Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Archive 12

Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Islam and antisemitism listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Islam and antisemitism to be moved to Islam and Judeophobia. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Masjid al-Haram listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Masjid al-Haram to be moved to Sacred Mosque. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sam Harris (author) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Sam Harris (author) to be moved to Sam Harris. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

List of people with the most children listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of people with the most children to be moved to Lists of people by number of children. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Haus der Religionen listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Haus der Religionen to be moved to House of Religions. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration

Eyes are needed here, in regard to NPOV, OR and appropriate sourcing. This has been the subject of a recent Arbitration Request, where ArbCom remanded the issue to the community. BMK (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda RFC

A Request for Comments is now in progress at Talk:Ayurveda concerning whether [[Category:Pseudoscience]] should be added to the article on Ayurveda. Participation in the RFC is encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Need more editors in discussion of Religious views of masturbation

Question: How much due weight is appropriate for promoting a view, that mention of seminal emissions in Leviticus (Hebrew Bible) includes intercourse and wet dreams only, while "remaining silent" specifically on masturbation?

This is the question I would like editors especially more knowledgeable about the Torah to respond to at Talk:Religious views on masturbation as there is an editor I feel may be giving undue weight to such a rationale. I am unable to participate as fully as I would like as I am doing so by a phone. Thanks, 172.56.34.60 (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC) 172.56.34.60 (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Would there be a way of categorising religions which believe in creationism?

I think it's important to categorise religions that believe in creationism. Opinions would be appreciated.... The reason being of coruse, is that I've found with many discussions with atheists and religious people alike, people want to know whether the religion in question believes in the literal creationism or not. I've found that most religion pages do not state whether the religion believes in these things or not. In Citer (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Attempting to categorize religions by whether they believe in a particular thing sounds like a bad idea. For one thing, followers of a religion can be different. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi PrimeHunter, well, we already have categories such as religious groups with 'annihilationist beliefs', 'Restorationism (Christianity)' and 'Nontrinitarian denominations'. All these categories are related to the beliefs these religions have. Why not have a Creationists category too? I think it's an important point whether a faith believes in creationism or not. I take your point on the fact that people may differ within a religion as to their opinions, but they wouldn't be included in the category. Only faiths whose adherents (all) believe in creationism should be included in the category. I've had many discussions with religious people and atheists alike and I've found it would be helpful to both to have a creationist category. In Citer (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
You'll have to be careful to define what you mean by creationism, for example see Catholic Church and evolution and theistic evolution as a specific form of creationism. . . dave souza, talk 15:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
He did mention "the literal creationism," which would probably imply Young Earth Creationism, which is a mostly American Evangelical aberration that has spread to other countries and infected some Jews and Muslims. Still, there is the issue that most religions do not define themselves by specific details in cosmogony. The Abrahamic religions hold that God is ultimately responsible for the existence of existence in some way, but it ranges from "magically handcrafted everything in 144 of our hours with 11 herbs and spices" to "simply dictated the minimal number of scientific laws which formed the rest of the universe as per science," and a lot of ideas inbetween, even historically. For example, St. Augustine denied the literal interpretation of Genesis on the grounds that an omnipotent God would have just gotten it over with in an instant, and that the days were symbolic of a spiritual hierarchy.
Even in the case of denominations, it usually varies from member to member.
There is a form of Hindu creationism, but it says that homo sapiens are even older than supported by science, with some claims of devolution.
I'd recommend just reading the article Creationism -- WP:WHAAOE. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"King of Hell"

The usage and primary topic of "King of Hell" is under discussion, see talk:King of Hell (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"Fictional"

We're having a bit of trouble phrasing the lead sentence of the article Energy being. An IP insists on calling the concept "fictional" even though it appears in more than just fiction. I'm pretty sure that we can't refer to spiritual/religious concepts/beliefs as "fictional" even though some people might like to think of it that way. There's a thread on the talk page; and any help with phrasing the lead would be appreciated. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Over 1900 top-importance articles?!

So currently this WikiProject has over 1900 top-importance articles.

I guess it's probably the nature of religion that everybody thinks (topics of) his own specific belief-system etc. is the most important. It's a problem here though.

As of this day WikiProject Religion has 12.222 and WikiProject Philosophy 19.248 articles. Yet WikiProject Philosophy manages to keep its top-category on point with just 70 articles while you guys have over 1900.

So here's why that is a problem: it effectively renders the top-importance category useless in every way.
It can't be used to find the most important articles (to concentrate on as a WikiProject etc.) anymore because of the sheer amount of articles in it.

It's a clear hint that something's going wrong when you have more top-importance articles than high-importance articles.

For example what the heck is "I AM" Activity? It certainly doesn't belong under top-importance. Another thing when the ratings get flooded is that once such categories are filled with comparable articles nobody would objectively rate one's own field of belief or alike but justify the biased rating by those other entries causing the whole thing to get worse and worse.

The high-importance really means "high" importance. The top-importance is reserved for articles like Religion, Islam, Christianity, Heaven, Theology.

