Wikipedia talk:Religion

Criticism
Have to disagree on the Criticism proposal. Let's list some religous behaviors:


 * Mormon fundamentalists rape young girls
 * Galileo thrown in prison for a year because he claims earth goes around the sun
 * Jonestown leader leads suicides of hundreds
 * Kosher slaughter of cows: ripping out esophagus and letting the animal stumble around
 * Islam fundmentalists in Pakistan prevent girls from going to school
 * Israel zionists think they deserve all land from Nile to Euphrates: nuclear war ensues
 * Gays are made to feel worthless and guilty
 * Money-hungry televangelists coax money out of lonely old widows
 * Witches burned at the stake, alive (!) because local puritan leaders dont like their attitude
 * Scientologists ridicule mentally ill people for taking medications
 * Young children die slow, painful deaths because their Christian Science-influenced parents refuse to provide medical care

And you're suggesting that criticisms of these (and many other) aspects of religion, criticisms that are widely held by notable critics, criticims that are widely discussed in newspapers, magazines, and books, are not supposed to appear in this "not a paper" encyclopedia?

Or am I misunderstanding your intention? --Noleander (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I cant believe you are suggesting that criticisms of Sacred books should be at the "summary level" only. The Documentary hypothesis is one of the most interesting and provocative analyses in the history of academics, IMHO. And you're saying it shouldn't be in this encyclopedia?   If that is not your intention, I apologize, but in that case you should clarify your proposed policy ... as written now it is not workable.  --Noleander (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, you start by saying "religions criticize other religions". True, but it is also reason that criticizes religions.  Science criticizes religions.  I see you suggest that a criticism can only be included if it has "social significance":  if only 6 kids a year die because their parents dont believe in medicine, is that significant enough?  Or should we just leave that little statistic out of this encyclopedia because it might offend the parents? --Noleander (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, there are some very vigorous religious apologist editors in Wiki that use the articles as recruitiing pamphlets:  white-washing, revisionist history:  very common here.   If this "proposed policy" ever got in concrete, I can see it being used to prevent any critical balancing information.  Just look at the LDS and Scientology article histories.   --Noleander (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you dont object, I'll take a stab at improving the "Criticism" section to address some of the above concerns. --Noleander (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the text in this section is not mine, and I welcome any discussion on the matter. Twunchy (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Noleander, but Wikipedia is also not the place for endless anti-religion rants. Your comments above border on that.  I will assume good faith and that you are just speaking from the extreme, but you want to be very careful that your policy is very precisely worded so that critics have open season on religion without proper Wikipedia constraints.  (Taivo (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Taivo: you are entitled to your opinion. I believe you are in the minority.  You have several times said that topics should be omitted from this encyclopedia because they are too minor in your opinion.  But it is just your opinion.  This is not a paper encyc, and one could interpret your POV as censorship.  And I do.  --Noleander (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Taivo: thanks for the improvements in the Crit section ... it looks better now. --Noleander (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Taivo: ... but it looks like the Talk page is recommended 3 times. Probably only have to mention it once. --Noleander (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with recommending the Talk page multiple times. In this particular case, it is critical (no pun intended) to make sure that NPOV prevails.  Also note that the last sentence of my previous post had a word missing.  It should read:  "so that critics don't have open season on religion".  (Taivo (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Just so you understand a bit of the history of this proposed policy, it was originally written to protect religious articles from excessive criticism. It was feared that articles on non-mainstream religions might get overwhelmed by opposing editors filling them with criticisms to such an extent that the factual reporting of that religion was lost. While the policy will probably never become formalized (see discussion on this Talk Page), the fear is very real. While some see this proposed curb on excessive criticism as "censorship", it serves a very real and legitimate function to prevent Wikipedia from becoming an anti-religion tract. The goal was to preserve NPOV in the religion articles, not to prohibit legitimate critical reporting. (Taivo (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Taivo is right in the above. And I think it also makes sense that we acknowledge up front that virtually every religion which has had any significant coverage in the press will also have a sub article called "Criticism of..." or something similar which will certainly deal very thoroughly with some of the criticisms you mentioned above, but