... I never thought that a lot of money or fine clothes — the finer things of life — would make you happy. My concept of happiness is to be filled in a spiritual sense. - Coretta Scott King (attributed)

NinaOdell | Talk 13:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Image on Religion Article

The symbol in question is in the bottom row, second from the left

• Does anyone know why the symbol of Diane de Poitiers is included in the image at the top of the religion article? Unless I'm missing something here, I wasn't aware that she started a religion... -- Chabuk ^{[ T â€¢ C ]} 06:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• According to the original versions of that image, the symbol is supposed to represent the Triple Goddess of Neopaganism and Wicca, not Diane de Poitiers.
• A related question: what's the relevance of the sunset image at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion? -Silence 03:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Lights of the World from space". Free Commons image. posted by Nina Odell 12:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the above image very much. The only problem is that sometimes it doesn't want to appear for me - but that's true of many images. However, you just have to click on it. It reminds me of all the Wikipedians out there...Nina Odell 12:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK... I love that image too (especially the full-size version), but what's it have to do with religion either? Many of the less lit areas are the most religious areas of the world. -Silence 12:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify why we have a picture of a sunset on the religion page, I put it there because the banner this project puts on talk pages of articles and user template previously had: first; a picture of a statue of a man meditating (that is offensive to a number of religions and they let us know they objected to it); second, we had Albrecht Duer's praying hands - yikes! no need to say why that's a bad idea, I hope; third, we had one of those religion icons collages, but that kind of collage can never be inclusive of all the religions that this project proposes as it's scope (my personal opinion is that omitting someone's religion for the sake of expediency is a poor excuse, and that we shouldn't use those types of graphics). Having the Earth from space might be a good option, but I find that those images look kind of puny when they're sized as small as a user template would make them. One proposal was having a picture of a cloud filled sky with sun rays streaming through, but an image like that is already being used for the Spirituality project, so I don't think we should copy them for clarity's sake. Not to mention that it's an allagory for "spirit" and heavenly hosts kind of thing, rejected by some religions and not appropriate on their pages.

I'm certainly open to considering a different picture, but we really have to consider the scope of what we're doing and the appropriateness of the graphic being present on pages relating to other religions. Not being a follower of a diety, I don't want to see any allusions to dieties and otherworldly thingies. Perhaps the answer is as simple as not having a graphic at all, or as complex as realizing that the project is too broad in scope to have any real meaningful purpose. Nightngle 18:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The image draws the eye to the banner, and can be seen to be one of the few images which people can actually agree would be relevant to the general subject, deities and religion in general generally being overtly or less obviously tied to the sun or the concept of light. Regarding the image for the Spirituality banner, I more or less created the banner and included the image on that banner only a few days before the image changes to this one, so I could probably change it to a different image with a more or less blue color scheme just as easily. As for whether the project is too broad in scope to have any meaningful purpose, that is something that can be considered. My primary intention in starting the project was, actually, to create a banner which could indicate the current status of articles, and to provide peer review of said articles on request from someone with at least a little familiarity with the subject, that being, at the time, limited to me. Many of the articles relating to older, often now dormant, faiths could also fall under the field of cultural anthropology, but there wasn't a group dealing with that subject when I tried to reactivate this dormant project. It is my hope that in time the project will be more or less a clearing-house for support services for a number of subprojects, as well as a place where editors can at least see which articles which fall under the general group of cultural anthropology/history of religions articles can work to improve them. Clearly, many of these articles are in less than stellar shape right now, and any degree of concentrated effort to improve them would probably be a good idea. Badbilltucker 18:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• If the reason the sun is being used in this image is because a reference to sun-worship is more inclusive than a reference to prayer, meditation, or deities, then I think the justification for the image is very poor indeed. Prayer and meditation and deities and the like are vastly more common (and vastly more directly relevant, since unlike the sun there's very little else they could apply to) religious themes than a sun, because there are more religions that don't revere light or the sun (e.g., Wicca prefers the moon) than that don't pray. Having an image like the Blue Marble would be even worse, by far, as it would imply that the entire Earth is religious, or that religion is more concerned with worldly affairs than otherworldly.
• The problem with the image is threefold: (1) it is too vague and abstract, conveying no informational content at first glance about the actual scope of the project, and thus at best only serving an aesthetic purpose and nothing else; (2) because of its abstraction, it runs the risk of being considered unencyclopedic or POVed, as it gives the impression of being an expressionistic value-judgment about religions rather than a neutral, academic representation of them; and (3) it is misleading in its implications, as reverence for light and the sun is not one of the essential or defining components of religion.
• It is more important for the image to be directly relevant (both for informational value and for avoiding POV or unencyclopedic artsiness) than for it to be supremely vague and all-inclusive; there's nothing wrong with including some random religious artifact as the image, for example, or a man praying, or a congregation at a place of prayer, or anything of the sort, as what matters is that it gives an example of "religion", not that it provides an absolutely all-encompassing summation of every religion in existence (a clearly impossible feat, no matter how vague we make the image).
• For this reason, I would suggest that we use a smaller version of the "religious symbols" icon--smaller both because it will be easier to see at a shrunken size, and because we should, to avoid controversy, only include symbols for most widespread and major world religions (the current large one reflects a significant bias in that it includes no less than 3 or 4 separate symbols for Neopagan religions, while including no symbols for dramatically larger non-Western religions like Cao Dai, Tenrikyo, Falun Gong, or arguably Confucianism, or dramatically more important religions like Zoroastrianism, Unitarian Universalism, or Scientology). Even an image as simple as Image:P_religion_world.svg would work, were it not for the fact that it gives undue weight to the Abrahamic religions (to resolve this, one could simply replace the Star of David of Judaism, a relatively small religion, with the Aum of Hinduism, the third-largest world religion). This allows for an image that is NPOV (as it doesn't make any value judgments about the importance of religions, but simply neutrally reports on the most widespread ones), informative, uncontroversially relevant, and appropriately academic and encyclopedic. -Silence 21:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I clearly agree, as the one who put two other now removed images on the banner initially. Unfortunately, my own graphic talents are more or less at the Simon Templar stick-man level. If anyone could create such an image, I would be more than happy to put it on the banner instead. But, trust me, you don't want me to even try to make such an image, it would be very objectionable, at least on the artistic front. I'm really bad at that sort of thing. Badbilltucker 21:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose using an icon collage because 1) they always look ugly, and b) they can't be all inclusive. The "important" religions are a value judgement no matter what the criteria - why does the number of adherents make a religion important?, and Bill has even suggested that we include religions found in fiction in the scope of this project - how would their symbols fit in?, and even if all religions could be included, some religious pages might strenuously object to having one of the other icons on their pages. There is absolutely something wrong with having images that a religion finds offensive or even blasphemous on a banner for this project. It strikes me that a lot of the controversy about this project is about it giving the appearance (intentional or not) of being a project that over-sees all pages and projects about religion. The specific religions have projects that include at least some practicing members of that religion who will have a much better grasp of that religion. For this project to make the determination that other religions should just have to accept our dictates is unacceptable and, I would guess, would start revert wars taking the religion project's banner off their page. At this point, I feel the project should have no graphic - the graphic is just for show anyway, and not mandatory for the banners/project page, etc. Bill has tried hard to find a graphic that works, and I do not intend to be critical of his efforts. I do think that a project that wants to coordinate, organize, dabble in all religion's pages, we of all people, need to be knowledgeable and sensitive to what may be offensive, hurtful, or even blasphemous to others who are faithful to their religion and take it's precepts seriously. Nightngle 01:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious-symbol collages can be aesthetically pleasing too.