I'd suggest writing bot (or using an existing one) that downrates all the project's articles from top to high and then manually retransferring some of the high-importance ones back to top (it's best to always keep them below 100).

--Fixuture (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I generally edit around here as John Carter, but my computer has been seriously fucked up for some time, and there seem to have been some instances of people getting ahold of some of my information, which I've been looking into, which has been one of the reasons for my recent inactivity. The articles tagged as "Top" importance were done so on the basis of being the subjects of articles in the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, and using the concept that topics that are the subjects of articles in that subject-specific work meet the criteria for "top" importance by the terms of the assessment criteria. Yes, some of those articles, including those in the still incomplete lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Encyclopedic articles and related pages for the work in question, don't even exist here yet, but they were considered important enough for inclusion in that reference work on the subject, so they should be found here as well. I am in the process of going through some similar topical encyclopedias to basically try to make the standard equitable for the subjects of those works as well. Given the particularly diverse nature of some of the topics in the fields of the humanities, including religion and philosophy, where there are huge variations by time and location, it makes sense to me at least that we base our assessment criteria on the standards of what is covered in the leading most comprehensive recent reference works in that field. And, yes, philosophy, which has a similarly large encyclopedia from the same publisher, has a similar list being developed by me based on the articles included in that reference work.
Particularly given the frankly huge number of articles we have now, just shy of 5 million in English alone right now, it seems to me anyway to be reasonable to more or less formally equate our Top importance articles, which are supposed to be those which are to be found in any encyclopedia, with those articles included in the most comprehensive well-regarded encyclopedias on the topics. It will lead to a number of articles at "Top" importance, but it also will make it easier for involved editors to determine which are the more central articles on some broad topics. I would myself also favor maybe expanding the number of importance options beyond 4, maybe even up to 10 at most, to make the priority importance assessments more useful, but I'll put that off until I get back to more active editing again.

Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs

Hi WikiProject Religion editors, What is the best way to get the following messages removed from my organization's page? - A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (August 2012) - This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. (August 2012) I have added more outside references but that didn't get the "self-published sources" warning removed. And I don't want to change too much more give the first warning. The page was created before I started in the job and I think a lot of students on campus added to it so I wonder if that's how the first warning appeared. Thanks for any help you can provide! -Erin--Leland524 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"Pray to God"

The usage and primary topic of Pray to God is under discussion, see talk:Pray to God (song) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD

Could anyone assess this man's notability, and hopefully present some evidence? Much appreciated, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN I have added several sources and my vote on the AfD discussion, as you can see on the Talk Page itself, and highlighted here. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Jewishencyclopedia.com (the Jewish Encyclopedia) and newadvent.org WP:Reliable sources?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are jewishencyclopedia.com (the Jewish Encyclopedia) and newadvent.org WP:Reliable sources?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinsi

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinsi has been stale for a time with no votes besides myself (nom) and the article creator. Please visit Shinshi, evaluate, and weigh in. Ogress smash! 02:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and need to edit on Supernatural's [[Talk:Supernatural

There is a section discussing renovations of Supernatural in regards to Religions and I would like to get some people from Religion to join in since you, they, whoever, would be more interested in this than an average user. Any comments, suggestions and edits would be appreciated. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X pilot testing

Hello WikiProject Religion!

Based on the recommendation of John Carter, I am happy to announce that WikiProject X has selected this project as part of a round of pilot testing.

The goal of WikiProject X is to improve the WikiProject experience through research, design, and experimentation. On that basis, we've prepared a new WikiProject design template based around modules. These modules include features you are already familiar with, such as article alerts, but also new features such as automated work lists, a feed of discussions taking place on the 9,338 talk pages tagged by WikiProject Religion, and a new member profile system. To see what this new setup looks like, you can browse the first round of pilot tests: WikiProject Cannabis, WikiProject Evolutionary biology, WikiProject Ghana, WikiProject Hampshire, WikiProject Women's Health.

If there is consensus among the participants of this WikiProject, I will proceed with implementing this interface based on the current contents of Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. Please let me know if you have any questions or requests. Harej (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Harej: I am, unfortunately, still, in the process of getting together a few pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Encyclopedic articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Library, which so far as I know aren't exactly standard in most projects. Would it be worthwhile to maybe try to integrate them into the new interface? John Carter (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes; modules are just subpages, and it is trivial to develop them for specific projects as needed. Harej (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I assume "trivial" is meaning "easy"?Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of religion

At Talk:Timeline of religion an editor addded WPs Jainism and India. I've removed them because I can't see how it could be more important to any particular country or religious project than another, and it would be ridiculous to list them all. But that's not really why I'm here. It's also been listed for this project as Start class Importance high by this editor (who isn't a member of this project). Do others see this as appropriate? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