in an encyclopedic, rather than sensationalistic, manner. Also, several of the criticisms you mention in the start of this thread are not only criticisms, but signifiant historicotheral developments within that group. As such, they will certainly be eligible for inclusion not only in the "riticism" section or article, but also in the history section or article, and, in some cases, in the philosophy/theology of the group section or article. However, it will with luck be in a other-than-sensationalist manner. To cite just one possible situation you mentioned, the social mores prevalent at the time Mormonism were founded were significantly different than they are today, and this included sexual contact with minors. Remember when Edgar Allan Poe married a 13 year old, and it was just a "scandal", not an "outrage"? Or, for that matter, Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old first cousin before his divorce from his previous wife was finalized, and it was just a "scandal"? While, in such cases, I and I think everyone else would welcome seeing reliably sourced content given due weight, we also would want to ensure that all significant perspectives be included, and this might include, in that case, some sort of statement that those Mormons are a bit more "culturally conservative", at least regarding sexual matters, than modern society in general. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have to comment here. I am myself a Hindu and as it is, the linear understanding of 'religion' that needs a timeline, linear history, etc does not work well at all for Hinduism. Also, there are many editors who have put in substance well with quite lot of efforts without mentioning sources that might not be available online. A page on religion according to me should only be edited by those who are going to show the religion in positive light and preferably by people from the same religion; for other aspects there are other pages where such could be put in detail. I also do not want Wikipedia articles on Religions to be looked from prison of anything other than the followers. Hinduism as such is not 'religion' in the sense of Abrahamic religious sense.
 * Also, if a religious page has mention of criticism, why can it not have criticism of criticism which may be religion B/C/D specific? According to me, pages on religious topics can not therefore have such ironclad rules. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011  20:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Will of God
Will of God currently has a disambiguation tag on it, but it is clearly not a disambiguation page per WP:DABCONCEPT (specifically, it does not distinguish between a list of articles with the phrase "Will of God" in the title, except for one song). On the other hand, it is completely unreferenced. This seems like a rather important topic, so I request that our experts use the abundant materials thrown together under this title to make into an article. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Naming_conventions_(Indic)
Can someone informed take a look. Is this consistent with other religion Naming conventions? It seems to have veered off course into approving "reverend" "his holiness" "rav" (admittedly in Sanskrit or Hindi) in some article titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it has veered off course or not, but I believe that naming conventions for Indic religious titles and honorifics is a specialized subset of naming conventions. The above blueprint has been applied in relation to a number of Indian religious leaders whose title or honorofic is their common name - such as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and Swami Vivekananda. The problem is that COMMONNAME says nothing about this, or doesn't contradict it - so there is certainly room for scope, and Naming_conventions_(Indic) is the only guideline to follow in relation to naming of Indian religious leaders. Lotusjuice (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lotusjuice, thanks but I have already heard your view extensively at Talk:Kripalu Maharaj, where I have stated my reservations concisely. At this point I have said what I am going to say. You may wish to post Talk:Kripalu Maharaj at WT:Hinduism as well to invite other editors on that. I will check in to see what other editors here say about whether Naming_conventions_(Indic) has gone out of line with similar WP:Religion naming conventions, it may not have done. Cheers. I am not going to say more. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No prob. And yes, I invited one or two admins who have experience in this area to discuss it or close the discussion. Lotusjuice (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia also realizes?
"Wikipedia also realizes there is a realm where these principles cannot be utilized in the traditional sense". Wikipedia doesn't realize anything, it's an encyclopedia. I am okay letting the religious doctrine of a particular faith be the main source of materiel for an article about its religious doctrine, but statements like the above and the topic "No "proof" necessary" start this whole project off on a defensive NPOV tone.

This project purports to take the broad stroke of covering all Religious articles, which means more than just covering articles of a particular religious doctrine. I agree that an informative article about doctrine like Bishop (Catholic Church) should be written based on Catholic teachings and does not need external validation that Bishops are "endowed with a special charism by the Holy Spirit", nor does it require an external critique of that statement.