• (1) Icon collages do not always look ugly. I just gave an example of a very pretty one: Image:P_religion_world.svg.
• (2) They don't need to be all-inclusive, because they aren't intended to be all-inclusive. The whole idea of using several religious symbols is to give examples of specific religions, not to try to summarize every religion into a single, monolithic icon, which is clearly impossible. In fact, it is truly bizarre beyond belief that someone would try to argue for using a singular image, and against using a pluralistic one, on the grounds that a pluralistic one "can't be all-inclusive". Not only is this an irrelevant objection, because no image could ever be all-inclusive for a topic like religion, but it's also an infinitely stronger objection to any singular image than to a pluralistic one, for the simple reason that choosing a single image to represent all religions--for example, praying hands, or a man meditating, or the sun setting, or even just a vague, impressionistic ball of light--is clearly an attempt to try to devise a single image that can represent every religion, which is something that the religious will always object to. It is simply impossible to find an adequate image to represent all religions, and trying to do so is POVed and unencyclopedic. On the other hand, simply making the icon a small arrangement of the most widespread world religions' symbols sidesteps the entire problem by basing the symbol solely on fact (the fact that certain religions have the most adherents), not on opinions about whether one singular image or another is appropriate for all religions. Trying to compress all religions into a single image is insulting and inevitably biased; simply giving examples of specific religions, on the other hand, is neutral and unproblematic.
• Simply pick symbols for the 4-9 or so most widespread religions, put them together in an image, and have done with it. Trying to fabricate controversy serves no purpose here. The "sun" image is unacceptable because it insinuates that the sun is a central theme in all religions, a universal central object of worship, or the valid symbol for their beliefs. The only way to not insult people's specific religious views by trying to cram a thousand thousand different denominations into a single graphic, is to not bother with trying to summarize the whole of religion in a single image at all, but just to simply use a sampling of a couple of religions symbols', as examples, not encapsulations, of all religion, and be done with it. -Silence 02:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with saying that the icon collage doesn't have to all inclusive is that the scope of this project is all inclusive. I personally don't see a picture of a sunset as a sun worshiping symbol, but you object to it on those grounds. You're saying that I'm fabricating a controversy (even though if you would read the history of the banner and some of the other activities of this project, you'd see that it's not fabricated at all), and I could say the same of you - that you're fabricating a controversy over an innocent photograph of a landscape. On the other hand, you want folks who would object to seeing a religious icon on their page that they object to, or not see their own icon on their page because their religion isn't deemed important or widespread enough to just accept that the graphic that we pick is good enough. My vote is for the project not to have a graphic at all - graphics are superfluous and certainly not mandatory for a project. Nightngle 21:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the image is not mandatory, and it does look like virtually any image will be found to be objectionable by someone. Unfortunately, I just removed the graphic from the banner, and the banner looked even worse, with lopsided text. I've returned it in the short run, hoping to have time to work things out tomorrow so that it looks OK with no image. Badbilltucker 21:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Then remove the image. No image is better than a useless image. The sun image is unacceptable not just because it is offensive, but because, more importantly, it is encyclopedically irrelevant. You might just as well use an image of a bar of milk chocolate for the image, if you're going to try for ultra-vague non sequiturs in lieu of informational content. A happy generic sunshiney pic replaces any meaningful, relevant images? Oy. Political correctness wins again. -Silence 15:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• The problem, in my mind, with the above proposals are that they rely on size as the most important determining factor. While Judaism is far from the largest religion, from it were founded the two arguably most powerful religions today, Christianity and Islam, and to discount the crucial role Judaism has played in the development of Western culture is simply naive. Unfortunately, I don't see how you'll ever be able to make everyone happy, but why not use a more arbitrary marker - when most people think of "religion" they do not think of the plethora of tiny groups like some of the ones featured on the original image - I've never even heard of half of them. Put something together with a group of symbols for something like; Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Sikh, Buddhism. In that you certainly cover the vast majority of the population -- Chabuk ^{[ T â€¢ C ]} 21:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • While the above statement is true, it is also true that literally every group you named already has one or more projects dealing specifically with it, dozens in the case of Christianity. By and large, we will not be working with articles dealing with those religions, except in those cases when the article deals with a general topic which crosses religious lines. Much of the focus of this group will be related to those creeds/faiths which are not included in the list you mentioned, so, unfortunately, we would be misrepresenting ourselves by placing the symbols of faiths we deal with less primarily in our banner. Badbilltucker 22:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, Bill. The scope of this project is huge - kind of mind boggling, really. Makes finding an appropriate graphic very difficult if not impossible. Nightngle 14:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, finding an appropriate graphic is extremely easy: the only intelligible system to neutrally discern which religions to pick from is number of adherents. That is the only workable, neutral system (and it's the one focused on on almost all religion articles, such as major religious groups); it's either that or nothing. A system based on ignoring adherents and picking how influential a religion was is completely unworkable, for the simply reason that it's a completely subjective assessment. I'm a Jew, but even I can see that if we include a Judaism icon solely for the reason that it's been historically influential, then it's twice as important that we include icons for the Zoroastrian religion--and for that matter, we'll have to include icons for extinct religions, like the Roman religion, the Egyptian religion, even the Proto-Indo-European religion and other prehistoric denominations... Obviously this would be absurd. Therefore the "influence" scale is untenable; it is based on subjective, original-research analysis, whereas a pure population scale is based on nothing but fact and number. This avoids any potential conflict or controversy from any users who have a genuine, realistic justification for being upset. Such a system is the only one that is both encyclopedic (unlike the artsy, uninformative sunset image) and unbiased (unlike the above image of a dozen or so arbitrarily-selected religious symbols). -Silence 15:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

True, however, what you propose above fails in what I think might be the most critical area. Specifically, such an image as you propose would misrepresent to anyone who saw it what the factual scope of this project is. We are for the most part only dealing with any of the major religions which already have their own projects only in contexts where a given article deals with more than one specific religion/religious group. Basically, I think that the best guideline would be to only "tag" those articles whose content is such that it relates to at least three existing Project's religion. Thus, for instance, an article dealing with Catholicism and Anglicanism, for example, is one we would have nothing really to do with. The Catholicism and Anglicanism projects would be more than capable of doing so. Similarly, any article whose content relates to all the Christian faiths would fall within the scope of the Christianity project. The same would hold for Islam, Judaism, etc. Only when at least three distinct faiths with non-overlapping projects is dealt with do I think that this group should step in. Given the number of religion articles out there, the number that deal with that kind of scope is a comparatively small one. Thus, we would be misrepensenting ourselves to anyone who saw the image if we included the images of the major faiths, as we really don't deal with those faiths that often. The one graphic I can think of that might qualify would be a photo from the internaional meeting of religious leaders regarding the environment some years ago, as everyone from the Pope, the Dalai Lama, and Amerind medicine men attended. Unfortunately, all of those images are I believe copyrighted, and thus can't be included on the banner. On that basis, I think we are better off with no image at all, and will be adjusting the banner today accordingly. Badbilltucker 15:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well, that's reasonable enough. I suppose the only other option is to try and find hundreds and hundreds of different religious symbols and make a single icon out of them all, and hope that they'll be so small and dense that no one will be able to tell which ones we didn't include. :) But not using any image is easier. -Silence 15:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks, Bill, for changing the banner - while the graphical "religion portal" link might not be exciting, it's functional and fits well. Secondly, I think that this discussion has actually been very thought-provoking and informative. We live in an ever-shrinking world, and we do have to challenge our pre-existing notions of what is "neutral" or "un-objectionable". (I'm actually running into this very topic in a different format at my work as a hospice nurse.) I also spent some time reading the discussions about the use of the swastika as a graphic for various religions for whom it is an ancient, meaningful symbol and for others who continue to be injured by the corruption of this symbol by Hitler. I continue to be amazed at the power of symbols even though many of us consider them a kind of colorful filler rather than something with the power to bring out passions and for people to fight and die over. At any rate, the graphic should fit the scope of the project, and currently the scope of this project is becoming more defined, but a single image really doesn't leap out that would fit it. Thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion. Nightngle 15:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to make a case (extremely belated) for "Lights of the World from Space", I thought the imagery and symbology would be sort of obvious. We are "lights of worlds" being watched by...whatever and whomever. Furthermore, we are shedding "light" on some of the worlds most over-looked and ancient beliefs as a part of this project. I'm not much for extremely long and dense paragraphs (a touch of ADHD, plus an OCD desire to copy-edit other people's comments), so if this has been said somewhere, then I apologize in advance. NinaOdell | Talk 14:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

But not all religions believe in anything like the idea that we're being "watched" from "out there"—consider Buddhism, for example. And even if all religions agreed on that, the symbolism isn't well-suited by the image, because the image only has lights for certain parts of the world. I imagine that anyone living in an "unlit" area would be quite offended if this image was used to symbolize world religions, as there is actually in many cases an inverse correlation between religiosity and luminescence on the image (cf. Bright). So, even if the symbolism is obvious, it's not appropriate or neutral. -Silence 15:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Synergy

I'm available as a (now) active member of WikiProject:Buddhism. My emphasis is on Mahayana Buddhism and Buddhism in India-related articles. In truth, these are the topics that I know best, but I'll try to make a more concerted effort at copyediting other articles. I'm know more than a few folks in Wikipedia land, so I'm a good resource in enlisting help on various other religion-related projects as well.

I've been trying to recruit some other people for Ayyavazhi and related articles, because I feel that someone who can speak Paul's language might be able to help more. Frankly, I sometimes can't understand what he's trying to express. It's difficult, and slow-going. If we can get some other folks to help out that can speak directly to Paul, I think that would be more efficient. NinaOdell | Talk 14:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't this article fall under the WikiProject:Hinduism? Nightngle 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. The difficulty is that the adherents of the faith consider it a technically different religion, presumably as it incorporates several beliefs which are not generally regarded as Hindu. I left messages on both the Hinduism project page and on the main article talk page and was told this. On that basis, it seems less controversial if it is counted as being a separate entity unto itself. Badbilltucker 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus article a candidate for Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

Some of you may have noticed that the article Jesus is currently a nominee for the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. The article is currently a good article, which is good. However, it is also the first page that appears when one runs a google search of the name, and the fact that it is only a good article under those circumstances isn't so good. I noted on the talk page that the article as it now reads, at least to me, is more than a little unbalanced toward the religious aspects than the pure biographical aspects, and that it does show a definite "Christian" bent. There are some wonderful new sources available for use listed on the article's talk page, and I hope that all the members at least consider whether they would be willing to vote for the nomination for article improvement, and perhaps work on the article if it is nominated to show a more neutral, NPOV perspective. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed subproject

Considering that individuals who found one religious movement generally arise from another one, and that their articles will be edited primarily by adherents of the faith s/he founded, not the one s/he arose from, I have proposed a new subproject to deal with these possibly difficult articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Religious leaders in the hope that we might be able to better ensure they be NPOV and have a global perspective. Any and all interested parties should indicate their support there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start the group in earnest. Badbilltucker 15:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Omnipotence and Taoism

Concerns have been expressed elsewhere that some recent attempts to include content related to Taoism in the above article have been reversed. If anyone feels qualified to address this matter, it would be very appreciated. Badbilltucker 14:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox for Places of Worship

I created based on a previous request from a Wikipedian for an infobox for religious buildings. Here's what I came up with: Template:Infobox religious building. I think it works universally for all religous buildings. I've already implemented the infobox in Old New Synagogue, Saint Joseph's Oratory, and Faisal Mosque. -- Sapphire 15:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

One problem with the template. Some buildings, particularly in Europe, have been used by several faiths, at least within Christianity, and, sometimes, outside of Christianity. How would you complete the affiliation line in these cases? Badbilltucker 23:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to form a template for these sorts of things, or perhaps a series of separate templates by building type, as Buddhist temple complexes differ greatly from medieval Catholic cathedrals, which in turn differ from the Kotel. I recognize that this goes against the issue Badbilltucker suggested, which is a very valid point. But nevertheless, I tried using the infobox as it stands now, and it's difficult, particularly as there's no description on the talk page as to what certain elements are meant to stand for, etc. It might also be very helpful to incorporate colors, as are listed at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Society#Religion. LordAmeth 12:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've listed my thoughts on the talk page of that infobox. I'm not sure what can be or should be done to rectify the concern brought up by Badbilltucker, but I do think it's helpful to have such an infobox, and if those members of the Project who are more inclined could take a look at my thoughts, I'd appreciate it. LordAmeth 12:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Satanism

Are there any plans so far for the Satanism article. Controversy seems to have escalated at this point though some of us agree that using Religioustolerance.org's defintion seems the best thing to do at this point. Still as it is a religion, its recieved a B rating, and it is quite a controversial topic, perhaps it should be included as a project to be revamped. WerewolfSatanist 00:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we all just gonna go quiet and let the Biased article prevail, well I'm not.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 00:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be good either to let it be. Wikipedia needs to be factual. Specially religious article as to prevent bigotry bias. Lord Metroid 13:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Christian mythology talk page

I need help to answer some person using the "intolerant" word 2-3 times on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_mythology Thank you in advance. Goldenrowley 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I am good now. I was taking the "mythology expert" challenge on that page and added some of the Early Christianity narratives. I think it still could use expert attention from others as well because I am not a theology major.Goldenrowley 06:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Help needed: Cessationism

Cessationism could use some serious attention from any interested editors and/or experts. It is currently heavily biased with a huge Charismatic/Pentecostal focused bibliography and similar POV. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Vassyana 06:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Taoic Religions

I would appreciate any help and assistance anyone would be willing to offer over at Taoic religions. It has been significantly expanded from a stub, but still needs further expansion and reliable sources for its claims. Thanks! Vassyana 13:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba movement Can somebody take over?

