User talk:Greatawakening2020

April 2020
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to United Methodist Church. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Theroadislong. What I’ve added to the United Methodist Church and Church of Scientology are verifiable by third party resources and adhere to WP:NPOV. The editor who reverted the COVID-19 section simply said “not needed, thank you” without explaining exactly why it is not needed. To call straightforward information on how a religion has responded to pandemic is not public relations or spam. How is the collaboration of the United Nations and a religion to respond to a crisis public relations? How is a link to official statements spam? Official statements by religions to COVID-19 is just as relevant as links to official websites, and most, if not all of these statements live on official URLs. What concerns me is there seems to be a concerted effort from denying the role of and effect on religions that COVID-19 has had by denying the addition of this information. As evidenced by the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_on_religion, the coronavirus has had a great effect on religion and their response to it should be reflected on Wikipedia.Greatawakening2020 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The content you are adding to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark and other articles is news, we need it be covered in independent sources before we mention it NOT their own website, until it gets media coverage it is of no concern to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not a problem. The Catholic Church in Europe and the LDS church has enough media coverage on their response and action to the COVID-19 crisis, which I've covered here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Humanitarian_services and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_Europe#Catholic_Church_in_Europe_and_COVID-19. Let me also emphasize that this is not routine news. This is a profound historical event, and the context of how a particular religion either responds or is impacted is historically relevant and significant to religion. I believe that every religion should have a section on how they’ve responded and been impacted by COVID-19. Thank you.Greatawakening2020 (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Presuming that every religion should have this content is precisely backwards from Wikipedia's approach. We evaluate sources and then adjust articles accordingly. As discussed at the Scientology article, you will have to do more than pick the most superficial coverage, and this coverage is not an excuse to pad-out the article. It is trivially easy to find news sources for this, as it is with many things. Finding a source is not enough. You will need to summarize these sources so that it is obvious to reader why this is due weight. Since this event (which is not yet a historical event) is effecting the entire world, every group will need to be treated separately, and sources will need to be evaluated on their own merits. Grayfell (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that is of Wikipedia and reader's best interest to adhere to policy. I am adhering to all of the policies that you have recalled and will comply with due weight, not a problem. You and theroadislong asked for independent sources and I provided that. I do not see where you are coming from saying that this is not a historical event? Do you mean because it is not in the past? It has been the main focus of both mainstream and niche media, and even scholarly references for the past 2-3 months. An event of this magnitude surely has to be historical, or nothing is. I understand that sources have to weighed differently according to their own merits, good point, but it confuses me when you say we evaluate sources and adjust articles accordingly. That sounds like it's against WP:NOR and I don't want to post original research but represent the article's original content.Greatawakening2020 (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Not an edit war but posted a modified version of the text according to your feedback. Not a revert.Greatawakening2020 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring to include the same content. Theroadislong (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Theroadislong, Grayfell, Berkeley seems to agree that the religious responses to the COVID-19 crisis is historically significant. https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/events/the-covid-19-crisis-taking-stock-of-religious-responses Greatawakening2020 (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, which is why Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on religion exists, as you already are aware. This significance not inherited by every single article on religion. We already have many articles related to Covid-19. We do not include redundant content without a specific reason. The mere existence of news coverage, or of a video lecture, is not sufficient. Grayfell (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, what is your basis by the fact that the significance is not inherited by every single article on religion? Why it is not enyclopedically sound to include COVID-19 responses in religious pages? I don't see why this would be against Wikipedia policy if there are enough sources to support it. It seems like you are changing the rules as we go. I am complying with the policies you are laying out, but your comment that the COVID-19 info signficance is not "inherited" by every single article on religion sounds like a personal opinion and not policy-based at all. The religious responses of various faiths have been written about by Gallup, Time and PewResearch, and these should be accessible in individual articles of religion, especially because that "Impact of 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic on religion" is relatively obscure unless you intentionally look for it. These COVID-19 related data should be made accessible to the religious faithful. I am not sure why you are denying the universal significance of religious responses to the COVID-19 crisis.Greatawakening2020 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Canada, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
 * If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
 * If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
 * If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Moxy 🍁 07:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Scientology PR
You already know you don't have consensus for these changes. You will need much, much better sources, and you will need to summarize those sources neutrally. Press releases are neither reliable, nor independent, so they are not usable for this content. Stop edit warring. Discuss on the article's talk page if absolutely necessary. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)