Talk:Afterlife

Source/Citation Improvement
This topic is off to a great start, but needs citation improvement, especially secondary citations for multiple religions and topics. This is extremely important due to the controversy that comes from this topic, and to remain unopinionated on any specific religious belief of the afterlife. Smerblah (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Afterlife
The entire Afterlife section is filled with Christian conceptions of the afterlife presented uncritically and projected into other belief systems in ways that are wildly inaccurate. Valhalla, for example, is not equal to "Heaven." Strikingly, a link in this section that is presented as Hades is covertly piped to Christian views on Hades. Darker Dreams (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The Chinese Religions
Can we add Taoism and perhaps Confucianism as Chinese religions that also have a perspective of the concept of an afterlife? MateoFrayo (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @MateoFrayo I have not checked for archives of this talk page but this Short description|Continued existence after death in the article suggests the article is not limited for any specific belief systems and you can add info about more belief systems with WP:RS.
 * On side note: There is lot of information gap in this and related articles. IMO article deserves some info about Grave goods culture analysis by anthropology and archeology; a little more detail view from Eternal oblivion along with atheist vs. theist polemics. Of course all with RS. -- &#32;Bookku   (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course—I completely agree @Bookku.
 * I may add a few descriptions of certain topics in the upcoming months and fill in some information gaps with a few religions (especially some of the Abrahamic ones and Grave goods, like you said), but unfortunately I am currently working on a separate project. I'll definitely watchlist this page and hopefully see it expand a lot more in the near future.
 * Do you think plan on adding information to this article, or will you leave that to someone else? - MateoFrayo (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice to see your reply. This article topic remains on back of my mind. For me too hands are already full enough with other stuff so not sure I would be able to devote enough time for this and related articles. But many times while searching google books and google scholar etc if I come across interesting citations I keep adding up and time permits I do update articles randomly. Besides I do actively encourage users working on similar topics by referring them to various information and gap areas time to time. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Scope for revisit and improvement
@Vice regent

This has ref to.


 * Previous sentence


 * strike out is deleted part by the next edit dif


 * Dif after change


 * Present article short description

As such this article does not seem to be reserved for any particular belief systems and even atheist views may have space as belief system though they have an entire article Eternal oblivion  still summary of the same and atheist vs. theist polemics against and for after life may have scope in this article.

For a while if we leave scope of atheism outside for a while, and visit entire article the above sentence in the does not seem to represent just Abrahamic tradition but along with is inclusive of other belief systems when it says 'some belief systems'. Because of some belief systems I am not sure even 'divine judgment' wording is enough, but still inclusion of 'divine judgment' seems needed for some belief systems. Hopefully upon reading the whole article you may get my point. Hence this suggestion to revisit deletion and deliberate further improvements as and when you feel to come back to this topic.

Wish you happy editing and cheers. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello . I was under the impression that all Abrahamic belief systems believe in God as the sole deity. Please correct me i I'm wrong.VR talk 03:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See only for 'Abrahamic belief systems'  ..in the Abrahamic tradition, hold that the dead go to a specific place after death, as determined by God, .." this much part of the sentence is enough. Whoever wrote summary sentence actually clubbed 'Abrahamic belief systems' with other belief systems. Reading with 'or other divine judgment,' seem to make two different meanings depending upon how one reads it. And one reading can give feeling of whether sentence is ascribing 'or other divine judgment,' with God. Hence I can see your point.
 * But just removing part we do not want makes to cease representation of other systems in the lede. That leads to inadvertent obscurantism. We would need to deal with editorial neutrality by writing more proper paraphrasing that will summarize for all belief systems mentioned in the article body.
 * I do not have issues if you want to have separate sentences for all belief systems, though that would not be best lede summary.
 * Whoever wrote the sentence seem to have taken some care but may have missed some inadvertent meaning which you read in the sentence.
 * 'Some belief systems,' means not all the belief systems since many other belief systems have different presumptions about afterlife.
 * such as those in the Abrahamic tradition, -- here wording 'such as' is used for not only to give example of 'Abrahamic tradition' but also other beliefs systems believing in God.
 * 'as determined by God, or other divine judgment,' You seem to be reading this together like if not God or along with God other divine judgment. But who paraphrased sentence might have wished to read as this or that. ('or That' part for other belief systems which believe in divine judgements other that God.
 * This can remain complex and confusing for the readers. So no issues in splitting sentences and covering different different belief systems in the lede.
 * In fact we can TNT and write the lede again but even for that effort these articles do not seem to be at their minimum best.
 * I think we might need to read t/p archives to see previous discussions too.
 * I am not in hurry - rather bit busy to spare enough time on this as of now. Just came across while replying earlier message so just wanted to keep you informed so in due course we can form better lede. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)