Talk:United Religions Initiative

[Untitled]
Sfuqua 07:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC) - Formatting and a few links added.

Sfuqua 06:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) - Added Organizational Design section.

Untitled
Contributions to Interreligious relations welcome Jackiespeel 16:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing and notability
HrafnTalkStalk 05:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This article currently cites no third party sources. Lacking such sources it cannot establish notability. Further, it gives no indication (let alone reliably sourced indication) of prominent or large-scale membership that would add to this organisation's stature.
 * "direct correspondence with URI" is not verifiable, and is thus not a WP:RS.

This is one of the, perhaps three, most significant modern interfaith organizations in the world. The idea that there are no third party citations is correctable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowanf (talk • contribs) 06:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added a number of citations to newspapers and books. From personal knowledge of hundreds of URI activities, it is amazing and frustrating how few are documented in the public record. Sfuqua (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

California Interfaith Power & Light
The CSM piece on California Interfaith Power & Light appears to make no mention of the URI. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

While it does not directly mention URI, the group is a member of the URI and thus it is a documented example of action by member organization. Sfuqua (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Then you need a WP:RS stating that "the group is a member of the URI" -- as it stands, this "example" is undocumented. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

MOS Issues
I draw editors attention to: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSLINKS
 * WP:MOSBIO

I'll work on the link titles soon, thank you for pointing that out. One personal title was removed and will be added back, as "the Rt. Rev." is not merely an honorific, it is a formal clerical title. Seems like there is a great deal more guidance on WikiPedia since I last read guidelines years ago. Sfuqua (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (i) I was meaning the repeated insertion of titled-links for the regions. (ii) 'Formal clerical titles' (along with formal academic titles, formal nobility titles, etc, etc) are "honorific titles". Please do not use them. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)