In regards to removing the "particular country or religious project[s]", you can always create a show/hide Project box to allow the page to be linked to the various country and religious WikiProjects that wish to chime in without creating a giant list of country and religious WikiProjects that must be scrolled through everytime. It seems to have been made in good faith as far as I can tell and since you even imply agreement that the page is important to other projects outside of "Religion" then I fail to see why you didn't simply make a technical edit to create the show/hide lists, unless you were unaware of such a fix? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Theoretically, I've always thought that the only projects which really should tag articles are ones which could reasonably expect that sources related to their specific subject area could reasonably be useful in developing the content. I regret to say that India's importance to all the Dharmic religions, and the amount of material such a timeline might have related to those faiths, could make tagging by it not unreasonable, if, maybe, a bit excessive. I certainly could, I guess, imagine a Timeline of religion in India, although I really don't like thinking of things getting that degree of spinout if it is avoidable. Jainism, unfortunately, not so much. I dunno. Regarding the assessment, I don't know. Personally, I've always thought of timelines as being more "list"-like than article like, and might myself assess it as such. The referencing is intermittent enough that I guess Start class might be the best it could get without more thorough referencing. Out of curiosity, has anyone ever asked WikiProject Time, which I guess is the most directly relevant active project, what they think these pages should qualify as, or, maybe, some other broader body? John Carter (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
John's probably right. I still can't see the use of having every conceivably relevant Wikiproject linked. Even if you did use show-hide, which I know exists but have never used. Doug Weller (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Using religion's primary sources for doctrinal information, eg Vatican.va

Mentioned Vatican.va to make it clear I'm not talking about religious texts. At Talk:Ahmadiyya#This article requires a cleanup an anti-Ahmadiyya editor is insisting that official religious sources are not reliable or are too promotional or are primary sources which should be avoided. How is this generally handled? I mentioned Vatican.va because it's the same type of source as is being complained about and in Catholic Church is used 93 times (I've no objection to that). Doug Weller (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that, clearly, some material on such sites clearly is going to be promotional, particularly if the body in question takes a position on a given topic which is at odds with the prevailing academic sentiment, I have gone over quite a few reference books, particularly encyclopedic sources, on various topics to find what sources they use for notes and bibliographies, and have found many of the official sites of religious organizations are considered reliable by those works, probably with some proviso's regarding "Bill's The One True Church of the Trinity: Jesus, Krishna, and Elvis," or some of the new neo-deism sites, or similar groups. Most of those exceptions would be for the really small groups or groups which have not received much if any attention from independent reliable sources. And Ahmadiyya is not that small, and I tend to think that it certainly is discussed enough that any obvious errors on its site would have been noted rather prominently in independent reliable sources, particularly on any contentious topics.
For matters of doctrine, or official history, or whatever, in general, it is hard to imagine better sources. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification sir. So these wiki guidelines do not apply for doctrinal matters. Understood. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 16:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Re-organization of WikiProject Women

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women § Complete reorganization proposal

There currently is a discussion about the future organization of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women and several other women-related Wikiprojects and taskforces at the above link. Some aspects may be of interests to editors of this project and your participation in the discussion would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC in a propposed merge between Freedom of religion in Israel and Human rights in Israel#Freedom of religion

Hi, a discussion about a merge between these two articles it's being carried out here. Rupert Loup (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed ArbCom motion of some possible interest to members of this project

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: New Religious Movements, which I believe may interest some of the members of this project. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC

A Request for comment RfC: Is faith healing a form of pseudoscience and should it be labeled as such either in the article or by assignment of category pseudoscience? is taking place here. Interested editors are invited to comment. - MrX 14:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you want an actual RfC or just interested editors' opinions MrX? See WP:RfC and Template:RfC, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@Drcrazy102: Just interested editors opinions. The RfC has been ongoing for a few weeks.- MrX 13:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, sorry, hadn't seen the link. My bad and thanks for the clarification, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Religion and politics

There have been a large number of edits to Template:Religion and politics [1]. Can somebody take a look? Shouldn't this template be under the control of this project? - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It should probably be jointly under WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Politics and I've added templates for both. I have a feeling that the two-volume Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion would be a really good indicator of what to include in this template, if anyone has easy access to it. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Poles in mythology

Could use some help with this. See the edit history and talk page. The main user who is determined to fill this out is not sourcing most of the content they add, and does not appear to have a good grasp of the subject or language. Original title was "Pole worship." - CorbieV☊☼ 15:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

He or she also seems to have some difficulty regarding policies, as I don't anything which specifically indicates that the topic of the article is necessarily notable in and of itself. The article could, on that basis, possibly get deleted or userfied. The fact that I don't find a separate article related to it in a quick search of the religion reference sources I conducted leads me to think that it is probably most reasonably covered by an article relating to phallic symbolism, or maybe in more religion-specific articles like lingam. AfD looks like a good idea to me here. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

AFD of non-mainstream muslim

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Rahim Dard. needs a couple of neutral eyes I think. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brahma Kumaris#RFC for adding the word "Cult"

I am asking for your participation in Talk:Brahma Kumaris#RFC for adding the word "Cult" Supdiop (T🔹C) 16:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Descendants of Eber