However, there are plenty of articles that fall under the Religion umbrella that call for the full scope of WP:Notability and should not be 'protected' from notable scientific critiques. If this project were to narrow its scope to pages on Religious Doctrine, it might be more successful -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 17:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * “an informative article about doctrine like Bishop (Catholic Church) should be written based on Catholic teachings and does not need external validation that Bishops are "endowed with a special charism by the Holy Spirit"” but it does need to say "according to the Church" or equivalent somewhere, it should not simply affirm that bishops are so endowed. By the way, I think it's relevant, not nit-picking, to say in this context that "bishops" shouldn't be capitalised (not used here as a personal title). Pol098 (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of this guideline is unnecessary nonsense, & can be improved
Looking at some headings of this proposed guideline as it stands today, the headings and text are unnecessary and incorrect. Strictly speaking the situation is covered by Wikipedia's general policies and guidelines, but an additional specific guideline bringing various points together is probably a good thing. Specifically, the sections  and  are wrong-headed.

Obviously no proof of the truth or otherwise of a religious concept is needed. Obviously articles should present the relevant religious perspective (and also other perspectives, and criticisms). No guideline is needed. But these things should be stated in a way to show them to be beliefs, not facts.

An article should say "Hecklites believe that the world was created by an evil being who wished to spite his wife". A whole section of an article can be headed "These are the beliefs of Hecklites:" followed by non-POV text such as "Heckle has the appearance of a 10-foot high male human, green in colour and with a barbed tail". Attention to wording makes a lot of detailed guidelines moot.

It is perfectly possible to write an article that neither respects nor disrespects its topic, that neither affirms that attitudes described are true or that they are false.

I came to this proposal as a result of a search to resolve a particular point. I haven't read the full proposal, but all the bits I thought might help me I found to be wrong-headed.

Guidelines that I think should be established somewhere (maybe they already are?), both in general and in relation to religion, are:


 * Wikipedia does not respect anyone or anything


 * Wikipedia does not disrespect anyone or anything


 * Wikipedia can report any criticism by a reliable source

In other words, we don't say or imply that any Hecklite concept is holy, excellent, valuable, etc. (WP:PEACOCK). Nor do we say it is superstitious, evil, idolatrous, etc. (unless clearly demonstrated to be so). Hecklism here is obviously a proxy for any respectable religion; refraining from disrespecting, say, human sacrifice, or a religion which is obviously a joke is more than can be expected.

Pol098 (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, that’s pretty good Pol098, I like it. With a little polishing up maybe of the Heckle part especially, it’d make a great guideline draft that I’d support! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a more real world example would be better such as "In traditional Mi'kmaq belief, the world was created by Glooscap, a being who defeated his evil twin brother Malsumis". "Glooscap has the appearance of a 10-foot high male Mi'kmaq, but can shapechange into a beaver and other animals"... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of "Religion is not Fringe" proposal
Criticism of the proposal as it stands at the time of writing. Although a following of believers within a certain religion may not number in some cases more than the tens or hundreds, religious articles about them or their beliefs should not be relegated to the realms of fringe within Wikipedia simply based on minority status."


 * I don't see this as a sane guideline. I won't discuss it (maybe others will express their opinions), just oppose it. I interpret "minority status" as "extreme minority status" for this purpose, hundreds, not small numbers of millions.

"To the believer it may be viewed as insulting or disturbing that Wikipedia take the stance of possibly belittling, or making a mockery, of a person's religious beliefs."
 * This argument is totally spurious in itself. Not saying something because someone may be insulted or hurt is not Wikipedia. Of course, writing unsourced things for the purpose of insulting etc. is not acceptable, but that's not what's said,

"it is not the position of Wikipedia to make any claims against a belief system or to editorialize such."

"To balance an article that may appear to be fringe, proper sources should be located to support any claims made, and integrated into the article with appropriate references and straight-forward wording. Any statements that are not supported by reliable sources should be removed if no reliable sources can be found to support the statement."
 * Claims against, if sourced, are fair game. Editorialising isn't. For example, recently a Catholic church in India sued a scientist: a miracle had been claimed because a religious statue's feet were oozing water, and believers were collecting and drinking the water. The scientist found a blocked sewage pipe, and published an article about it. I would be quire happy for a Wikipedia article to say (rather than "make claims") that this was not a miracle.