I will probably receive a topic ban from the arbcom, so I am looking for a contributor who will replace me. I was and am the only major contributor. The article was never controversial and there were never serious disputes, except about the external links. Andries 16:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

review of Eckanar

Hi! I'd like somebody with more topic knowledge than me to review Eckanar. Sorange (talk · contribs) has been making a number of unexplained major edits while marking them minor, and doesn't seem interested in discussing them. I have done my three reverts, and he's still going strong. He's so far an WP:SPA, and the removal of cited criticism makes me suspect WP:COI issues. I'd love some help from religion project members on this. Thanks, William Pietri 22:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is a mess and always has been with SPAs deleting contents they do not like. Nobody ever cared about proper sourcing. I think you are probably confusing strong POV with WP:COI. Andries 22:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it could be strong POV just as well. In this particular case, sourced information was disappearing. I'm an eventualist when it comes to bad articles, but I'm reluctant to see them go from bad to worse. So if you have time to look at and clean up some of the current mess, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, William Pietri 22:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, the information was cited but I doubt it was a reliable source. Andries 18:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Presuppositional apologetics FAR

Presuppositional apologetics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Taoic religion

I have nominated Taoic religion as a good article. Feedback is welcomed. Vassyana 10:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Culture and religion

Per this discussion, we should come up with a consensus over wheteher we should have similar sections in all religion articles, or if we should remove the section from the Islam article.--Sefringle 02:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Womadhism

Hi, couldn't find a relevent AfD section on your project page, so I'm posting here to alert you to an AfD I would like your input on. The article s in the title, and the AfD is here. Thank you. The Kinslayer 11:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly necessary to notify anybody as it's not a real religion... article has been zapped. --kingboyk 17:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing topics

I have collected a list of topics related to religions. I've tried to find any equivalent articles and redirect but I'd appreciate if any experts could have a look at the list. Thank you. - Skysmith 12:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I am interested in how quantum physics approaches will change educational matrices as well as cultural, religious, and secular bias. Will the scientific method's supposed monopoly on knowledge via the "scientific experiment" (now known to be affected by the very thoughts and bias of the observer, especially in artificial laboratory conditions as opposed to the "crucible of experience" acknowledged by Leonardo da Vinci), ever be seen as the lie it is? We are MIDI's, musically intelligent design interfaces, and I have shown how and why in the latest paper for my PhD available at the following link: Google me at SPIRITUALUN (it will come up on angelfire) and follow links or type in the following directly: http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/aaadesignservices/Breadth.html Please reply with feedback in my guest book. thanks!66.14.38.104 22:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)66.14.38.104 21:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing the Creation (theology) article

I have seen the Creation (theology) article and it has been proposed that a suitable candidate should completely revise it. I am a Biblical Studies 4 year graduate student majoring in the Old Testament and studied much about the creation mythology in Genesis and would be willing to tackle this over a period of time. How do I get this permission? --Monasticknight 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Antimuslim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Antimuslim

Please keep your eyes open for this troll Zazaban 01:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Crypto-religion

There are quite a few articles dealing with people who, under pressure, convert to a religion while secretly holding on to their old beliefs, such as:

• Anusim
• Crypto-Christianity
• Crypto-Islam
• Crypto-Judaism
• Crypto-Paganism
• Morisco
• Taqiyya
• Converso
• Marrano
• Xueta
• New Christian
• Belmonte Jews
• Kakure Kirishitan
• Hanare Kirishitan

I wonder, would there be enough material to write an article about this phenomenon, or should it be integrated into Forced conversion? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 14:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Religious pareidolia

Proposing significant restructuring and renaming, and/or RfC for this article. Please discuss on Talk:Religious pareidolia. Best, --Shirahadasha 07:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed article name to Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena. Rewrote introduction attempting a more neutral discription of the phenomena. Consolidated the material on pareidolia in a section called Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena#Pareidolia explanation. Reworded language in a few other sections which I believe tended to suggest that claims of miracles and and pareidolia explanations are exhaustive/mutually exclusive. In general I attempted to modify narrative language that could be perceived as presenting a false dichotomy about this subject. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the deletion discussion for List of people who went to heaven alive

This article's name isn't the best (replacement suggestions are welcome), but the concept of ascension into heaven is important in a number of religions, even going beyond Judaism, Christianity and Islam, so I'm trying to improve the article and save it from deletion. It seems to me that members of this project would have a particular interest in an article on a topic of comparative religion. In the deletion discussion, some editors seem to be calling the belief in ascension without death a "joke". It seems to me that the best response to that is to improve the article and show the concept is not treated as a joke by those who take religious questions seriously. Please take a look at the article and the deletion discussion and consider contributing to both.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who went to heaven alive

Noroton 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Religious conversion and terrorism: comments requested

Please have a look at the entry titled Religious conversion and terrorism. It is misleadingly titled at the very least, but I believe it really doesn't warrant existence as an entry of its own under any name. Another user, one of the project members here, seems to disagree. The opinions of other Wikiproject:Religion members would be much appreciated. Thanks and best.PelleSmith 04:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now nominated the entry for AfD. Please join the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious conversion and terrorism.PelleSmith 12:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Panendeism

The article Panendeism, which has been tagged as supported by this project (and rated as start class) has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panendeism. Interested parties may want to take a look. Cheers, Xtifr _tälk 02:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted per the above AfD. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Yoruba mythology page

Hello,

I am wondering why the page on the religious system of Yoruba is Yoruba mythology and not Yoruba religion, as this is a currently practiced religion.

The Orisha article states "An Orisha...is a spirit that reflects one of the manifestations of Olodumare (God) in the Yoruba spiritual or religious system". Here, the term "Yoruba" links to Yoruba mythology, while the term "religious system" links to religion. There seems to be a disconnect here, or perhaps a bias against non-mainstream religious views, relegating them to "mythology".

Is there any sort of protocol about what can be designated a religion and what is called mythology? I would like to call for a renaming of this article, but I wanted to check here first to see if anyone has any ideas or opinions on the matter, as the article in question is under the domain of this wikiproject. Thanks, romarin [talk ] 18:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no extant protocols of which I am aware. And I've had questions about the naming and categorization of some pages like that as well. However, there is a valid area of mythology within any currently practiced religion. There is the recognized field of Greek and Roman myths (about things which are no longer widely credited) as well as Jewish and Christian myths (about stories and ideas which have been repeatedly told, but generally not in an official religious story or text.) I do note however that the Orisha page, which is listed on the Yoruba disambiguation page, is probably the page for the religion per se. I regret to say that a lot of these pages have been comparatively neglected for a long time, and this project only recently formally formed to try to deal with them. We're still in the early stages in regards to a lot of things, including many of the lesser known religious traditions and determining exactly what and how many articles are out there. If I were you, I might try to transfer the details specifically related to religious practices and values to the Orisha page, and keep the content related to the stories and legends of the faith (which generally qualify as mythology) on the Yoruba mythology page. Like I said, we're new and still in the process of finding out what all is already out there, which will probably still take a bit longer. User:Kathryn NicDhà na, one of our other members, might be able to help more in this particular field than I with my limited knowledge am likely to be. However, if you do have any further questions regarding this matter, or want any help in working on the pages, please feel free to put another message here or contact me directly. Also, there is another, even newer, project out there, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology, which might be of some additional assistance. Badbilltucker 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Badbillticker I like to endorse your concept that the religion pages should go over the theology and then possibly link to a related mythology page for "stories and legends of the faith (which generally qualify as mythology)" Although sometimes it is impossible to separate religion from stories you can just "mention" a story on religion page and then go into full detail on the "mythology" pages, or something like that. The way I understand the relationship, is that religion is the nugget of theology - while mythology is the outside of the seed of theology, the traditional narratives of creation, heros and eschatology- if I may humbly propose after reading. In Romara's case... perhaps something like a prewritten theology outline with the 3-6 suggested theology topics would be useful to for religion/theology stubs. Goldenrowley 06:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me as entirely POV to characterize aspects of a religion statable as propositions as "theology" and other aspects as "mythology". I suggest the term "mythology" should be avoided in religion articles -- it's often little more than a term for religious beliefs one doesn't share. I would agree that Yoruba mythology is inconsistent with WP:NPOV and the article should be moved to Yoruba religion. As an example, the article on Christian mythology contains stuff like King Arthur and the Holy Grail, and the talk page makes clear that the page's editors regard attempting to put core beliefs of Christianity into the article as a kind of trolling. Why should articles on minority religions be treated differently? How can WP:NPOV permit an article characterizing the core beliefs of a living religion as "mythology"? Best, --Shirahadasha 08:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved article to Yoruba religion for the reasons above, because of WP:NPOV and the potentially pejoritive connotations of the term "mythology", and for consistency with articles on Western religons, which are uniformly called "religion" rather than "mythology". --Shirahadasha 04:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I support this decision 100%, if the Yoruba religion is still practised or believed today by that many people, we cannot call it "mythology" because that is POV pushing. I would like to see this protocol clearly laid out because I have been having similar problems with anti-religious bigots, see the section I just added below about the current controversy raging at Talk:Noah's Ark. This is the domain of religion, not mythology because it is still a current belief and significant POV in the world today, not just among Christians, but also within Judaism, Islam, and even a number of other Middle Eastern sects and Biblical religions that do not easily fit into one of these major world religion categories. We must follow the lead of all other serious encyclopedias that demarcate "mythology" and "religion" between past and present beliefs, and not give in to those who insist on redefining "mythology" to include all religions widely believed in today -- otherwise this will soon no longer be a neutral encyclopedia, it will be one that announces to people that all of their firm beliefs are myth, without any proof one way or another. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also support moving the name of the category "Yoruba mythology" to "Yoruba religion" for the same reasoning. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem with POV of calling selected Religious texts "mythology"

This is cool

Hi, There is a problem with several editors who have labeled a wide variety of articles on religious topics and doctrines "mythology" on a pick and choose basis (using the category system). While traditionally encyclopedias have entries on "mythology" that strictly discuss past beliefs that are no longer practised any more, these editors do not seem to appreciate the traditional encyclopedic distinction between religion (present) and mythology (past) and want to subsume religion into mythology and just call all of it "mythology". I am arguing with these people and they are very persistent, but the thing is they are not even coming from a background in Comparative Religion and seem to know little of the field, their backgrounds are for the most part Science, and they are very aggressive in asserting that only their view is correct and therefore "neutral".