Please join this category discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_18#Category:Descendants_of_Eber. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Pagans

The scope and name of List of Pagans is under discussion, see talk:List of Pagans -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The failure of this and two related RMs to come to consensus has lead to a MOS clarification thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#MOS:ISMCAPS badly needs to be tightened.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

RM to move wikiproject content essay misnamed as a MoS subpage back to wikiproject

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/New religious movements#Requested move 15 November 2015.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Help with a draft article

I posted for help at WP:OCCULT, but I wanted to seek assistance here as well. Long story short, someone tried to write an article on Lucien Greaves, one of the founders of the Satanic Temple, and they started working on drafts for his article and one for the Temple after it was suggested that they go that route. The editor has since been blocked and it looks to be unlikely that they'll be unblocked, so I'm pretty much doing this on my own. I'm passing familiar with the group but not overly so, so I wanted to see if anyone here is familiar and if so, if they'd be willing to help out. Heck, even if you're not familiar then it'd still be good to have some help with fine tuning the article. I've only put in about 25% of the information that's out there and I could use some help to make sure that it comes across as neutral and accurate since I'm having to use primary sources for some of the basics like their mission statement and personal beliefs. There's a section about the Temple in the current article for Satanism, but I think that there's been enough coverage for them to warrant their own article at this point in time.

The draft can be seen at Draft:The Satanic Temple and while it could likely pass GNG on its current sourcing, I'd prefer to have the article a little more complete before moving/approving it to the mainspace. That would not only help deter vandalism and bolster notability, but it'd also give us time to make sure that everything is correct. I figure that it'd be best to focus on the Temple rather than Greaves, since I'm not entirely sure if he is independently notable and if he is then it'd be easier to assert this if there's a separate article for the Temple. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I've since moved it to the mainspace. It still needs a lot of work, but it's complete-ish enough that I think that it would pass notability guidelines. I figure that having this in the mainspace would invite more editing from people more familiar with the group as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

You are invited! Join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

  • Dates: 5 to 15 December 2015
  • Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event
  • Host: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
  • Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion to participate. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
  • RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Semitic people

Forgive me if this is in the wrong place, I do not know my way around Wikipedia and its protocols at all. I am alerting you to the fact that an article of interest to you (and you are marked as this article being relevant to you) is currently being debated for removal/merging. It is being argued (I believe wrongly) that the article is irrelevant and has no place in having its own page, so I do think someone from your group should keep an eye on the discussion on the talk page. They already merged the article today into another article without any discussion but I managed to get an admin to move it back again. Conversation has now started on the talk page and I think it is definitely something you will want to keep an eye on. Talk page here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Semitic_people Taurusthecat (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Radha Soami Satsang Beas

Article reads like an advertisement. Needs a re-write. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Deity, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

"Hero", "Heroine" and "Heroism"

The usage and naming for Hero and Heroism and Heroine is under discussion, see talk:hero -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed move: Genesis creation narrative-->Genesis creation myth

For those who are interested, there is a proposal to move Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth. See Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move_22_January_2016. First Light (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh-day Adventist historicist interpretations of Bible prophecy

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh-day Adventist historicist interpretations of Bible prophecy. Thanks. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 20:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Demoniacs has been nominated for discussion

Category:Demoniacs, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ways of organising christian churches?

Shouldn't / Couldn't / Are episcopal polity, presbyterianism, connectionism and congregationalism be related and commented somewhere somehow?

Sabbath Rest Advent Church: Il messaggio di Waggoner e Jones è sempre stato letto con interesse nel mondo avventista.

Sabbath Rest Advent Church

Il messaggio di Waggoner e Jones è sempre stato letto con interesse nel mondo avventista.

Ma non su Wikipedia: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiesa_avventista_del_riposo_sabatico — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.211.147.9 (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

http://www.cesnur.com/la-chiesa-avventista-del-riposo-sabatico/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.211.147.9 (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

New wikiproject

Hello everybody I have started a new wikiproject ' WikiProject Statues', need support for electing it. This WikiProject is mainly made for gathering all articles on statue like Statue of liberty, The statue of Ahimsa(Based on religious), etc. Whoever here is interested in this wikiproject please support on the page(add your name as a participant by adding your username under Support heading), bye!BOTFIGHTER (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If anyone here is interested in this Wikiproject please reply!BOTFIGHTER (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Anti-Judaism usually a synonym for antisemitism, or is its most common usage a distinct phenomenon.

Please see Anti-Judaism and Talk:Anti-Judaism. Kendrick believes that the most common use of the term is distinct from antisemitism and words the article to reflect that See this diff. I believe that the sources state or imply that antijudaism is a type of antisemitism, and it is one or two scholars/philosophers who make a distinction. See the sources I brought, and discussions including Talk:Antisemitism/Archive_34#Pov issue : is anti-Judaism a form of antisemitism ?, where I believe consensus agrees with my opinion. Regardles, your collective input on reaching consensus would be appreciated. -- Avi (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible wikia site(s) on religious devotions or practices/prayers/calendars/etc.

I've been slowly trying to get together some material which could be used to help develop something like a cell phone app which might provide daily information on topics in Christian liturgical calendars for that day, and, maybe, a short, related, prayer related to that, possibly with links to longer works here or elsewhere. Something along the lines of a "dial-a-saint" recorded telephone message, for those of you who might be familiar with that. Having some sort of commonly available website, like maybe a wikia site, which could be used to present all the relevant information might be beneficial. Such a site might also include, for other groups, anything along the line of Bible or similar readings of the day or week or year, religious celebrations of some sort taking place on that day, etc.

Would any of you have any interest in maybe helping develop such content, which almost certainly would include content not sufficiently "encyclopedic" for inclusion here, and, if so, do you have any suggestions for what if any guidelines might exist there for the content sought for use in the articles there? John Carter (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Not being especially active on any Wikia projects, I have nothing to add here except to question whether this thread would be more at home on WikiProject Christianity. It's not at all clear how it is remotely related to any other religious traditions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
If it makes any difference, I'm here and I edit articles on Buddhism and Hinduism. Best, AD64
Me too, which is why I'm not sure this thread belongs here when it seems to be specifically Christian in orientation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. Best, AD64 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Hijiri88, I realize you have an all-but-uncontrollable urge to engage in grossly unproductive commentary directed at me, so your off-topic comments above are in no way surprising, but, if at some point, you could actually address the comments made, rather than engaging in your snide commentary, it would be greatly appreciated, particularly as your comment does not seem to at all address any matters of substance, but only show a willingness to perhaps cast unnecessary aspersions and quite possible WP:STALKING behavior. I also note that you seem to have perhaps, once again, commented without actually reading the comment to which you were responding. If you had, you might have noticed the sentece, "Such a site might also include, for other groups, anything along the line of Bible or similar readings of the day or week or year, religious celebrations of some sort taking place on that day, etc.," which, I would think, rather clearly indicates at least possible relevance to non-Christian religions, and there are also several non-Christian religions which have celebrations of saints, as they use the term or similar terms, and I would think they might also wish similar content on such figures in their own traditions. There are inf act several reference works related to religious celebrations, some of which can be found here. So, if such is in fact necessary, I suppose I could say that the wikia might deal with all such topics.
Having said that, I guess I wouldn't object to seeing a specifically Christian saints/religious celebrations wikia, if there were interest in that and also any interest in that. I would welcome any comments which are actually in some way productive on such matters. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
John Carter, when all you do is post on noticeboards I frequent, you will have a very had time proving that I am WP:STALKING you, and in fact making accusations like that without evidence is considered a personal attack, so please cut it out. Why would non-Christian/Jewish groups (i.e., virtually everyone in the world who isn't a Christian) have "Bible readings of the day or week or year"? I read your post more closely, apparently, than you did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
If you had any grasp of Judaism, you would know about the Weekly Torah portion of Judaism. Apparently, you did not consider that. Also, I note that the quote you provided specifically says "along the lines of weekly Bible readings." I can see no reason to allow any further clearly off-topic and frankly uneless commentary from the peanut gallery to go on without taking the matter of this, and similar discussions, to ANI. Please, if it is at all possible for you, at least try to actually address the matter at hand, rather than continue in these frankly useless comments. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
No, I know about the Weekly Torah portion. I also know you could have posted this on WikiProject Christianity and invited participation from WikiProject Judaism, rather than posting this on WikiProject religion and inviting participation from WikiProject Christianity. And I know that the quotation you gave of yourself immediately above was out of context, as virtually everything in your post except for "or similar readings" was specifically Christian, and in fact opened expressing a desire to "provide daily information on topics in Christian liturgical calendars for that day". Quit nitpicking, and quite making false accusations of stalking when I posted here and then was immediately followed here by you, and the post you made ten minutes before posting here was also very obviously following me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I also know that you have made not a single truly constructive comment here, and seem to in the above comment make the rather laughable insinuation that checking a watchlist, seeing changes made, and responding to them qualifies as stalking. I don't think any reasonable person would necessarily jump to that conclusion, although you very clearly did in the comment above. Now, if you are capable of actually addressing the thread as per its more or less stated purpose, instead of using it to engage in what seem rather obvious personal attacks on me to the exclusion of all else, please do so. Otherwise, please maybe read WP:TPG, possibly for the first time? John Carter (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Collapsed own off-topic response to John Carter's continued off-topic personal attacks in this off-topic thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
seem to in the above comment make the rather laughable insinuation that checking a watchlist, seeing changes made, and responding to them qualifies as stalking. In the past year you have followed me to numerous articles, talk page discussions and noticeboard discussions, and posted about me on the talk pages of numerous users. In at least one of those discussions, you actually agreed with me on the substance, but went well out of your way to undermine me in your comment, posting a completely-made-up (and possibly BLP-violating) claim that Bart Ehrman has been widely criticized for his problematic translation of the Gospel of Judas. All the while you have been hypocritically accusing me of stalking you, including in this very thread. The last user who did this got site-banned. My first comment here was the constructive opinion that this would be more at home on another noticeboard, as it has nothing to do with "religion in general" as opposed to "Christianity"; you said that this was not a constructive comment and insinuated that it qualified as stalking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop fighting, you two! John Carter, Hijiri88's suggestion (which AD64 agrees with) to put this proposal for