 * I don't see any need for spurious, forced, balance, or need to make a determined effort to seek out sources. If there are sources for any viewpoint, they should be used, as in any Wikipedia article. Unsourced opinion should be deleted, as in any Wikipedia article. Unbalanced matter can be introduced by an editor, if sourced; it is to be expected that others will seek and add differing text. Theoretically nobody should have any opinion; in real life, each may add sourced material reflecting their own viewpoint. Not a problem; it's all down to sourcing. In fact, the bit about proper sourcing being sought and added is exactly what those objecting to what was written would do; it is down to them, not everyone who edits the article as is implied by "should". Pol098 (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Note on "Qualifying statements" proposal
Re "Qualifying statements" proposal at time of writing: "Not every statement made in a religious article needs to be "qualified." Many articles are so attacked that every sentence becomes "So and so, claimed this, or that," or "someone supposedly did or said whatever," etc., to the extent that the article becomes wordy just for the sake of staving off critics. So, instead of writing brilliant and engaging prose, editors are relegated to blanket qualify all statements, which can severely affect the readability of an article. One qualification statement per section is quite sufficient for this purpose."


 * For every statement from the POV of an entity (in this case, religion) it must be clear that the statement is from that POV, not a statement of accepted fact. This can be achieved by qualifying each statement "believers consider that...", by qualifying a block of text (e.g. section, paragraph, blockquote) "these are the beliefs:...", or sometimes it is perhaps obvious by context. While the text should make clear what are beliefs, this is preferably done in a non-cumbersome way, avoiding prefixing qualifying text to each sentence.

"Qualifying statements should exhibit a neutral tone throughout the article. Weasel words should be avoided at all costs within the context of a religious article."


 * Obvious restatement of normal guidelines, by all means say it. Should read "Weasel and peacock words should be avoided in a religious article, as in any other."

