Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Religion and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14: 3 months

WikiProject Religion was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 24 July 2013.

CfD nomination of Category:Hispanic theologians

Category:Hispanic theologians has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Talk:Invented_tradition#Merge_from_pseudo-mythology

Please say a word at Talk:Invented_tradition#Merge_from_pseudo-mythology

Featured article review for Augustus

I have nominated Augustus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thelema (writ large) at WP:NPOV

There’s a discussion on Thelema related articles at WP:NPOV that could use, frankly, a lot of eyes. Much of this won’t require specialist knowledge beyond knowing what is and isn’t appropriate in Wikivoice. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help regarding review of a draft article on a Chinese Buddhist rite

I wrote a draft of an article on the Yujia Yankou rite, which is a ritual in mainstream Chinese Buddhism. However, the review is taking quite a long time. Could someone help me expedite the process? The draft page is here. Nyarlathotep1001 (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for English Reformation

English Reformation has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Odin

Hello. I am working on rewrite of Odin and seek input from interested editors familiar with the subject matter. There is a Talk post and a WIP proposal. Thank you. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bible#How_should_the_lead_describe_how_different_faiths_view_the_Bible

If you have an opinion, please join the discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bible#How_should_the_lead_describe_how_different_faiths_view_the_Bible,_part_II

If you have an opinion, please join the discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retired Church of England archbishops

I'm not sure here is the ideal place for this, and if anyone can kindly suggest somewhere better I'll take the enquiry there.

By way of background, in Britain, Anglican bishops are styled "the Right Reverend" (usually abbreviated to "Rt Revd") and archbishops are styled "the Most Reverend" ("Most Revd"). When an archbishop retires, he reverts to being a bishop and is styled "Rt Revd" again. In the last century and this, retiring archbishops of Canterbury and York have often – not always – been given a peerage, enabling them to continue to sit in the House of Lords. The question on which views are sought is how to label the person's infoboxes:

If we label the person by the name by which he was known when archbishop, the form should be

The Most Revd and Rt Hon Forename Surname
Archbishop of Canterbury/York.

Alternatively, if we prefer to use the former archbishop's style after retirement, the form, to be accurate, would need to be

"The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Lord Surname of Somewhere" or (if he was not given a peerage on retirement) "The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Forename Surname"
Former Archbishop of Canterbury/York.

Views (or alternative suggestions) most welcome. Tim riley talk 19:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that the answer is what do the sources do. If you are requesting OR, then I suppose that the only place it may occur is in the first sentence of the lead. Ie "John Smith (1.1.1911-9.9.1999) was Archbishop of Canterbury ..." To start "The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Lord John Smith (1.1.1911-9.9.1999) was Archbishop of Canterbury ..." or variants seems to me to be clumsily clunky, repetitive (a reader is effectively told that JS was an archbishop twice) and straying into non-notability terrain (I assume Smith is not notable as a lord, so why are we telling a reader about that before what he is notable for?)
Does this help? Have I understood the question? Can you think of anywhere other than the very first sentence where one might want to use "The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Lord John Smith ..."? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gog It was really to do with the infoboxes: see here Tim riley talk 17:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If our treatment of prime ministers (e.g. Alec Douglas-Home, Harold Wilson) is anything to go by, we use a person's style after retirement, and I can't see that a religious leader should be treated differently. However those examples use an infobox which allow various titles/offices to be listed below the image with dates, and unfortunately {{Infobox Christian leader}} doesn't seem to support that. NebY (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drat. So using their in office style would look odd, and wouldn't go with their being a lord. I think I'm with NebY in favouring their retirement style. If it weren't for the peerage thing I would say one could argue either way, but no one was ever the Most Revd and Rt Hon Lord Surname of Somewhere. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than look at how we deal with a different classification of people on Wiki, it's probably best to look at the weight of reliable sources to see how they deal with the question. - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If only! Wikipedia's infoboxes are not generally used elsewhere, and in normal prose the WP:RS such as the two-volume bio by Bishop Bell of Archbishop Davidson the matter is not addressed. Tim riley talk 12:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the "What do the RS say" argument above. Is there also a "common sense/what are they commonly known as/for" argument? After repeated back-and-forth, we've established a clear page-consensus that David Lloyd George should carry the infobox title of "David Lloyd George", and not "The Right Honourable The Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor". Of course, that doesn't preclude the peerage being noted in the infobox, as it is for LlG. Is this also the established page consensus for Cosmo Gordon Lang? KJP1 (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, KJP. That's a helpful pointer. I'm going to propose we standardise on the name and style when archbishops rather than in retirement, in line with your "common sense/what are they commonly known as/for" point. (Some standardisation wanted on UK prime ministers' pages too, it seems. As it happens, I am guilty of the inflated title chez Alec Home). Anglicanus, any thoughts? Tim riley talk 12:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a tension here between two principles? A BLP should describe the person as they are now but an article about a historic figure should describe what they're now known for, so is a living ex-archbishop historic yet? Or should the infobox title be changed on death? (I'm rather sad that this would lose the glorious "The Lord Home of the Hirsel".) NebY (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point. Most of the retired archbishops in question are dead, but not all (Sentamu, Carey, Williams are still with us). I wonder if we should follow your suggestion that historic figures should have the title they are known for but living ones should have their current, post-retirement, styles given here. I hope other editors will have some thoughts on this. Tim riley talk 18:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology has an RfC

Scientology has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hinduism in Luxembourg

The article Hinduism in Luxembourg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

lack source, out of the mentioned 3 sources, one is the website of hindu forum, and other 2 references are news of the opening of hindu forum

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:AI-based religion

Just started it. Nextada (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nextada Some dubious sources in there, like WP:FORBESCON, WP:NYPOST and, I think, colsoncenter.org. Just because something is online, it's not necessarily a good source on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I'll remove those! Nextada (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined. :( I don't have access to https://journal.equinoxpub.com/IR/article/view/3222 . Nextada (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Modern Pagan views on LGBT people, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team}[reply]

Requested move at Talk:The Holocaust#Requested move 21 May 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Holocaust#Requested move 21 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (💬 • ✍️) 12:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diocletianic Persecution at FAR

I have nominated Diocletianic Persecution for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Center of the universe#Requested move 19 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Center of the universe#Requested move 19 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Feminist economics

Feminist economics has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Joy of Sect at FAR

I have nominated The Joy of Sect for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2002 Gujarat riots#Requested move 25 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2002 Gujarat riots#Requested move 25 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Cultural depictions of salamanders#Requested move 5 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cultural depictions of salamanders#Requested move 5 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Thor

Thor has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]