daily information on topics in Christian liturgical calendars for that day, and, maybe, a short, related, prayer related to that, possibly with links to longer works here or elsewhere. Something along the lines of a "dial-a-saint" recorded telephone message, for those of you who might be familiar with that

on WP:WikiProject Christianity, instead of here, is eminently reasonable. Your slight concessions to other religions (I'm Jewish, BTW) sure look more like afterthoughts than your primary concern (bolding added):

Such a site might also include, for other groups, anything along the line of Bible or similar readings of the day or week or year, religious celebrations of some sort taking place on that day, etc.

The unwillingness evident in your concession

So, if such is in fact necessary, I suppose I could say that the wikia might deal with all such topics.

makes it pretty clear that you never had inclusivity as part of your primary objective at all. So does

and there are also several non-Christian religions which have celebrations of saints, as they use the term or similar terms

which takes no account of religious observances that are not linked to a revered individual or to a scriptural reading for a specific date, such as Chanukah and Holi.

You two obviously have a long-standing feud, and I'm not going to embroil myself in it by trying to assign blame to one or the other. The whole section has drifted wildly off-topic. If you can't stop bashing each other over the head, take it to your own Talk pages, so the rest of us can work on Wikipedia without hearing you scream at each other out in the hall. John Carter, if you seriously want to discuss a wikia for religious practices of any and all religions, write up a proposal for it and it will be appropriate here. Otherwise take this clearly Christianity-minded idea to WikiProject Christianity and be done with it here.

You can {{Ping}} me if you want me in on any further discussion. --Thnidu (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Help:Jainism

We are trying to improve Jainism to restore it to GA level. Can someone here please help in giving a detailed review of the same? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 15:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Input on merge requested

A recent TfD concluded that {{Infobox Jain deity}} should be merged into {{Infobox deity}}, with some parameters not being carried over if they contain details not important to a general audience. A discussion is being held at Template talk:Infobox deity as to what parameters should be pruned and how this merge should be conducted. Your input would be helpful. ~ RobTalk 07:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

There are up to 30 free one-year Alexander Street Press accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP.

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Religious studies journals

In the header of this category I just added "For now it includes theology journals that do not have a separate category." While this is factually true, I wonder if there shouldn't be a separate category for theology journals, i.e. shouldn't the current category be split between religious studies journals and theology journals? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"Mercury"

The usage and primary topic of "Mercury" is under discussion, see Talk:Mercury (planet) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Religion and video games

Hi everyone,

My name is Soetermans. I'm active within the WikiProject Video games, and the bulk of my edits concern video game-related articles. In real life however I do something completely different: I study pastoral care. For my thesis I combined the two concepts of religion and video games, to see in what manner video games can be used as a tool in pastoral care. But enough about that. I realised I had all these reliable sources (books on video games that mention games, books on new forms of religion, video game websites that discuss religion), so I've started the article Religion and video games. I think it's already in pretty decent shape, but if anyone of this WikiProject is up to it, feel free to improve the article even more. Thanks, and happy editing! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutral notification of move discussion

There is a discussion underway to move the article Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (with a single comma) to Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Please share your opinion on the matter at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. Day#Requested move 22 April 2016. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Saint Joseph#Requested move 23 April 2016

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Saint Joseph#Requested move 23 April 2016. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 18:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge article Soteriology into Salvation?

The two articles are on basically the same subject, and every section of Soteriology except for the Christian one (which has its own standalone article) currently links to respective sections of Salvation as the "main" article on those subjects (even though Hinduism and Buddhism both appear to be better treated in Soteriology than Salvation).

Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Growth of religion

Hello, all,
There are two editors busy editing this article that have conflicting viewpoints and I think the article would benefit by having a few more eyes on it. Things aren't at edit war stage but I think the more informed editors who contribute, the better. Liz Read! Talk! 17:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change of scope of Falun Gong work group

WP:FALUNGONG has been tagged as inactive for some time now. I was wondering what the rest of you might think of changing its scope to deal with other content relating to Religion in China, possibly even, I suppose, to include the material covered by the similarly inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Christianity in China work group. Opinions? John Carter (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft article on Randy Clark

Hello all, there is a draft at Draft:Randy Clark which could use your projects attention. The creator of the draft would like advice and input on how to proceed to make the page acceptable by Wikipedia's standards. Your comments would be appreciated on its talk page. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 01:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Christian communism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christian communism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian communism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

/* Istruzioni */ * Śivaismo: Shivanarayana esperto nella bhakti, o devozione del sacro Lingam verso il quale esegue la Puja.