Pol098 (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources
We also need something on reliable sources. Sources must be reliable. The texts and sources associated with a religion may be reliable regarding the beliefs, tenets, and practices of the religion, but are not reliable sources for their truth or validity. Using my absurd but non-contentious example, the Book of Heckle may establish that Hecklites practice ritual eyebrow-singeing, but not the fact that the grace of Heckle is immanent in everyone. Pol098 (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Failed proposal from 2009
I have added the tag "Failed" as I noticed someone editing this page ... Pls see WikiProject Religion/Manual of style for new proposal.Moxy (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Who decided this was a failed proposal, how, and when and why??? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I did because theproposal (not a guide or policy) has been dead (not improved or worked on seriously)  since  October 1, 2009‎ ‎ and the fact the project has started a new guideline (advice page)  at WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Three years of siting here clearly demonstrates lack of consensus for the page. That said if any info from here could be move to WikiProject Religion/Manual of style i am sure no one would mind if the info is accurate. See WP:PROPOSAL for more info.Moxy (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I oppose you taking such a decision unilaterally without consulting anyone else, and I dispute as unfactual, your contention that this proposal has not been worked on since October 1, 2009. Somebody just made some great improvements to this proposal within the last couple of months, and discussed them above, let's not pretend that didn't actually happen and shut it down now. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont think you understand the situation - A proposal cant be a proposal forever. First proposed in 2009 and still nothing despite some very minor edits this year. The proposal has failed and a new one has been implemented do you not agree with these facts?  Would be best to work on the new proposal over this old one that has failed. That said your more then welcome to ask for a second opinion on the status of the page.  Moxy (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally don't see by what authority you shut down a proposal just as it is starting to show major activity again, so I'm removing the "failed" status that did not come about by due process, and please don't re-add it without consensus. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The page is no longer being talked about its no longer a proposal because there is a new page that has surpassed this page. There is no RfC on this page as its dead.  I have posted at the project page to get more involved as they may be able  to explain better then I about how the page has been surpassed. How much longer can this be a proposal?  3 4 more years? As has been noted above there is a NEW proposal. To quote WP:PROPOSAL "If a proposal fails, the failed tag should not usually be removed. It is typically more productive to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch to address problems than to re-nominate a proposal." This action is what the project has done....its not resubmitting this page.Moxy (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would love to know in what the new page "surpassed" this page, that's a new one on me. Discussion has picked up in 2012 as the history tab above shows, so it seems a bit odd to want to shut it down suddenly. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes some minor edits this year - This is way I added the tag.... so others dont waste there time here editing a page that failed years ago that was forgotten about. All are focused on the new page as seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. To quote WP:PROPOSAL again - "If consensus for broad community support has not developed after a reasonable time period, the proposal is considered failed. If consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal has likewise failed." Do you not agree 3 years is long enough and thus shows the page has failed?Moxy (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't fundamentally matter where the discussion takes place, as long as a discussion really is taking place. Having said that, I would tend to agree with Moxy that a proposal page which hadn't seen any edits in over two years has — at the very least — been effectively abandoned.  If people want to revive / resume the discussion, that seems fine.  I personally believe that a subpage of WikiProject Religion is (hierarchically speaking) a better place to put the discussion, and I'd be inclined to say that this is where subsequent discussion should happen.  —  Rich wales 18:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that a page that hasn't seen any edits for 4 years might be mothballed, but that is a strawman, because it isn't the case. There have been quality improvements quite recently in fact, I hope the parts of this proposal could at least be brought up on the new proposal for possible incorporation there...? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I also note that this page describes itself at the top as a "working draft" which has not yet reached the state of proposal, and is not yet a proposal. So it cannot be a "failed proposal" because it isn't even a "proposal". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes a "working draft" that has been abandoned with a new proposal that has been drafted by many editors  and is in proposal mode. The facts are that the page is no-longer viable because this so called "working draft" has been dead for years and should have been tagged long ago to indicating to others no need to edit this OLD page.  WE have a new proposal on the matter  and Yes any usefull information should be transfer over to the new page. We still need to indicate to our readers that the page is dead/not viable. Linking our readers to a 3 year old "working draft" is not helpfull in any way. Having a so called "working draft"  sit here for years hopping it may reach  proposal level in 2018  is also not helpfull. The page should be deleted and the new draft proposal put hereMoxy (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be that hard, in principle, to copy all the salient points (or perhaps just copy EVERYTHING so as to avoid any controversy) from the old page to the new page, then replace the text of the old page with a redirect pointing to the new page. That could all be done, FWIW, by any editor (doesn't require any intervention by admins).  —  Rich wales 19:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Rich wales, in fact I think this is the most sensible approach so as to minimize loss of the hard work and input on this topic done by other editors. These are all issues that have been around for millennia and are not going away any time soon, so I don't know why there should be any sense of urgency or haste. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you under the impression that if the page is tagged failed or Historical or dormant it will be deleted in the end? Nothing will be deleted - just trying to tell our editors the page is dead..and there is a new page that can be worked on. Do you not think its a good idea to educate our editors on the state of this page? And yes as I mentioned above 9 months ago copy anything  over - but keep this page as a record of peoples work - or as mentioned above merge the 2. But doing noting is not helping our project or editors.Moxy (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We definitely do not want two guidelines covering the same topic area... that will simply lead to confusion and arguments. One should be considered the guideline while the other needs to be clearly marked as having been rejected. I will leave it to project members to determine which. If there is a need to keep a record of the rejected text (and the discussion attached to it) for future reference, it can also be marked as "Historical". Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to do here - have one editor that seems not to understand how the proposal process works - or listen to the recommendations on this page by everyone. Perhaps we need  vote  should take place. Was back here again after a debate were people were linking to here as if this was policy. Need the reverter to understand that proposals dont stay open  for 6 years. Very disappointing to see not even an attempt at fixing this or the new proposal.Moxy (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

For your interest
Talk:613_commandments Debresser (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Taoism/Tao Te Ching
FYI, both Taoism and Tao Te Ching have been proposed to be renamed to the Pinyin romanization, see Talk:Tao Te Ching -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Scope of an article
Please join me at Talk:Conversion_of_non-Islamic_places_of_worship_into_mosques. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Introvigne
has mass removed WP:RS by Massimo Introvigne. Please chime in. WP:ANI discussion going on. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I selectively removed some links to Introvigne where I didn't feel they improved the article, but I left in many cases where they did. Feoffer (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You won that dispute. I didn't know that Introvigne is WP:FRINGE/advocacy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. I didn't 'win' anything, but I think we all win. And no worries whatsover about mistaking Introvigne for RS --  I was making the exact same mistake just a few short weeks ago myself, so I know firsthand it's a very easy mistake to make and didn't take any offense at all over your oversight of what initially looked like it could be a mass removal of reliable sources. :)      Feoffer (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Divine intervention
I have had a draft on "Divine intervention" tucked away for six years now, with the intent to replace the existing disambiguation page with a primary topic. It's about time it gets picked up and finished, if anyone wants to improve upon it. Cheers! BD2412 T 06:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: now in mainspace. This could still be expanded. BD2412  T 06:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)