I have taken Comparative Religion in University, and right after we learned on day one that the predominant religions of the world today are Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc, we learned that we should avoid referring to any of these as mythology because of the sensitive and opinionated nature of the word. No one has authorized wikipedia as a body to sift through all the religious texts of the world and determine which ones are "mythology" and which aren't. In many of these cases, the label of "mythology" is hotly disputed, but they insist that they are simply right, therefore all who disagree with them are "insignificant". This thing is continually rearing its ugly head, and right now I need someone who knows the neutrality issues involved here, and even knows something about the the field of Comparative religion, to weigh in.

The figure of Noah is considered a prophet in Islam and Judaism and several other creeds, not only Christianity. Some even argue that he is the same as Manu, who in Hinduism is believed to be very real and the author of the Manusmriti. I am obviously not asking wikipedia to endorse any of these views, only to refrain from attacking or openly antagonizing them while styling itself a "neutral" encyclopedia. Neutral means not taking anyone's side. These people are not very skilled in logic because everytime I say putting Noah's Ark in the newly-invented category "Mythological ships" is pushing their POV since a vast number of people still consider it to have been real in some form, they immediately start screaming that I am a "fundamentalist" seeking special protection for "fundamentalism", etc. They do not even know what my personal beliefs are, because as an editor they are irrelevant to the question. It is neutrality between all significant points of view that is relevant. I repeatedly tell them that I would equally object to the Quran, the Sutras, or the Vedas being dumped in a "mythology" category, because these are religious texts with significant followings today, with significant viewpoints. But their only response is always to scream at me that I am a "fundie".

This has been the case at Noah's Ark with several editors who wanted to endorse the POV that the Ark is a "fictional ship" by putting it into a category "fictional ships", I said this is a POV; but then they have added the category "mythological ships" which is also obviously a POV-pushing category, and they say all those people of faith who do not agree with them are "insignificant" and so discount all opposition.

As I stated before I would dearly like to see Wikipedia remain neutral and not declare any of the great religious texts or any of the significant world views that are practised in the world today to be either true or false. However they seem to be operating on behalf of a particular world view that seeks to have all others declared either false or mythological. This is very poor word choice, calling someone else's firm beliefs "mythology" is polemical at best, and if it is as innocent as they claim, they should find a more neutral word to express what they are really trying to say. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I have been unsuccessful in getting any discussion started here on this urgent neutrality matter, I have GONE ON STRICK from en-wikipedia indefinitely, until such time as the formation of a clear policy, distinguishing the Living Religions of the world (such as Yoruba religion, see above) from the pejorative and historically offensive word "mythology", is addressed. See my user-page for full details and explanation of how I was rail-roaded off the project. Cheers, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith FAR

Bahá'í Faith has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Hi! I would also nominate this review````

The Left Hand Path and Satanism

Well its been a nice rambling journey so far, but there's still more to do and we all need any help possible. The primary concern is sourcing. Finding outsider, objective sources. Authoritave sources. The main article Satanism could use with a rewrite (and suggestions are welcome). Any help is welcome really.WerewolfSatanist 02:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You may want to touch base over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Occult. Additionally, I would recommend:

• Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality By Bob Larson (ISBN 084236417X)
• The New Religious Movements Experience In America By Eugene V. Gallagher (ISBN 0313328072)
• Controversial New Religions By James R. Lewis and Jesper Aagaard Petersen (ISBN 019515682X)
• Satanism By Gretchen Passantino, Robert Passantino and Bob Passantino (ISBN 0310704510)
• Alternative Religions: a Sociological Introduction By Stephen J. Hunt (ISBN 0754634108)
• Witchcraft and Magic: Contemporary North America By Helen A. Berger (ISBN 0812219716)

I hope that helps. Vassyana 21:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed religious biography project

There is an extant proposal for a project or work group which would deal specifically with articles relating to individual religious leaders. It can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Religious leaders. I am in fact an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints, which is rather active. Unfortunately, despite some suggestions to the contrary, I believe that the existing membership of that project is not necessarily the best equipped people to deal with biographical content related to people involved in non-Christian religion. On that basis, I have recently indicated an interest in that project and would like to call it to the attention of the members of this project. If any of the members of this project would be interested in joining such an effort, please indicate your interest there. Thank you. John Carter 16:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Money is this week's WP:GACo - your help is needed!

I am here to inform you that the article on money has just been selected as the Good Article Collaboration of the week. This is one of the most important articles in Wikipedia, and while I realize it might not be the most article to this WikiProject, it is unfortunately in a very poor state as of now, so every help is needed. The selection for COTW makes for a good occassion for a concerted effort to improve it, and I am really counting on the members of WikiProject Religion, with your knowledge and expertise, to help other users involved bring it at least to Good Article standards. In particular, I hope you could provide some gravely needed sources, as well as help make the article appropriately covers the aspects of money in religion. PrinceGloria 18:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

List of notable converts to Christianity

The above referenced article is currently being considered for deletion seemingly solely on the basis of its inclusion of Bob Dylan. It seems to me that this list of converts, and all the other lists of converts, would be best within the scope of this project, as it is probably the project which would be most aware of all the perspectives involved. Would the members of this project be willing to assist in overseeing these lists of converts? John Carter 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Assistance in cleaning up, sourcing and expanding Universal reconciliation would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Vassyana 05:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Interreligious articles

I notice that this project seems to be the only one which might be able to deal with subjects which relate to a variety of religions. It also seems to be explicitly involved in articles that relate specifically to religions not counted within any other project's scope. Do the rest of you think that there would be any basis for creating an entity to deal with the potentially sensitive discussion of content which might relate to more than one discrete religious tradition? I personally think that any specific project relating to a particular faith would probably not be qualified to handle such a subject individually, and think that this might be the only group qualified to deal with such matters. Any other opinions? John Carter 16:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

New project proposal

There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The proposal has received five interested parties, which is stated to be enough to create a task force or work group. Would the members of this project be willing to take it on as a subproject? And, would I be correct in thinking that "work group" might be the more consistent name to use here? John Carter 18:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Creating a guideline that applies to all religious articles

Currently we have a Manual of Style that relates to Islam related articles and other, but we have none that relates to all religious articles. All religious articles should be guided by similar requirements. It would be most consistent and NPOV to have all religious articles under similar guidelines. I suggest we create a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Religion-related articles)--Sefringle 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to decide what's a "religious article." Clearly you think anything relating to atheism is, given your posting this to that wikiproject. However many people, YT included, would argue they most definitely are not. What about, say, the roles of monasteries during the middle ages? This seems like opening a big fat industrial size can of worms. --Belg4mit 04:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I posted it to the atheism wikiproject because while atheism is not in itself a religion, it in many ways is treated as such in terms of how it is analized. In that way, it is somewhat relevant to this topic.--Sefringle 04:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Judaism has a separate manual of style. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style

Could you identify a specific example of style guidance that is (a) appropriate for all religion articles and (b) not appropriate for the general article style manual? There are quite a number of religion-specific style issues requiring sensitivity to individual religions -- appropriate ways to refer to deities; calendars and dates; transcriptions/transliterations of scriptural languages, and more. Consistency for its own sake could result in a less sensitive, and hence a lower quality, encyclopedia. --Shirahadasha 04:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Certain things, like what needs to be cited, what are acceptable or unacceptable sources, use of primary and secondary sources, how to make the article NPOV, to some extent organization, etc. may be best to be consistent with all religions, while other things like how to site texts, words to avoid/use, etc. might be different by religion. Basically things that appear in multiple different religious style guidelines might be better to be consistent.--Sefringle 04:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I also saw one for the Latter Day Saints (Mormons), it was my understanding that they were created by editors interested in the religion who want to make sure the religion in question is not disrespected and referred to correctly. Anynobody 04:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

German Wikipedia already has this manual. What struck me as particularly useful in the German guideline is that the entries for individual entries of churches should not explain the whole Christian faith when describing beliefs and practices, but only describe where they differ from mainstream protestantism. Andries 04:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What's mainstream protestantism? I think what would be more useful is defining how you interact with common reference points. As someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism, I would include common reference points like Evangelicalism (or Liberal Christianity), Calvinism, and the like. -- TimNelson 05:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Germany has clear mainstream well-known protestant churches. I realize of course that this Wikipedia is probably too international for this. The reference point will be very difficult to choose because of this. Andries 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think by "religion" it means all religions (or lack thereof) including, Hindu, Muslim, Atheism?, the Church of Scientology etc. not just Christians. (Which is why I don't think it's a good idea, fitting all religions into one MOS...)Anynobody 06:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a general MOS would be beneficial for all religion WikiProjects. It doesn't need to be very specific in case different WikiProjects want to adjust the MOS to their respective religion/philosophy. It can lay the foundation, which would be much appreciated by Religions with no MOS at the moment. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I can agree that having a Manual of Style to be used for each main article relating to a specific religion would be useful, as it would ensure that what is considered necessary content would be included. It might also be possible to have a similar, probably less detailed, guideline for leaders of various religions. I am less certain that it could be applied across the board to all articles relating to religion, given the wide variety of articles that fall within that grouping. John Carter 14:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines would need to deal with whatever common ground there is among articles on living religions, mostly such as pointers on how to keep them neutrally worded, language, not taking sides etc. We should not try to foray here into establishing rules specific to a particular religion, such as Protestantism - that would better be left to a more specific WP. Although I am officially 'striking' from my wikipedia contributions over previous handling of this very issue, I am monitoring this development to see what neutrality standards will be set for the significant living religions of the world, which might let me end my strike. My position is fully explained on my user talk page. Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at three of the existing religion-specific MOS's mentioned above (i.e., the Judaism MOS, the Latter Day Saints MOS, & the Islamic MOS, & I'd say that they overlap a fair bit in terms of intent, if not at least some details. I felt were written to encourage two different points:

• Providing a list of words or phrases that might inadvertently offend people of that faith; &
• Encouraging the old Wikipedia ideal that their faithful should write articles as if to appease your opponents.