/* Istruzioni */ * Śivaismo: Shivanarayana esperto nella bhakti, o devozione del sacro Lingam verso il quale esegue la Puja. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.233.75.184 (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Anonymous, this is the English Wikipedia. Posting in Italian on this page is worse than useless.--Thnidu (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

A Dictionary of All Religions and Religious Denominations

There is a stalled project to port s:A Dictionary of All Religions and Religious Denominations. I have created the standard three Wikipedia templates to make it easier to add a citation to that work:

Template name Notes
{{cite DARRD}} enables an editor to more easily cite A Dictionary of All Religions and Religious Denominations in the manner of {{cite encyclopedia}}. It does this by filling out certain fields
{{DARRD}} enables the attribution of text copied from the copyright expired A Dictionary of All Religions and Religious Denominations
{{DARRD poster}} places a box on the right of the page.

The templates fill in certain parameters and while the familiar title=article name url=URL are avaiable there is also a wstitle=article name that fills in links to articles on Wikisource.

Examples

  • {{Cite DARRD||wstitle=Abrahamites}}

displays as:

  •  Adams, Hannah (1784). "Abrahamites" . In Williams, Thomas (ed.). A Dictionary of All Religions and Religious Denominations (4th ed.). New York: James Eastburn and Company.
  • {{DARRD||wstitle=Abrahamites}}

displays as:

  • {{DARRD poster|Abrahamites}} — NB this takes no named parameter
Wikisource has the text of A Dictionary of All Religions and Religious Denominations article Abrahamites.

places a box on the right of the screen

These three templates are similar to may others two obvious ones are:

Attribution Citation Poster Notes
{{CE1913}} {{Cite CE1913}} {{CE1913 poster}} Catholic Encyclopedia
{{Jewish Encyclopedia}} {{Cite Jewish Encyclopedia}} {{Jewish Encyclopedia poster}}

-- PBS (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Is a topic like Universal trinity prone to encounter opposing religious fanaticism?

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal#Is Universal trinity discussion attacked by religious fanaticism? I just explained the obvious bias in the ongoing discussion about restoring the deleted Universal trinity. Now this user Kinu reproaches WP:FORUMSHOP there which is ridiculous (when without repetitions trying to involve more objectivity). Such a general, theosophic and holistic view to appearance of trinity indeed tends to get opposed by religious fanaticism generally? To an admin: Please place http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Universal_trinity into my user space. --MathLine (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:No original research and WP:Assume good faith, two site policies you're rather failing with. Also, yeah, you are forum shopping. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Circoncisione

{{citazione necessaria| la maggioranza dei messianici maschi praticano la [[Brit milà]] [[circoncisione]], anche se essa tuttavia viene ritenuta una scelta strettamente personale e pertanto non viene ritenuta obbligatoria}} La maggiorparte dei giudeo-messianici maschi subisce la circoncisione (Brit milà) così come gli ebrei, tuttavia essa non è obbligatoria per i cristiani che si convertono al giudaismo messianico, in quanto ritengono che questo sia una parte del mantenimento dell'Alleanza con Dio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.25.135.62 (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move notice, Martin Luther King, Jr.

There is a RM (requested move) to change numerous article titles which contain Dr. King's name which is relevant to this project. Randy Kryn 11:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Theology template

There is a discussion about {{Theology}} over at Template talk:Theology § Too large - discussion resumed in 2016. Feel free to join in. Thanks! YBG (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Media upload of images from Museum Catharijneconvent

Dear project-members,

I would like to draw your attention to a media upload that may be of relevance to your project:

Museum Catharijneconvent in Utrecht, The Netherlands, holds an important collection of Christian religious textiles and clothing from northern Europe, ranging in date from the medieval to modern periods. The museum has recently donated a collection of approximately 600 high-resolution images of these textiles to Wikimedia Commons. This donation is a follow-up to an older donation of some 2400 images of other objects and paintings in their collection.

Kind regards, --AWossink (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is currently an ongoing RfC on Talk:Same-sex marriage that may be of interest to this project. Thanks. TimothyJosephWood 12:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jonathan Edwards (theologian)#Requested move 22 August 2016

A discussion and vote as to whether Jonathan Edwards (theologian) should become the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the Jonathan Edwards disambiguation page is ongoing at the above link. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Serious problem of WP:COI users editing articles about religion statistics

Articles such as:

Are in a horrible state. First of all I put a question mark on the utility of such articles. They should be merged into "major religious groups". They seem to be primarily meant as platforms of propaganda by certain religious ideologies. They are mostly contructed through unreliable and biased sources, such as tabloid articles and Christian literature, and I make reference especially to the sections about Christianity recently reviewed by user Jobas.

I think that the time has come to purify these articles or purify Wikipedia from these articles.--151.34.106.205 (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, inspecting some of the reliable sources used (I mean the non-biased academic ones), I have found that they do not contain what is reported in the article!
Update: I hope Jobas won't revert again the tags pointing to unreliablity, COI and bias that I have added to the articles.--151.34.106.205 (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Update: I have also discovered that user Jobas was already blocked back in 2007 for adding false information:
17:38, 6 July 2007 Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) blocked Jobas (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Inserting false information: also sock User: 84.109.2.234)--151.34.106.205 (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Most of the sources of these articles are from Pew Research Center, several national Census, Eurobarometer, The Guardian, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, BBC News, UNHCR, World Christian Encyclopedia, Arena - Atlas of Religions and Nationalities in Russia, reuters, Without addressing the references from books etec. The last time i checked these references they were not from "Christian literature" or been called as part of the "Christian propaganda". And I'm not the only - as you try to show- one who revert your edit, User:Bbb23 edit your edit in the article Growth of religion and left attention in your talk page, Oh it is totally irrelevant to bring up blocking me from 2007 (9 years ago!).
The artilce Christianity by country for exmaple is quite exist as Islam by country and Buddhism by country, I don't see you go there asking to "delet it".--Jobas (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
First of all. You declare to be an Arab Christian and on your personal pages you make your faith / religious ideology very evident, with Christian phrases and imagery. You have been engaged for a long time in pushing your views about the demographics of Christians, most of the time using unreliable sources and ignoring good sources. Given this, you have a huge WP:COI in writing those articles.
Regarding the list of source agencies you have provided: The Guardian; the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Values; BBC News; UNHCR; World Christian Encyclopedia; & Reuters are not good sources and should not be used in Wikipedia. They are journalism and tabloids with a certain political bias, and besides this "journalism" is not (or no longer) academic: they make the readers believe what they want, they don't base their claims on academic sources and don't need to do so, and many of their articles are fabricated lies. The World Christian Encyclopedia is a biased source by the same name it uses. All the other sources you have listed are worthy to be used.--151.36.88.240 (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Wow really? So for you being Christian mean i can't edit in articles related with Christianity and Christians?. Is this also applies to the Muslim editors of Islam-related articles? Or atheist Editors who edits in atheism related articles?
The source that you mention before are widely used in the wikipeida, Most of Statistics in the articles are from Pew study and several national Census, and from Eurobarometer, Many of the previous sources that you described as "not good" are in fact - if you even tried to read it - Review statistics from the Pew study and several national Census, and by the way World Christian Encyclopedia is a reference work published by Oxford University Press, And its widely used in dozens of articles here - and two of these articles are use this source only in two sentences-.--Jobas (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I have not said that you can't write because you're a Christian, I have said that you have demonstrated to have a conflict of interest in the way you edit and in the unfair use you make of sources. It is not true that the agencies that I have mentioned as not good and not reliable base their claims on national censuses, eurobarometer, and pew study. Most of them are tabloid articles.--151.68.22.109 (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I am still waiting for the intervention of a third party, possibly an administrator, to solve this issue and purify those articles.--151.68.22.109 (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Holy Spirit, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Category 21st-century mosques

Hi, Category:21st-century churches is a 'container category', can I therefore assume that Category:21st-century mosques is also ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"Veneration"

The topic of Veneration is under discussion, see talk:Veneration -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Religious building colours

Currently Template:Infobox religious building assigns the same colour to Sunni and Ahmadi buildings. See Template talk:Infobox religious building; proposals on how to change the colour scheme are welcome. Huon (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move of "Carl Jung"

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Carl Jung#Requested move 14 November 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks,  Paine  u/c 01:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Five Percent Nation

I don't understand the movement fully. But it looks like this article was recently, very recently edited with an alt right slant and out right calls the concept a black supremecy movement?! Very biased and considering the current election and the mentality of the alt right, and the definition of the alt right (being fundamentally racist), I think this page needs some expert to look over it.

Thanks, a really pissed white girl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.156.113 (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

While the alt-right has been fucking up the site (...and America in general), that's one article they actually haven't touched. The group derives from the Nation of Islam, which (unlike mainstream Islam), was black supremacist as a reaction against 20th century racism. See The Autobiography of Malcolm X is the usual introduction to this topic for many Americans. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Questions of weight at Deism

I believe that there are some possibly very serious problems regarding the amount of weight given to newer forms of deism in the above article. There do exist a number of sources I have found which discuss it, but to the best of my knowledge most of them are either self-published or articles in the Examiner website, which is not considered RS here. I had mentioned the issue previously at Talk:Deism/Archive 6#Contemporary deism?. I am reopening discussion on the article talk page at Talk:Deism#Contemporary deism revisited, and would welcome any input. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Miraculous sweat

There doesn't seem to be an article on this phenomenon but we've got it mentioned on at least a few dozen articles and should have coverage and crosslinks somewhere. Is there a formal name for this? It's not restricted to Christian icons and statues; the Mazu idol at Anping is also credited with miraculous sweating as well. (Yes, I'm aware there're perfectly reasonable explanations for its occurrence even where the priests don't just add the drops themselves. We should still have a central place for discussion of it as both a physical and allegedly spiritual occasion.) — LlywelynII 16:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)