Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Religion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:03, 3 March 2010 editLabattblueboy (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,780 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:58, 25 March 2010 edit undoWeaponbb7 (talk \| contribs)4,369 edits new sectionNext edit →
Line 178:		Line 178:

	'''Ammended''': The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.--] (]) 21:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)		'''Ammended''': The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.--] (]) 21:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
			==Requested Move Of Genesis Creation Myth==
			] Thank you For you time ] (])

Revision as of 17:58, 25 March 2010

Religion Project‑class

	Religion portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Project	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Scope

Better come up with a scope for this project.--Sefringle 23:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jew/MJ

This category is something that is probably of interest to this TF. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Inter-religious content discussion from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Description: There are a number of articles which relate to religion which clearly deal with more than one religion. Unfortunately, the majority of the religion projects deal specifically with only a single religion, and may not be qualified to provide a fair view of a given inter-religious article. This proposed group would attempt to deal with these subjects by trying to bring together good editors familiar with a variety of religions who could try to hammer out a way to present all the faiths involved in these articles, in a fair, non-POV, accurate way. I acknowledge that this may be rather difficult to do, but that is all the more reason that the attempt should at least be made.

Temporary page: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion/Inter-religious content task force

Interested wikipedians (please add your name)

Comments

How is this any different from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion?--Sefringle 22:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- The project you mentioned deals with this content, but also deals with several other kinds of content as well. I think this proposal would actually best fit as a subproject (task force) of that project. Its specific goals would be more focused than those of that project, specifically dealing exclusively with content that crosses religious lines. John Carter 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have created the page. Why don't you expand the task force page.--Sefringle 01:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this would probably work best as a TF of WP Religion. Pastordavid 15:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've long been wanting to create a Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Philosophy of religion to unite theist and atheist Wikipedians who want to work on neutral and high quality articles on issues related to the existence of God. I'm currently very busy in real life, but I still wonder what people think about this idea. It's a bit related to inter-religious content, but the focus would be on the intersection of philosophy and theology, so it would be a sub-project of WikiProject Philosophy. Any comments? --Merzul 17:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Philosophy of religion below. John Carter 17:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

- Given that WikiProject Religion is not a large project in terms of members or frequency of postings to its forum. Suggest having one and only one place where issues of concern affecting other religions can be addressed. Not all Wikipedians interested in religion are also interested in inter-religion issues. Having multiple small and specialized task forces to address various sub-concerns would likely confuse general editors, who wouldn't know where to take a concern to, could lead to overlapping forums for the same issues, and could exclude essential points of view, resulting in administrative POV forks with folks of particular views coalescing into particular groups. Right now WikiProject religion, while not moribund, doesn't have such a large amount of activity as a forum for discussion of issues to make subdivision practical. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Could the proposers of this project identify a single specific example of a problem that such a proposal could solve and why this approach could solve it better than present methods? Currently each religion more or less has autonomy over its own issues, with cooperation on obvious joing articles like Abraham and Bible. How would the proposed approach create an improvement? Best, --Shirahadasha 16:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Saint contains material relevant to a variety of religions, but is to date tagged with the banners of few if any of them, leaving the remaining content handled by people who could easily misstate something. Also, there will be specific cases where, from for example my field of saints, a statement regarding the subject's previous religious affiliation, which might be non-Christian, could be stated in sources in a way which is less than completely clear in sources. This might be particularly relevant if that religion has no specific attendant WikiProject, and a lot of faiths qualify in that area. It would also allow for editors who are primarily interested in a given faith, which may or may not have its own separate project, to address these religion-specific matters, without also having to deal with articles dealing with Santeira, Bahai, and some of the other specific religions the parent project deals with. John Carter 17:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging Project

I have made it clear I am against a mass-tagging, but since it has happened, and John carter has made it clear he is not responsive to the many critics of the general process, I have joined the project - let's face it new members are needed, since there only appears to be one active one at present - to make the best of the process.

Beta tells me 3096 articles were tagged, and JC says he is going to go through them all to assess, check, and tidy them. I have some comments on this process, and will no doubt as more as we progress. I have made some edits myself. Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Al-Khidr

Wikiproj Christianity banner retained - surely this is wrong? Workgroup banner still at top, above WP Islam, which is hardly justifiable. The number of articles where our banner can justify top spot is relatively low. Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

First time converts

To clarify, I think it is clear that converts from no previous religion do not fall under this workgroup, only those who had at least some type of commitment, or even connection, with a different faith before conversion. Are we agreed on this? Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Culture heroes

Nothing to do with religion, like many of the mythological categories tagged. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Totally undiscussed "renaming" of project

Did anyone notice that "Interfaith Work Group" conjures up a vastly different mental picture to "Inter-religion content task force"? This is by no means a "minor" change at all; it seems to stake an entirely different purpose now. More specifically: the old name describes ostensibly neutral editors, whose own background is irrelevant, working out compromise solutions for those articles whose content happens to cover more than one religion or faith. Now that the word "content" has been removed from the new title, it sounds more like some kind of Council made up of representatives of the major world faiths, each one "representing" his own faith, making joint "decisions" to apply to everyone else in wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

When in fact the "workgroup" has recently consisted entirely of John Carter, afaik! Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mass-tagging

Lest we forget, here are all the categories that were tagged "on behalf of" this work group, without any notice here :