Formulating such a document would, in effect, say to the rest of Wikipedia: "Hey, we're trying to be reasonable here; so can we ask that you be, too?" -- llywrch 03:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Counter-proposal to retain the status quo

Firstly, Wikipedia has enough rules, manuals of style, and procedures to choke a battalion of horses. Do we really need more rules and regulations to choke the few really busy and productive editors and put stumbling blocks in the way of their productivity and creativity? Secondly, religions differ. For example, due to the fact that being a Jew means belonging to both an ethnicity (see the Jew article) as well as to a religion (see the Judaism article), and that therefore there are Jews who are not religious but are fully Jewish according to Judaism, and vice versa there are people who practice Judaism yet they would would not be considered Jewish under classical Jewish law (see the Who is a Jew? article), many articles relating to Jews that intersect with Judaism topics would not be "classifiable" under either a purely "religious" or secular set of rules. Thirdly, as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism I can state that trying to get all articles relating to Judaism, and in particular Orthodox Judaism, Haredi Judaism and Hasidic Judaism to function in the same manner as articles that do not deal with those subjects would be a nightmare. Add to that that there are a number of large Jewish denominations each with it's own set of rules of how to understand things. Thus while Reform Judaism may admire Biblical criticism, trash the Talmud, and negate the Shulkhan Arukh, that would be heresy in Orthodox Judaism. So how would one get around the fact that Reform Judaism and secular Jews look at the way Orthodox Jews relate and accept Torah study and citing the Hebrew Bible as a primary source as THE literal word of God, which would not even enter the mind of most Reform scholars, let alone a secular (Jewish) one. Fourthly, so while I can sympathise with User:Sefringle's hopes, I cannot agree with him at this time, because his vision is premature since religion is an esoteric field, it's not a quantifiable "science" and Wikipedia is still in it's developmental stages, essentially it's a secular encyclopedia, and any attempt to create and enforce some sort of "universal standard" for all articles relating to religion via a "manual of style for all relgions" would serve to stifle the development and growth of articles that need to be allowed to "flow in naturally" into Wikipedia and editors of articles relating to religion must not feel that at any moment an axe (of "rules") could fall on them. Finally, there is adequate monitering of articles by alert and experienced editors via talk pages, watchlists, Wikiprojects, and the usage of WP:AFD to deal with topics and articles that are way off, allowing each set of religion and denomination editors to organize, edit, and deal with material without a uniform ARTIFICIAL "code of law" being imposed upon them, or for them to refer to, when we have the existing Wikipedia guidelines that work just fine. IZAK 09:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 09:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

COUNTER-PROPOSAL: Retain the status quo, no need for a universal 'manual of style' to govern all religion-related articles:

Agree with counter-proposal

1. (For above reasons) IZAK 09:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not poll. Certainly not while discussion is at an early stage. Those who are suggesting a common MOS should state their case. Why is this useful in practical terms? Personally, I think it is just instruction creep - but convince us.--Doc^g 09:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• By all means let them feel free to state their case. At this point is seems that as each religion Wikiproject matures its experienced and responsible editors inherently understand that they need to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines and that by self-regulation they are best able to deal with the growth in their ares of expertise. Thus, the Judaism MOS, the Latter Day Saints MOS and the Islamic MOS are good examples of the responsibilty that editors within those projects feel naturally without it being super-imposed upon them from above as it were, which would only serve to frustrate editors and possibly stifle those willing to contribute articles and information because the first and primary need of Wikipedia is for more and more information and knowledge and it is that which needs to be encouraged. In any case there are always levels of contributors. There are "first-tier" editors who who when they add information and articles get monitored by more experienced editors who know the rules of the road and edit and organize articles accordingly. So the essense of what I am saying is a to allow for a natural accumulation and growth of articles before we take on the role of "regulators" and "policemen" that will be counter-productive to the growth that still needs to occur in each area. Perhaps, sometime down the road maybe there will be a need to look into this, but for now, let things stand as they are..."If it ain't broken don't fix it." IZAK 05:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with counter-proposal

(Provide reasons please)

A Synthetic/Middle Proposal: Cover specific issues as they arise

As discussed above, there are times when Religion articles have unique problems not shared by articles on science, fiction, government, etc., yet because the topic of religion is prone to exceptions and difficult to generalize, an attempt to create a comprehensive guide could easily step on unanticipated toes. To address this, I propose we proceed, but very cautiously, by raising and addressing specific issues which experience finds are common across religions and for which a comprehensive approach would add clear value. In other words, let's start with some common law and go case-by-case for awhile, rather than trying to write an all-embracing constitution from scratch. Suggest a consensus approach to what topics to include. If there is strong disagreement about including a topic, we don't include that topic. --Shirahadasha 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A suggested example: Criticism. One topic which may benefit from a cross-religion approach is how criticism should be handled in religion articles. Unlike most article topics, where criticism generally involves disagreement with a single feature or fact and hence is usually better integrated throughout the article, in religion articles criticism often represents a comprehensive disagreement between worldviews which often requires its own introductory/explanatory paragraph. For this reason, I find that separate criticism sections often make more sense in religion articles, despite the fact that this may not be best for other, and perhaps most, kinds of Wikipedia articles. Issues where religious content requires a different approach from other kinds of content represent areas where a common approach will add clout in dealing with the rest of Wikipedia, and hence will have clear value to all the participants. Best --Shirahadasha 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Guideline for main articles relating to religions

I do think that it could make sense to have guidelines, possibly separate guidelines, for many of the main articles relating to religion. For instance, a standard format for articles like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Santería and so on does make a good deal of sense to me. It could indicate which proposed sections, or main topics, an FA on the subject would need, so as to help ensure that as many articles as possible can potentially reach that level. Also, particularly when dealing with articles relating to individual leaders of religion, the recently proposed Religious leaders work group could possibly provide a standard format for such articles. One might even be able to go so far as to create a standard format for specific denominations of larger religions, indicating among other things when a given "movement" or denomination started, its early leaders/founders, the points of theology or whatever that led to the creation of the new group, and so on. I acknowledge that there may well be specific instances when these formats would be inappropriate. However, if nothing else, having a standard format to follow where possible would make it easier to ensure that all the relevant content is included. John Carter 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

These two articles, Young Religious Unitarian Universalists and Unitarian Universalist Youth Conferences are up for deletion and I thought it might be something you may want to comment on. So go and have your say at nominated for deletion.--Devin Murphy 90 02:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Project Sidebar

There is now a possible project sidebar that I copied from the Christianity Project sidebar at {{WP Religion sidebar}}. The color at the top of the bar probably should be changed. Anyway, any improvements to it are more than welcome. Also, I guess anyone who wants to can add it to the main page when they see fit. John Carter 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll add it.--Sefringle 05:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ths sidebar should be shunk a little. It is a bit wide.--Sefringle 04:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

New thing

Hi guys. I just wanted you to know I've been categorizing expert requests, many have to do with religion: Category:Religion articles needing expert attention. This is part of the expert finding process. Goldenrowley 04:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

God as information

Hi everyone,

This is the best place I could think of to ask this question; If you know of a better one, thanks for pointing it out. I am looking for a known religion/philosophy/you name it that considers God as the sum of all information and communication between humans, and as such omnipotent, benevolent, and, of course, omniscient. Can anybody help?

Thanks in advance, --82.151.88.108 10:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we can't. You ask about the same question that I ask, but the modern concept of information, is fairly new. You ask about memes and the flow of information, and the organism that it constitutes. I'm not willing to regard the flow as identical to God, but I can agree that there's some connection. Otherwise I have no good hints. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 14:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Look What I just made

Hey there, I made this user box the other day. Should I make one for "Religious Humanists", and "Humanists", and one for "people who are interested in Humanism? Would anyone use them?

This user is a secular humanist.

--Dr who1975 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! I would. Personally I think humanism is near the core of religion. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

List of articles where mythology cats are potentially problematic

My method in compiling this list is to go through each article in a "(x religion) mythology" cat (eg "Buddhist mythology" etc.) to find those articles that pertain to the recognized sacred scriptures of that religion, and where I would encourage the categorisations to be reviewed by this project for NPOV.

For example, I have listed Shambhala here, because it is a kingdom found in the Tantras, scriptures that have devout adherents among Buddhists today. The fact that its identity is in dispute is no excuse to put it into a mythology cat; this is from the scriptures of a living religion widely practised today, not "mythology". On the other hand, articles pertaining to various Buddhist folk beliefs apparently not found in any sacred scripture, such as Diyu and Apalala, seem to be properly placed and 'fair game' so to speak for a mythology cat, so they are not listed. Feel free to expand or comment within this list. Regards, Blockinblox 17:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• from Category:Buddhist mythology:
  • Shambhala
  • Kinnara

• from Category:Ayyavazhi mythology:
  • possibly entire contents of this cat. Arul Nool is a sacred book believed by the adherents of this faith, yet Wikipedia considers it all "Mythology". There are already plenty of other, less POV cats for this religion that this could go in.

• from Category:Hindu mythology:
  • much of category. See the article Hindu mythology, which is already disputed for NPOV. Strangely, that article states "The use of the term mythology is a western construct applied primarily to non-Judeo-Christian religious literature." Many would argue instead that "mythology" is rightly applied only to religions that are no longer widely practiced, or to beliefs that are not supported by any one religion's sacred texts, which would exclude Hinduism, as it is widely practised, and its texts do indeed have many adherents within this world-view.

• Category:Mesoamerican mythology and religion - This and similar cats (Aztec mythology and religion, Mixtec mythology and religion, etc.) may set a useful precedent by avoiding the distinction entirely, and may possibly therefore be the most NPOV formulation. Note the article Yoruba mythology was earlier moved to Yoruba religion by this project to avoid giving offense to a still-practised religion, but there are still categories titled "Yoruba mythology", "Dahomey mythology" etc.

• from Category:Islamic mythology:
  • Again, main article is NPOV-disputed
  • Genie (Djinn)
  • Ifrit
  • Marid

• from Category:Jewish mythology:
  • Main article is NPOV-disputed
  • Leviathan
  • Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

• from Category:Christian mythology:
  • Main article is NPOV-disputed
  • Antediluvian
  • Chosen people - article is not specifically about Christian concepts, this categorisation here seems particularly inappropriate
  • Star of Bethlehem
  • Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

• from Category:Abrahamic mythology:
  • Satan
  • Noah's Ark
  • Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

Posted a pointer to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology#The boundaries between "Myth" and "Religion" with the following comment:

The discussion raises a basic issue which perhaps might better be addressed in a more general forum: Whether to characterize beliefs of living religons as "mythology". This is a complex question which is, in practice, answered rather inconsistently across the encyclopedia. In general, core religious doctrines of Western religions (e.g. Resurrection of Jesus do not have mythology categories associated with them, while arguably peripheral doctrines (such as Noah's Ark do. Similarly, some nonwestern religions are categorized as relgion and some as mythology. (See e.g. the discussion at Yoruba religion. The use of the term "mythology" consistently seems to annoy religious believers because, regardless of its academic use, one of the dictionary definitions of "myth" is a false belief, and it is argued that because of this definition, use of the term "mythology" connotes a point of view violating WP:NPOV. A hodgepodge of different approaches where the term "myth" is sometimes applied and sometimes not depending on who participated in a particular discussion seems to be a receipe for ongoing conflict. Perhaps we can arrive at a solution. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And indeed, how does one decide whether a religion is "living" or not? Tricky question. I can't imagine that Asatruar are comfortable with the notion of "Norse mythology", but yet I've never heard it referred to as a living religion. --Gimme danger 17:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, how many people today actually believe in Asatru, or consider themselves members / practitioners (or more specifically, how many people today believe in the Norse sagas to be true and sacred texts?) Enough to constitute a 'significant' POV in Wikipedia terms? And a related question, how many Asatru temples or places of worship are there in the world today? I can't even find any answers to these questions. Blockinblox 19:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have just looked at several Asatru websites, its seems much of their activity is done by computers... The only one to mention numbers ("The Troth") states that there are a total of about 400 associated members of "the Troth" worldwide, while a "neutral" site describes the Asatru as having a few thousand at most, with 300 of these in Iceland... Also, interestingly enough, they do seem comfortable with the term "mythology" as applied to the Eddas, etc., as several of their websites make clear. Blockinblox 19:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm wondering if it may be too ambitious to hope to remove all gray areas. Perhaps the best we could hope from discussing the issue would be to reduce the scope of the problem, hopefully to the point where conflicts over these issues stop being a drain. If this particular religion has 400 followers and doesn't mind its beliefs being called "mythology", perhaps the current situation ain't broke in this particular case. Perhaps we should pick a case which has a substantial number of current Wikipedia editors (and perhaps one where these editors are currently complaining) as an example case. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Copied the following from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology: --Shirahadasha 01:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My own personal preferences, which could well be biased (just letting everyone know, I am a Christian - Roman Catholic, to be precise) I think that stories relating to the primary figures of specific religions, where there is some doubt as to whether the content of those stories is completely historically accurate, should be counted as religious, as they are of significant importance to that religion. Questioned stories relating to lesser figures, and here I would include stories relating to Christians saints which are seen as historically dubious and similar stories regarding "lesser characters" in various religions, could perhaps be placed in a category which is itself a subcat of both religion and mythology. Regarding belief systems where there are comparatively few extant articles, and such breakdown of content is more difficult, is a harder question. I suppose, if there is sufficient content to such articles, an immediate breakdown of that content might be called for; otherwise, I guess categorization as both religion and mythology might be the best, if not completely satisfying, alternative. John Carter 16:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. If we use "Myth" to mean dubious stories that means we're going with the mainstream thinking the word means things that are not "really" true. I agree with John that "categorization as both religion and mythology might be the best, if not completely satisfying. HOWEVER it might rankle the people who do not like the word "Myth" at all and we use so much energy explaining the word. What to do? One idea is to design an info box and put the definition of Academic Myth on every single Myth article in this project to head off the discussion and conflict. Goldenrowley 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be practical to create a subcat of "(X) legends" (which is I think a less charged word) which could be made a dual subcat? John Carter 16:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand the proposal. Are you proposing to switch entire project to "legends" instead of "myths?" Goldenrowley 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully not. And I am only thinking of categorization here. It is my hope that the majority of the "myths", like those of Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Vikings, Maya, Aztec, and so on can still be safely regarded as "myths". Also, I personally think Saint Barbara and Saint Christopher, to name a few, can still safely be regarded as "myths" of the currently major active religions. But the "central" myths of the major religions (the resurrection of Jesus, for instance) might be better categorized as "religious stories" rather than myth. The fact that that story also has some (relatively) contemporary accounts of it can also lend support to that categorization. But I think even the majority of the practioners of some extant religions based on older traditions not currently really active (trying to be as NPOV as possible here), could still be safely called "myths". Most of the Norse, Greek, Roman, Celtic, and Egyptian gods, for instance. But, for stories of historical (or dubiously historical) figures or events, where there is some reason to think that maybe there is a solid person behind it who has been severely distorted by the accumulated legends (here King Arthur comes to mind), maybe casting the articles which relate to the central stories of the central possibly historical characters involved as "legends" might prevent further discussions like this. I don't know if I've clarified anything by this statement or not, though. John Carter 01:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've sometimes used the phrase "religioous narrative" (as in "Biblical narrative") when I want to be very careful about neutrality. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the use of the term "mythology" should be circumscribed. I made similar comments a while back on Category talk:Buddhist mythology.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps using it in conjunction with "legends", which is generally seen as being a less perjorative word, like in "myths and legends of ..." might work best. I do think that the word "mythology" is useful, as it has a more specific meaning than "legends" does, but the presence of the latter word creates ambiguity as to what word is being used to specifically describe a given item of content. John Carter 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Religions or Religious Philosophies??

I rewrote the WikiProject Religion/Religion WikiProjects, but I'm not sure whether Thelema and Scientology shall be regarded as religions or some religious additional philosophies?? Opinions!? (Be fast, after two or so, I'll act!) Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 14:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not be too hasty, there's no deadline, this is a wiki! I am positive that Scientologists consider themselves a "religion" and make use of this status for legal protections in as many countries as they can, so that is one POV to take into account when trying to remain neutral. Blockinblox 14:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, hastiness advice taken, and Scientologists =maybe= religion. Thanks! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 12:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The original reference to "Thelema" which was where Alister Crowley got the word was in connection to a mythical "Abbey of Thelema", a clearly religious connection. Also, the pages of Ordo Templi Orientis and Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica both refer to its religious connections. On that basis, I think it is reasonable to include Thelema as religious. I would however question the inclusion of Wikipedia:WikiProject King Arthur, as I think it only peripherally deals with religious issues, and perhaps the non-inclusion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry, which seems to have at least serious religious overtones. Maybe contacting the various projects in question to ask them whether they think they should be included might be the best way to go? John Carter 16:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thelema =maybe= religion. Thanks! I'll make the changes. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 12:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

John Sebastian Marlowe Ward

Please help with the NPOV, soapboxing and OR problems in this article. --Dweller 07:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've messed about with this a lot. See what you think. Itsmejudith 19:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Christianity by country.

We would appreciate any input you have at Talk:Christianity_by_country#RFC. The Evil Spartan 18:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith - problem 1

This is a copy of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion. As this project seems to have turned inactive, I post it again here. The only activity in the meantime was the creation of Criticism of Bahá'í Faith, redirecting to Bahá'í apologetics, which is no improvement at all of the situation.

About all current religions, there is debate. All right.

So there is Christianity, Criticism of Christianity, and Christian apologetics. All right.

There is Bahá'í Faith, Criticism of Bahá'í Faith and Bahá'í apologetics. All... wait! Is anything missing here?

Well, there used to be Bahá'í criticisms, but it was decided to merge this article into Bahá'í Faith as it was considered Wikipedia:Content forking, see AfD 'Bahá'í criticisms'.

Now, no merge was done, but the article was turned into a redirect and all info removed. Thus, "Bahá'í criticisms" redirects to an article where no criticism at all is mentioned. There is just a link: "See also: Bahá'í apologetics - for critical viewpoints." There, as the name suggests, is neither any criticism, but the apologetics of this faith.

But without criticism... how can apologetics be relevant?

There are several ways to resolve this problem:

• Restore Bahá'í criticisms, possibly with improvement, sources and cleaning-up.
• Inflict the same fate on the apologetics-article: Remove the content and turn it into a redirect (but why redirect criticism and apologetics to an article where neither can be found?)
• Include criticism and apologetics in the main article (might grow long in this case).
• Create an article: Bahá'í: Criticisms and apologetics.
• Maybe merge criticism and Bahá'í divisions into a new article, maybe merge apologetics there, too.

I'd prefer the first way, because it's the simplest - let's discuss. The current situation, however, is flawless POV and inacceptable. And as the headline implies, there are more problems. But I discuss them one by one.--KnightMove 18:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Baha'i Faith has just recently been nominated for FA review and kept at FA level, I'd probably prefer us keeping our hands off it right now. We probably could copy and move the deleted content to another page, or maybe to "Criticism of Baha'i Faith" or some other page. The content certainly should be placed somewhere, though. John Carter 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sacred/Holy

It would appear that over time usually unexplained and unwarrranted reverts have occured switching between these two articles - is there any suggestion within this project of how to conciliate this rather lame edit war over time? SatuSuro 14:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

List of miracles

I have just made this page, among many things that could be added is the proper Christian name of 'God'. Could anyone help? SCmurky 04:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For Christians, God is just "God". For Muslims too, actually. "Allah" should be replaced by "God" in that section. You should ask some Jewish people (WikiProject:Judaism about the wording of the section relevant to them. I know that in many Jewish traditions it is forbidden to write the name of God, and this is sometimes an issue in Wikipedia. Itsmejudith 20:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the article with {{underconstruction}}. I'd give it a couple of weeks, but if there isn't any content in the article by then, I will have to nominate it for an Afd.--Sefringle^Talk 22:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Had to nominate it for an Afd due to lack of content.--Sefringle^Talk 04:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design FAR

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Being

This article started as an offshoot of the Freemasonry project (as Freemasonry requires its members to have a belief in a Supreme Being)... but the concept goes beyond just one fraternity. A quick google search indicates that it is a concept that is discussed in most religions (each with their own interpretation of what that "being" is... Christ, Yaweh, Allah, Odin, or what ever) I am hoping that some of the members of this project will help improve the article. Thanks, Blueboar 12:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Release Version selections

As many of you might have noticed by now, I have started to hijack the main project page with a listing of the articles which have been selected as FAs, GAs, DYKs, and by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team for inclusion in the wikipedia release versions. Many articles about religion are of importance to more than one religion, and it seemed to me to make sense to make a master list of them. Those lists is still of course far from finished, and if you know of any articles missing, please add them. My primary reason for doing so was my personal belief that religion-related content is probably noticably lacking in the release versions to date. I myself nominated Moses, who I consider to be a central figure in the development of the Western world, for inclusion for the first time a few weeks ago. If any members of this project believe that they know of other articles which they believe are of sufficient importance to be included in the release versions, please name them below and I will ensure that they are at least nominated. Thanks for your attention. John Carter 17:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories proposed for Deletion

The three subcategories are:

• Category:Jewish film directors
• Category:Mormon film directors
• Category:Roman Catholic film directors

Although it wasn't specifically included in the proposal, the sub-Category:Jewish American film directors would undoubtedly be affected, as well, if these categories were to be deleted.

If you wish to add your comments to the discussion, be sure to do so ASAP, as the the CFD was opened on July 27 and will probably close in 2 days. Cgingold 13:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Added Scientology and Church of Scientology to article list

Just for info. Would be nice if somebody with some clue about neutral, encyclopedic articles about religions could show up there, watch the "noise" a bit and do some neutral editing. Misou 18:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added them to my watchlist. I'm not the best editor in the world, and don't know as much as I could about the subject, but I will do what I can. I also encourge anyone else who sees this, who might know more about this subject than I do, to do the same. These are extremely contentious subjects, and neutral input would be greatly appreciated. John Carter 18:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

New Age nominated for Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive

This article has been nominated as a candidate for the collaboration above. If you would be interested in helping to improve this article in this collaboration, please indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter 22:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Related projects got lost

The project infobox has "see Related Wikiprojects below" with a wikilink that doesn't work. Perhaps the section on related projects could be reinstated? __meco 11:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mircea Eliade

I recently added a new section to the Mircea Eliade article, on Eliade's philosophy of religion. (Eliade was a historian of religions.) So far, I haven't gotten much feedback. I'm assuming that's because not many people know a lot about Eliade. However, any feedback on the article's talk page would be appreciated. --Phatius McBluff 07:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing article

I couldn't help but notice a fairly big missing article—one on universalism versus particularism in religion. Something for the WikiProject to consider, I think. Thanks.--Pharos 06:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a Universalism page, but the Particularism page is not about religion. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 19:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not start by adding a religion section to the Particularism article? It could always be expanded later? One difficulty is that universalism is part of the name of a number of religious denominations (e.g. Unitarian-Universalists), while I don't believe the term "particularism" similarly appears in denominational names. For this reason, there may possibly be more to say on the one than the other so far as religion is concerned. But feel free to add content to correct any imbalance! Best, --Shirahadasha 19:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sukyo Mahikari

Above article has had multiple problems for a long time now. I am trying to do some basic restructuring but am finding it hard going. Any experts on new religious movements available to lend a hand? 21:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey

Cool heads needed on the above page as an NPOV dispute is rumbling. The article subject is a twentieth-century writer on mysticism who has been accused of racism and antisemitism. Itsmejudith 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Eckankar

Well, this articles is one of the worst articles i've come across in Wikipedia. Please read this report at the ANI. I am not an expert but would like to see this article in good shape. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Pope (disambiguation) - request for comments

Hi all, I'm copying recent discussion on this page's talkpage here to request that some experienced religion editors take a peek and offer their advice. It seems to me this is a reasonably high-profile page and its style should be maintained. Thanks, and regards... User:scbomber 10:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting material was recently added by Ghaly concerning the history and acceptance of the title as applied to a particular office of the Orthodox; however as can be seen in, eg, Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria, delving here into the old and conflicting claims regarding the succession to the Episcopate of Alexandria seems to serve more to ambiguate than to disambiguate. This material is perhaps better at Patriarch of Alexandria? Please comment, wiser heads. User:scbomber 09:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems relevant to both pages, and so I agree with Ghaly on this one. (Ghaly's response can be found here.) (unsigned comment appears to be by Troy 07)

Continuing this discussion, I should have been clearer in what I was pointing out. Disambiguation pages generally all take a similar form, based on the Manual of Style. They are not even really considered articles themselves, but a sort of signpost to direct people to the relevant content articles. I believe the new material does not serve that purpose in its present form. I also have concerns about neutral point of view with the prescriptive value judgments that appear to be implied by statements such as "Abba is the most powerful designation, that for all Monks in the East to volanterily follow his spiritual authority, it should be assumed he was a bearer of Christ." I'm asking (linked) WikiProject Religion folks to look in here and give their ideas. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~). Thanks! User:scbomber 10:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC) (category:Christian articles requiring attention)

I would think that the page as it exists, with the "(disambiguation)" word affixed, should be formatted more along the lines of the standard wikipedia disambiguation page. Maybe the existing content regarding the head of the Coptic Orthodox Church could be transferred to the page for that individual and the content of this page regarding the title be changed to something like:

==Religious title==

"Pope" is used as the title of the:

• Bishop of Rome and leader of the Roman Catholic Church - see Pope
• leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria - see Patriarch of Alexandria"

with the rest of the page regarding people of that name etcetra remaining unchanged. Of course, if such was desired, the current page "Patriarch of Alexandria" could be potentially moved to "Pope (Coptic)" or something similar, if it were desired to indicate the importance of the use of that word by the Coptic Orthodox Church. John Carter 14:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Draft Proposed Guideline Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures)

Hi! I've created a brief, extremely rough draft of a proposed guideline for notability for religious figures, which currently have no directly relevant notability guideline. Please feel free to improve and/or discuss at Wikipedia talk:Notability (religious figures). Best, --Shirahadasha 01:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Five Pillars of Islam

I've added this article for peer review. Please write your idea about it here.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Origin of religion

Please help review the newly created entry Origin of religion. It seems completely WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and also completely spurious in the conclusion its attempting to draw. Thanks.PelleSmith 15:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: The entry has now been nominated for deletion here.PelleSmith 00:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Bible

A proposal has been made on Talk:Bible to split the current Bible article into two separate articles, Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible, with Bible becoming a redirect to Bible (disambiguation). Best, --Shirahadasha 05:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion has proceeded into additional proposals for restructuring the article. Please join the discussion on Talk:Bible. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Wikiproject Userbox

For this project, a made an alternate Userbox:

This user is a member of WikiProject Religion.

Just if anyone is interested. Not sure if this is the right place to put this. Basilides/"ούκ ών θεός" 20:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Consequently removing neutral text about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands

On 13 October 2007 I wrote a new chapter in the already existing article about satanic ritual abuse. It contains the discussion about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Two days later I found out that my chapter (which I have kept as neutral as possible, because I am very well aware that this discussion is very polarized) was almost entirely removed by someone who is not Dutch, who does not speak Dutch and who probably is not familiar at all with the discussion about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Therefore I have put the original text again in the chapter.

However, a day later, this contributor, an Australian student who calls himself Biaothanatoi, removed again my whole text. Since then, every time when I put the text again in the chapter, he removes it and replaces it with a biased text on the situation in the Netherlands. A text with is based entirely on the research of Fred Jonker and Ietje Jonker-Bakker. That research is widely criticized both in the Netherlands and in the United States, because their findings are far from objective.

Furthermore Biaothanatoi accuses me of violating Wikipedia's policy of NPOV and balance. He says that any additions I make to this section should be statements of fact, not an endorsement of one opinion over another. But that is precisely what I am doing. I wrote a neutral text with lots of footnotes containing relevant literature, while Biaothanatoi only refers to a very questionable source: the research of Fred Jonker and Ietje Jonker-Bakker.

Since I follow the discussion about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands since 1994, I am very well informed about the ins and outs of this discussion. Therefore I asked Biaothanatoi several times to stop replacing my neutral text by his biased text. Since he refuses this, I would like to ask you how he can be stopped.

Yours sincerely,

Criminologist1963 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You find the discussion between Biaothanatoi and me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#POV_pushing_in_the_Netherlands_section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Neutral_stance_toward_satanic_ritual_abuse_in_the_Netherlands

I'll have a quick look now. Please note that it doesn't necessarily require an expert to make good edits, but if you have followed the argument then you may be better placed than others to judge the quality of sources. Itsmejudith 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had my quick look and my advice is that you need to carry on discussing the content line by line on the talk page. The tone of debate there still seems to be reasonably polite, if firm. Even though other editors don't read Dutch, you should be able to have a reasonable discussion about the status of the sources that you wish to use. I noticed that D.Bachmann has been editing the page. He is a very experienced and fair editor and I'm sure you can count on him to advise on the best solution. Come back to this page at any time if you still find it hard going or try another wikiproject that may be more directly related. Itsmejudith 15:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice Judith. I will try to discuss the status of my sources with everybody who doubts them and who wants to have more information. I have done research into satanic ritual abuse for years and I have published on this subject too, and I am always prepared to answer questions about the situation in the Netherlands concerning satanic ritual abuse.

D. Bachmann is editing the satanic ritual abuse page, but he has not edited the section about the Netherlands so far. Therefore, I am not sure if he has looked into it. Criminologist1963 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Religious violence

The article is on Afd but I think it only needs cleanup, a massive cleanup. I opted to notify you instead as I have no idea on how to fix it myself.--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

help??

How can i join??cheesepuffsaretasty!!! (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion barnstar?

There is now a proposed barnstar for religion-related content at Image:REstar.png. If the members of this project would like to make this image, or a variation of it, the barnstar of this project, I think at this point all we would have to do is include it on the project page. Just letting you all know the at least potential award exists. John Carter 14:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the barnstar. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 19:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The "barnstar" looks rather humanistic than divine. It looks like its some synthetic man made plastic/metal floating in the sky. I oppose such an image to represent religious articles / co-operation. Perhaps just for religion, the barnstar could be rendered more like a see-through glass, or more divine than the traditional metally, plasticy star. Also, the clouds look fake. I will try to do much better version. --Sina 15:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There are several visual implications loaded into the proposed barnstar. Remember, all imagery is loaded; ie, it conveys meaning. What I'm getting from this is a very "New Age"-Cult vibe. Not good. I think partly due to the synthetic/idealistic nature of images (such as the clouds and blue sky) that are meant to be "divine" and metaphysical-looking, the barnstar ends up suffering from a sort of online-cult aesthetic. Compounding the problem is that the Star itself is white, and thus looks synthetic like plastic. Since most religions have a relatively solid icon associated with them (see our WikiProject icon, for example: ), we could keep the barnstar iconography more solid as well and include various religion icons. As it stands, the current purposed star looks like it belongs on WikiProject Spirituality or Metaphysics. Basilides/ούκ ών θεός 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sina and Basilides, it doesn't have the right feel... Maybe something about (sun)light? In practicly all religions and believes the concept of light is a good thing.

Isn't there another type of symbol that represents religion as a whole without favoring a single or discriminating others? --Soetermans 22:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look through the archives of the project, I think the answer you come up with is no, there are basically no universally accepted images which could be used. Maybe several images of specific religions could be incorporated around a barnstar, but any single image will almost certainly start major controversy, other than maybe light and/or the sky. John Carter 23:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks great. Colin MacLaurin 11:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

De pace fidei

A couple of weeks ago I visited a monastery, with my study group. In the gift shop there was little book section where I found a small book by Nicholas of Cusa with the Latin title De pace fidei, On religious peace. It was written 1454, a few months after the Ottoman Turks sacked Constantinople. While Christian Europe called for revenge, this bishop wrote a work how representatives of the major religions should come before the throne of God and talk, rather to fight, to find a solution. Is it interesting and significant enough to add? I've done lots of minor edits, I've never really started a serious article. In case it might be good to create one, may I assume I'll get some help? --Soetermans 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can prove that it meets the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (books), it certainly would qualify as significant enough. The questions that come to mind are whether you'd have enough for a separate page, or could perhaps place it in the Nicholas of Cusa article. We can try to help, but the scope of this project being what it is, and the membership as diverse as it is, I'm not sure whether many of us have access to resources to help. Considering the author was a Catholic bishop, you might also check with Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism and maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. I think the article would probably be a good one, I just don't know when anyone would necessarily be able to pitch in. If anyone does feel that they could do so, however, please feel free to do so. John Carter 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you advice, John. I haven't finished the book yet, so when I do I'll try to make a small summary and drop a line over those other WikiProjects. --Soetermans 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, it could definitely be mentioned in the Nicolas of Cusa article. Given that it's been reprinted, I'd be very surprised if it didn't have enough mention by theologians and/or historians to merit its own article. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

• List of basic topics of religion
• List of basic humanism topics

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish-Christian Gospels: Patristic Citations

Greetings. We have a new article, Jewish-Christian Gospels: Patristic Citations. I don't know what to make of it. Would you have a look at it please? --Malcolmxl5 00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In the edit creating the page, it says it was moved from Wikisource. I can't see that it meets any of the criteria for wikipedia, though, so I'm going to nominate it for deletion and notify the Christianity project about the discussion. John Carter 00:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Mesoamerican reconstruction

This is a touchy subject, so I want some opinions on the article Mesoamerican reconstruction. I, myself, am an Aztec recon and there IS a community for it. But its not "established" religion, unlike the likes of Asatru. So is this a valid article? I mean there are multiple wiki rules to be considered, including reliability on references. I really do not believe there is much or any "scholarly" sources on the subject. All I know is my friend's website, but it may be considered by wiki to be a personal one. Xuchilbara (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalism work group?

I'm wondering if we should create a work group of folks interested in articles related to Unitarian Universalism. Is anyone interested in being on such a work group? Aleta (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in being on such a work group. --Devin Murphy (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No objections here. You might want to post the idea on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page, and maybe drop a note on the Unitarian Universalist page and a few others about the listing there. That might be the quickest way to determine how much interest there might be. John Carter 22:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I just mentioned this suggestion over on the talk pages of the Unitarian Universalist Association and Unitarian Universalism articles as well as on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page. We will see what comes of all this. --Devin Murphy 08:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, John, and for posting at the other relevant pages, Devin. I wasn't familiar with the Council/Proposals page. Aleta 19:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Just want to point out that many other religions with active projects generally have stand-alone WikiProjects as distinct from workgroups under WP:RELIGION. See e.g. WP:JUDAISM, WP:CHRIST, WP:ISLAM, WP:LDS, WP:BUDDHISM, as well as a WP:BIBLE and various others. There would seem to be a lot of precedent for a discrete WikiProject being an option. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought we'd start out as a work group, because I'm expecting relatively few members. We can always move to a stand alone group later if appropriate. Aleta 19:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, enough interest has been expressed that I've started a page for the workgroup at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group. Aleta 19:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of life

With much regret I have proposed this article for deletion, the discussion is here. It doesn't seem possible to have a single article on such a topic that is reliably sourced without its being at best an original research synthesis. There also seems to be difficulty complying with WP:NPOV on the subject. There seems to be no way to determine, for example, what weight to give opinions. A number of articles seem to be dumping grounds for POVs and their pushers, but there doesn't seem to be a practical way to construct a policy-compliant article. If I am wrong in this I could not be more pleased. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, The purpose of life is a Topic that we can say forms the crux of the religions around the world and having it as a central part of this whole post is of utmost importance. While every religion has tried to present its own way of what the purpose of life is there is absolutely no doubting the fact that the decision of finding ones own purpose is to be left to that Individual himself about how he or she feels about it.Even though there is no unanimity about the same trying to shape others views of purpose of life has been a bane of all religions and no matter what amount of force was used or methods employed the question still is so complex that people are not able to find content suitable to be listed here. I request learned men on the editorial board to forget the complex multitude of religious scriptures and let us try and make it a simple one line question as to what is that that to you for now which can be defined as your own purpose of life and leave it at that.I would sure like to be interacting with men of knowledge to complete this section and see it online and complete in the days to come.

Anand Damani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damaniindia (talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Hi. I recently created Category:Religious sanctuaries and Category:Historical religious sanctuaries, which may or may not merit inclusion. User:Athinaios raised some issues about these categories (see this), and I thought I'd bring the discussion to a broader audience. I'll defer to this project how to handle those categories, and how to deal with the issues raised. Mindmatrix 16:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The only questions which really come to mind to me are what the specific criteria for inclusion in these categories is. Sanctuary seems to be the only relevant article, and I don't think the meaning it gives there is quite the same one you seem to be using. What do you see as being the specific criteria for inclusion in these categories? John Carter 16:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Truthfully, I didn't have inclusion criteria in mind when I created it. I was trying to populate Category:Sanctuaries, and these two categories seemed appropriate, though I didn't use any specific definition of sanctuary when doing so, particularly not the definition provided in sanctuary. Anyway, I brought the discussion here to see if the project could find uses for these categories, and if not to nominate them for deletion. However, the secondary issue of categorizing historical and pre-historical religious places (ie - those no longer in operation) needs to be addressed. Mindmatrix 16:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's a misunderstanding of what I meant. The distinction between historic and prehistoric is not whether they are still in use, but whether they are from a period from which written (i.e. historical) sources exist (see Prehistory). That is important because it profoundly affects the approaches and avenues of analysis applicable to them. Thus, Delphi, albeit long out of use, is a historical sanctuary and can be understood to a considerable extent by reading ancient Greek literature, whereas for, say Stonehenge, such sources are not available. - The other problem I referred to is how to define sanctuaries as a category, as it seems unclear whether "religious sanctuary" means any sacred space (in which case every church, shrine, temple etc etc would fit this category, making it virtally useless), or the "inner sanctum" of such a place (in which case there's be hardly any specific articles to find), or broader "sanctuary areas" or "sacred landscapes", such as Delphi, The Bru na Boinne or the Nazca Lines (in which case we'd be using a consistent definition, but one at variance with most established ones, including the one used in the article Sanctuary). athinaios (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion in old age: Experts needed on this subject

You seem to be one of the more active project groups in Wikipedia, so I wonder how many of you would be interested in contributing a knowledge of religious gerontology to the articles on aging and gerontology? Perhaps some of you might like to join a newly proposed Wiki-project group - see my plea at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COUNCIL/P#Gerontology

While I am here, you might also also be interested in my proposal at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COUNCIL/P#Transpersonal_Studies I know that I have said that being more towards Exopedianism than metapedianism, I tend not to join project groups, but I might make exceptions here if enough interest can be gathered in these proposals.

ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy anointing oil merger proposals

There are two proposals to merge Holy anointing oil, one to merge it with Shemen Afarsimon and one to merge it with Chrism. Please see Holy anointing oil for discussion locations. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)