I think the question of what is intended to be accomplished by this tagging has not been discussed, certainly not here. Is there any point to it? If there is, are all these categories really appropriate? Tagging and project assessing for their own sake, by a workgroup that does nothing else, would seem not to be justified. The AN discussion is here - it will end up in Archive 128 maybe. I was rather surprised to see that John Carter has subsequently ordered another huge tagging effort on Indian Christianity, and seems to be spending his time on that area currently, despite repeated promises to work on this area. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added to the template a link to comment here: "If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page". I think it would be a good idea if all banners had such a note. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a partial list of categories the tagging of which for this project was clearly erroneous. Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents; Category:Antisemitic canards; Category:Antisemitic forgeries; Category:Antisemitic propaganda; Category:Antisemitic publications; Category:Antisemitism; Category:Nazi antisemitic propaganda films; Category:Scholars of antisemitism. Can anyone point out any more? The vast majority of articles in these categories plainly have nothing to do with interfaith matters; most of them have nothing to do with religion at all. Although this was pointed out to John Carter on another talk page, he removed the tag from only a very, very few of them. Is there any logistical way for the bot to retrace its steps and undo what it did when tagging those articles, or will it all have to be done by human editors? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Defamation League is another; and Category:Classical elements, what's that doing there? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A de-tagging run can be requested, in the same way as a tagging one. All the categories selected fed into categories deemed (by JC) to be relevant. Apart from the question of relevance - and I can see some "interfaith" relevance to Anti-Semitism categories - there is also the question of utility. What is the point of the tagging, especially when no activity other than tagging and JC's assessments takes place here? Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

DeMatha Catholic High School?

Should we mention this school in this article? After all, I think it's the only Trinitarian High School in the U.S. and I think it's a big part of this since it's been doing so well... 68.55.235.179 (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Misplaced Pages 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Misplaced Pages 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Abrahamic religion

There is currently disagreement over the description of the term "Abrahamic religion(s)" as "post-modern" in the Abrahamic religion article. Discussion on the article talk page can be found here, here and here. Some discussion takes place on user talk pages here and here. Related concerns were raised on the fringe theory noticeboard here. Outside voices and feedback would be greatly appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages 0.7 articles have been selected for Interfaith

Misplaced Pages 0.7 is a collection of English Misplaced Pages articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Misplaced Pages talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Misplaced Pages 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we have anything to say here? No. I suppose not. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Misplaced Pages:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Misplaced Pages talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:16, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Sola fide

One of the problems I have with the term "interfaith" is that it assumes that Religion = Faith, when in fact in most religions this is just not true. Most religions will arguably put community and social organization above a fideist observance of a peculiar gospel that is not always universal. For instance, the idea that (religion = mere faith) originates from the Protestant Reformation and was used to counter the influence of the Roman Catholic Church. Martin Luther said sola fide, as opposed to the sola gratia of Rome (cf antinomianism). There are also similar issues in Judaism and Islam, which are stricly controlled by religious legislation such as Halakha and Sharia, and where most faith involves obeying these laws (cf legalism). ADM (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Besides that, I have often thought that "faith-based" is an especially unhappy expression. I think President Obama will change it to something like "community-based." Borock (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD

This article is listed as being a concern of this work group: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Satanic holidays. Borock (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Interfaith Guideline: Start with Religion Guideline

One of the stated goals of this work group is to create a guideline for articles that relate two or more religions. It seems we could start with a guideline for articles that deal with religion in general. A working draft of same is at WP:Religion. --Tedlau (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

Please see: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitism Borock (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Richard Francis Burton

Richard Francis Burton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Names of God

Can a few editors please have a look at the article. A number of sources from interfaith/ecumenical perspective were added to the summary of the list. However it seems one of the objector to the existence of the article does not take sources and references seriously. Thank you, Wikid 08:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Defining Didactic vs. Prophetic texts/Religious terminology

Working on an article and doing a search I see both phrases are used a lot, however, here is no article explaining either. I see there is a stub of an unreferenced article on Religious terminology. If there isn't such a compilation of terms somewhere, maybe someone should start one. (Not my area generally.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

They would be better suited to a dictionary project, rather than an encyclopedia. There's not really a lot to say about them outside of basic definitions, unless the topic is considerably more specific. Basically, didactic texts are instructional, while prophetic texts are revelatory. Catechisms are standard examples of the former. Prophetic texts may contain didactic instructions (such as the purity rules of Mosaic law), but didactic texts are always explanatory instead of revelatory. I hope this helps! --Vassyana (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. And see someone is trying to delete religious terminology. So I guess best thing to do is make sure terms defined when used in a text. While the words themselves did suggest the definitions you gave them, I actually did not find an immediate explicit definition to use from a source. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated

I'm having a flaring argument on Talk:Christianity_and_Judaism#Sin. For the sake of building consensus, please have a look and state your opinions and/or take action. Debresser (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Call for editors to help manage religion related content

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Religion#Coordination of activity. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have Cleanup listings, Cleanup listings is a bot which collects all tagged unreferenced biographies of living people, plus other lists onto one page in your project.

It is very easy to add to your project: Cleanup listings simply add a template to a page of your project!

A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 08:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC - prefixes in article title of Eastern Orthodox officials

An RfC is currently open (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#naming_convention_associated_with_Eastern_Orthodox_officials) regarding the appropriateness of having position titles in the article title of religious Eastern Orthodox officials. Commentary would be welcomed, as the WP:NCWC talk page has a low level of activity.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ammended: The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move Of Genesis Creation Myth

here Thank you For you time Weaponbb7 (talk)

Categories: