Knowledge talk:WikiProject Religion/Archive 6

508:

Gill, (mentioned on your 'Naamah,' page,) suggests that she is the wife of Ham, and in this he seems correct, for by being a descendant of Cain, and therefore carrying the curse stated at Gen.4:11-12, she would carry the hereditry characteristics of Cain's wickedness. Most Bible commentators are of the opinion that Cain's line ended with the global Flood of Noah's day, however a study of the four sons of Ham, reveals a distinct rebellious, and violent streak, namely, (a)'Cush,' Ham's first son, gives birth to Nimrod an opposer of God and builder of the tower of Babel in Gen.11:4. (b)'Mizraim,' the second son, was the founder of the first World Power, Egypt. (c)'Put,' third son of Ham, was the progenitor of the Libyans, Moors,and the Berebers, of the Barbary Coast, (where the name Barbarians originates.) (d)'Canaan,' fourth son, was cursed by Noah, in Gen9:25-27, and whose descendants settled in the Promised Land, prior to Abraham's perusal by God in Gen.12:5,6. This indicates, that, rather than the line of Cain being destroyed at the Flood, the wicked trait was actually carried through the Floodwaters by Ham's wife, Naamah. To support this, one only has to look at Joshua15:41, which names one of the townships assigned by lot to Judah as Naamah, in the distribution of the land of Caanan to the Nation of Israel. This township, was obviously named under Caananite possession, as a commemorative title honouring the mother of the Caananites, Naamah herself. Additional support is given in Job2:11, which defines one of the three comforters as being 'Zophar the Naamathite.' This understanding, now gives reason for Naamah being mentioned in Gen.4:22, not as an afterthought, but rather as a clue to the trait of wickedness being carried through the Flood waters, on the Ark itself, and subsequently to flourish in the post flood world, and so apparent in present world conditions!

1242:(edit conflict) Student7, I think you might be getting some of the ideas involved wrong. The idea would be the group would be not "called in" (necessarily). If ArbCom rules a topic is controversial to the degree that they place restrictions on editing, that might be one time they might be "called in", if the subject is that contentious. And there would be no prior agreement among participants, that I necessarily know of, anyway, other than perhaps that any of those that might involve themselves in a particular subject be able to be neutral to the greatest degree possible. Certainly, no one can agree until all the evidence is seen. This would be more like an attempt to get people together to find out everything they can about a subject, preferably based on reliable sources, and then use that information they discover, as neutrally as possible, to develop the articles. In some of the case above, like maybe clerical sex abuse charges, for instance, there might be a lot of not particularly reliable sensationalist media reporting used as references, when more reliable evidence (statements of parties involved, court evidence where it exists, that sort of thing) might be "pushed" by POV pushers to the side. Or like in Islamic terrorism, where there might be a tendency of some media to paint with a broader brush than the circumstances merit at times. So there wouldn't necessarily be any sort of "agreement" between those involved, other than, maybe, that they will do their best 2451:. Actually Ehrman and Jesus Seminar members are often the most heavily cited sources. Any scholars who deviate from this view are labeled "fringe" and their views dismissed. Most scholars actually deviate from what is defined by certain editors as "mainstream", but this nice little definition allows the majority to be dismissed as "fringe". Evidence that these people represent the "mainstream" is never given, editors just demand that one accepts it because "that's what everyone knows". With this, direct quoted evidence that they don't represent the mainstream is dismissed and never taken seriously. If they make claims that are well cited, these claims are deleted outright for no reason other than they don't fit in with this artificially defined universe of what is "mainstream". Knowledge is ruled by what the majority of editors on a given article think about a topic, not what the "correct" or "mainstream" view is. These edits don't represent the "mainstream" view, but a heavily skewed POV. As such, these articles are badly biased on certain points, especially authorship. 1168:

a group of editors who would be willing to work on the topics which are controversial. There are a lot of articles relating to religion, whether scandals associated with religion, controversial beliefs, sometimes controversial practices, and in some cases just some groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses about which there seems to be a bias toward negative outside comments, with little positive internal comment existing. Some topics, like Satanism, Scientology, some of the other NRMS, and others, are even entirely under existing arbitration rulings. Improving these articles, and finding objective editors willing to work on them, can be difficult, as a lot of us know. I acknowledge my own weakness in a lot of this material, but I would be willing to help gather some of the materials to be used as reference. And, of course, if other subprojects become inactive, or if problems regarding certain topics are (temporarily, at least) resolved, this could be used as a merger subproject which could help ensure that the articles don't get degraded. Anyone interested?

2344:), as well as on my own to-do list. Many articles deal with Roman deities who have no known "mythology" (if by "mythology" we mean a system of narratives represented in literature and art) but who appear only in the context of cult, ritual, and prayer; these are often misleadingly identified with the phrase "in Roman mythology" instead of "in ancient Roman religion", and I correct these labels when I find them. For Roman deities who were Hellenized, the phrase is generally "in ] and ]" — for gods such as Jupiter, who had native Roman and Italic cults and played a major role in state religion but who absorbed narratives (and some practices) pertaining to Zeus that were primarily literary, poetic, artistic, and "mythological". Other main articles pertaining to ancient Roman religion are 1195:

references. Some references for religious subjects are indeed cited by scholarship, but do not always come up in a cursory search of Google Scholar or other online databases. So that sometimes gives the impression that there are no, or fewer, reliable sources than is the case. A pool of editors with access to references on religious subjects would be very welcome! So, that's a long-winded way of saying that I think it is an idea that has real potential. I'm not sure how much help I could be, but I'd sign on. Hopefully many others would also, since it will live or die by the level of participation.

2837:

given the variations between faiths) that might help some of them. Also, personally, I think such articles are, basically, encyclopedic overviews. As such, it would be I think reasonable to have them in general, as much as possible, follow the basic structure and weight of the "average" similar articles elsewhere. If we could establish that as a basic unofficial guideline, that might reduce the amount of time and effort given to the endless arguments which exist regarding some of them, and hopefully increase the amount of time that can be spent elsewhere by those editors.

1187:, and other destructive editing. This is frustrating and makes it wearying or impossible to maintain, let alone improve, some articles. My impression is that RFCs currently attract few comments, and thus do little to resolve disputes when it comes to religious-themed articles. A task force would be valuable if it could be called on to send several editors to comment and achieve consensus in articles where the active editors are at an impasse. The ability to follow-up on editors who refuse to get the point might also help discourage these endless arguments. 1426:. The question is whether or not each denomination should have there own article for religious figures, for Catholics, protestants, Lutherans, Anglicans, Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians and so forth. And if Mary receives this, then surely Jesus, God and Moses, to name a few, will follow. If you would direct your attention there and comment as to whether or not the article should be merged or if each denominational branch should be allowed to receive there own article, it would be much appreciated. 3243: 3941:{{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }} 2804:

and relevant to particular religions. Another might be to maybe get a little more attention, and hopefully neutral attention, to problems and articles relating to religion or religions which haven't gotten much attention lately. And the list goes on. I don't think the group would preclude existence of meetings for Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, NRMs, or other faiths - in fact, I would welcome seeing the main discussion also serve as a springboard/base for such discussions.

31: 725:

formed a pact to keep criticism out of the article, because, apparently, several attempts have been made to add criticism; all have been removed with little discussion. I've waited a few weeks now for a reply to my post about the issue, and the many users who have edited the page in that time have not bothered to write me back. I think we need to come to a consensus that can be standardized style for Knowledge. If there isn't already standard policy for this topic. --

1973:, the Sant Mat subheading seems to have been removed. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the book itself, so I can't know exactly what group heading the Prem Rawat based groups are included under. And, for what it might be worth, I have only seen those editors who have commented here indicating there is no dispute, not necessarily all involved editors. But, given the apparent reclassification, I agree that that specific proposed change might not be supported. 2443:, some editors are pushing a POV. They define a set universe of "mainstream scholarship" and used that to define what the "scholarly consensus" is. No evidence is ever given that this is what the "mainstream" is, it is just assumed and requests for evidence are ignored. Not only that, but this fake-mainstream is even often described as the "consensus". This universe just so happens to include and be personified by skeptics and atheists like 2721:: I agree that this could be useful, especially if a list of discussion topics could be in place (new sources, articles needing attention, new directions, ways to move beyond edit warring, etc.). I'm not certain that the first of the year would be best, as many people are recovering from holidays. Perhaps the end of January would work better. Regardless, a forum for sharing ideas and developments would be welcome. 1846:

difficult, if not impossible. Prem Rawat, a/k/a Guru Maharaj Ji, now Prem Rawat/Maharaji, has also been described as a cult leader in scholarly literature. Additionally, Prem Rawat is not a notable person in today's world. He was briefly famous in Europe and the United States when he was known as Guru Maharaji in the early to late 1970s when he was a teenager. Now he is virtually unknown to the general public.

763:. I did post on one of the Catholicism-related talk page that I would be for a section of each religion page concerning controversy or criticism against a given religion. However "Criticism of..." titles could be mistaken as articles actually criticising the religions, which is obviously not the case. One thought of mine is that such articles could be moved to "Controversy of ". It's just a thought, though. 1766:. Refining (and hopefully simplifying) the way things are organized is good. Chaos does not make for a useful encyclopedia and is intimidating to potential contributors. I would also support a group to deal with contentious articles on religion, provided that its guidelines were clearly stated, i.e., how Knowledge Policies apply to disputes in articles falling into Religion categories. 2481:? English is not the first language of the articles' creator, and he has asked for help on what appear to be good-faith articles. I've tried copyediting a bit, but it's difficult to tell which of the claims the articles make of references pointing to the arrival of Muhammad and Ali in the Bible are mainstream Shi'a theology as he claims, and which are original research per 4057:, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. 745:

like. How do articles that describe racist attitudes and opinions deal with this issue? Would we even bother making argumentative counter points to accusations if they are notable, or do we portray such generalizations as false? The latter seems to go against the spirit of Knowledge, but the former seems like it could spark legal problems or needlessly offend people. --

2101:

those articles are, as it were, the "core" subjects of religion. Granted, a lot of them may have little impact beyond their own immediate area, but even then I think that a reasonable case could be made, and probably is made in those articles, that later religious developments in those regions are influenced by the earlier traditions there. Of those articles,

2696:, which is the main article on that religion. That could definitely bear improvement. And, of course, there are a few articles and topics which are the topic of seemingly unending argument and discussion, with much of that discussion being less than productive. Maybe finding some ways to, maybe, temporarily resolve those discussions might be of benefit. 1387:

apart from anything else, much too short to be anything but "start" for a subject this size, and, as people are constantly complaining, many important aspects of the church are simply not mentioned. I'm happy to see what others think, especially those not involved in recent editing, but a start rating seems inevitable at present. Please comment at

2352:, the latter of which is under construction with the hope of producing something more meaningful than and in addition to an alphabetical list. If you have suggestions on the Greece and Rome articles and how they address scholarly questions from the perspective of religion (as distinguished from classical studies), you could leave a note at 1681:

a place where editors who are dealing with articles which have a history of contentiousness to find editors who have not been involved in the previous disputes and perhaps more quickly and expeditiously resolve the problems, many of which are very likely going to be related to the placement of the ArbCom restrictions. Anyway, any opinions?

1737:, which already has a separate dedicated work group, but the other religions of Japan. This was being proposed, basically, like I said, to make it a bit easier to organize all the relevant material into a dedicated group, and the topics were chosen by what are counted as being the "main articles" on the subjects as per the 1292: 2533:. I am posting here to invite comment on the article or the nomination, or editing contributions. I have posted a similar notice at the Psychology WikiProject and the LGBT Studies WikiProject, and am willing to notify any other projects that might have contributions to make. I don't mean to violate 2985:

There is an ongoing discussion that needs expert input. There are editors claiming that historians of religion, unless employed by a department of history specifically, are not really "historians". The same is true, evidently, regarding ancient historians, who again, are do not have appointments in

2803:

Developing articles which pertain to all religions would certainly be part of it. Another part of it might relate to certain beliefs and projects which haven't gotten much attention lately. Another might be about finding out what new encyclopedias and overviews of various religions might be available

2282:

Particularly taking into account that, like I said, the regional variations on many religions are often influenced by the earlier religions in those areas, we probably need to do a bit of work on each of these. I will try to do so myself, as time permits, but would appreciate any assistance with them

1950:

You see, the point...and it is an important point...is that there is no dispute between involved editors. These articles are among the most stable on Knowledge. Based on all sources, we agree that facile characterisations of the work of Prem Rawat and his brother, whether pro or con, are unjustified.

1190:

On the other hand, any task force is going to have to have some response to those who contend—and they will—that the task force itself is dedicated to pushing a particular PoV, rather than Wiki policies. So some pre-packaged answers, and a policy for involved editors who are members of the task force

710:

If there are good references for all sides of a controversy, I don't see how it would violate policy. However, it might better be spun off into a sub-article, especially in an article as long as Catholicism. "Controversy"—whether in a section within an article, or in a sub-article—takes a lot of work

365:

need serious revision. I've already cut out a lot of redundant cut-and-paste material, and what is left looks like two halves of a set of notes for an early draft for an essay, rather than an encyclopedia article. I suggest that they first need to be merged, and then extensively revised, to create a

2785:

The problem is that a number of religions see "antiunicameralism" differently, picking away at wording so it could be a real challenge coming up with common subarticles. Might create more arguments than it solves. And we may be duplicating what ecumenical groups are attempting to solve as we speak -

2699:

I was wondering if there would be any interest, maybe around the first of the year, to hold some sort of meeting on some page or other around here, where we could discuss new sources on religious topics, any concerns some of us might have regarding some articles or topics we think would benefit from

1901:

has used the term "related topics" twice in his clarification. This would be one of the biggest problems...getting agreement on what topics might be considered related. Sources disagree on Prem Rawat's philosophical lineage, and Sant Mat is a blanket term, something like Protestantism. To add to the

1680:

I would also like to suggest, if this is agreeable to all, the possibility of a group whose specific purpose is to deal with religious topics which have been placed under Arbitration Committee sanctions. This would probably function less like a group in some ways than the others, but perhaps be more

1194:

Sources are another problem. Attacking references and insisting on undue weight being given to fringe authors seems to have become a popular way to push PoV the last few years. Not all books on religion are widely available, and I'm not sure that the current RS boards are equiped to handle Religious

1167:

has been kind of dead lately, but think that maybe having a specific group of editors who would be actually interested in weighing in on articles related to religious controversies, whether the religion itself is the controversial aspect or some part of it is. So, in effect, if we could get together

996:

The Catholicism page certainly doesn't link to or mention any of those criticisms. I don't see why these articles are floating around by themselves, and not linked to their main article. Having an article on the Crusades and Inquisition is not a criticism of the Catholic church in and of itself, its

138:

The three lists called TC's in the OT or in popular conception have been listed side-by-side, stably, for a year and a half. There's now an edit war pushing to delete one of them, which has its own article. IMO, the main article should cover all points of view; if some editors want to cover only the

3610:

No there isn't. You will need to work with the existing article like normal. I have redirected the one you created. If you want to get the material back click on an older version, like the last one you edited, and copy it from there. Do not revert the redirect, however, as it is the right thing

2836:

Two particular points I might like to see such address would be as follows. (1) There seems to be a dearth of FAs among the main articles on each religion, either the faith in general or denominations. If we could establish some sort of general outline (even if it isn't clearly followed that often,

2100:

I acknowledge the repetition, which actually arose because I thought the latter statement would be put better earlier, but there is very clear evidence that a lot of what some of the most reliable sources in the subject of religion is at best poorly represented here. The source cited indicates that

1499:

over how the article should word certain issues. Some editors want the word "proclaimed" to be added to the first sentence of the article to describe it as the "proclaimed capital" of Israel as the international community does not recognise it as the capital of Israel, others disagree and think the

1445:

is a POV content fork that focuses almost exclusively on the veneration of Mary by Catholics and purports to show that Mary and images of Mary are worshipped. This is entirely against Catholic doctrine. The content as a whole is redundant of multiple articles. Nearly all of it can be deleted and

1227:

I don't think any taskforce should "agree" on any PoV, other than to uphold Wiki policies. My only point was that this is a charge that will be raised by PoV-pushers, and that the emphasis on Wiki policies should be made very clear on the task force's pages. I also was suggesting that the charge of

967:

Another problem with negative forked articles (less so with positive ones) is when you have forked something to save space, a new "summary" in the main article becomes the editorial choice of some editors who don't like the subject of the article. The fork becomes semi-ignored, size again becomes a

2913:

Hello y'all! (back from vacation?) I read the guideline by John. Looks great! And I would like to start off the page for Buddhism. Please make the skeleton so I can try (just try for your collective approval). I have the full text of Tripitaka that could be converted into readable and typable Pali

2840:

And, yeah, maybe if we could establish some sort of rough "barter" system for development (I work on your Sikhism article if you agree to help on my Voodoo article, for instance), might both help increase the number of editors who are, more or less, neutral about the subject of that given article,

2067:

classifies as its most basic religious articles. Some of them are currently redlinks, and others are redirects to other articles. So, for a lot of material about what one of the most reliable sources out there considers the basic religious content, we have fairly weak content for a lot of the most

1805:

seems simplistic and unfair. The "tradition" appears to not exist. Sources for his brother are rare, but a comparison between Prem Rawat's speeches and Satpal's show very few similarities. His brother speaks from an entirely Indian cultural perspective, while Prem Rawat uses current, international

1208:

I work on some religious articles and would feel intimidated by a "task force" which has agreed on some pov. (already mentioned above). Bad enough to have to argue with one person on a pov; impossible to argue with several who have "previously agreed". This might seem like "soliciting" if the task

1018:

If you are in favor of not including criticism sections in articles, I find that acceptable to an extent. But there should not be bias; fervently not allowing criticism sections on one article, and then adding criticism to another, or vice versa. Has any work been done on this at all? Have we even

724:

Do you think a main article should link to its related controversy/criticism article? I'm pretty sure there's already a Catholicism criticism article, but the main article never links to it or makes mention that the Catholic Church has been criticised. I'm concerned that the article's editors have

3013:

Comment posted, for better or worse. If third-party references describe an author as "a historian" and/or cite their work, then they can be described as "a historian" here. No amount of wrangling citing only personal opinion to synthesize a more restrictive definition is going trump policy, which

1823:

Prem Rawat had some notability as a teenage guru in the 70s, but since the 80s there are very few reliable sources on him, and most of those focus on his initial fame in the 70s. Satpal Rawat is notable within the Indian political sphere, but not otherwise. If Sant Mat warrants its own project,

1668:

This is being suggested for the purpose of making it easier for individuals interested in the topics to be better able to keep track of all the related material, and to also make it easier to develop the content. The expansions are all based, for what it might be worth, on the organization of the

1504:

but retained), and several compromises have also been suggested. The issue has now also spread to other matters, with some editors wanting it to say "proclaimed flag", "proclaimed mayor" , "proclaimed coat of arms" etc, to also highlight the fact the international community does not recognise the

2917:

Tripitaka (Sanskrit: tri = three; pitaka = wicker basket) is about 1100(?) books that were written 92BC in Lanka in Buddha's language Magadhi, categorized into 3 groups, rules for monks (vinaya), general reading (sutta) and deeper concepts (abhi-dhamma). That is believed to be the entire gospel.

1845:

because that is how it is described in the scholarly literature, not strictly as Sant Mat. It is also described in scholarly articles as having similarities to the Radhasoami, Advait Mat, and other Indian traditions, so to pigeon hole this group into one Indian religious tradition would be quite

1386:

to "Start" class for its projects. I have said before there that "B" was probably untenable in the current state of the article, and seeing what has become of the lead section recently this is now clearly the case. Apart from the history and doctrine sections, the other parts of the article are,

744:

suggests that calling an article "Criticism of" is biased. This should, then, apply to sections, but it would make things more difficult. I have concerns about criticism articles being used to launch generalized personal attacks such as "it has been suggest that are often violent people" or the

545:

I think people here should have been notified about this RfC. The underlying issue: if we know the religion of a book or article on religion, can we infer from that that the person is expressing the "POV" of his or her own religion? My answer is of course sometimes but not always and we cannot

507:

In the Cainitic line related in Genesis 4:17-24, Naamah is the daughter of Cainitic Lamech, and sister of Tubal Cain, mentioned at Gen 4:22. Most Bible commentators are puzzled at her inclusion in these verses as she does not appear in other accounts. The 16th century theological historian, John

1778:

I have knowledge of the Prem Rawat project, which I helped create. After it was started I realized that it would contain the article for Rawat's brother, who teaches in the same Sant Mat tradition but who has been estranged for 35 years. It also contains the biography of his father. There are a

3077:

The article is obviously written with a particular point of view in mind. It is filled with original research. It needs to attention of a few savvy editors with good sources. Due to the current POV and structure, it may be necessary to rewrite entire chunks and make some drastic changes to the

1581:

Sounds like a good idea. Could you propose a merger? (Request for merge). Editors will need to vote on this. Let us know when the voting has started. I assume the other articles need to be moved to "Mary (mother of Jesus)" as a recognizable generic, non-controversial title. Having said that, I

2855:

An outline that could be put into an essay/guideline is a great idea. For some articles I have read, it has occurred to me that the editors may have veered off track and lost sight of the kinds of information a reader would want to have available. Producing something to provide guidelines for

2688:

There are a lot of issues relating to religion which cross denominational or faith guidelines, as well as a lot of stories and developments that do. It is sometimes hard to get together editors to determine how much, if any, content regarding these issues should be added to articles, or which

1931:

which is considered one of the better standard sources for a the discussion of religions that exist in the Americas. Granted, it doesn't have much to say about groups which aren't particularly notable within the Americas, and that is a problem, but not an insurmountable one. Also, there is no

4052:

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at

1800:

The main Prem Rawat article has been stable except for small tweaks for upward of two years now, and the stated aim of the Project "to create a more hospitable editing environment" seems pretty much redundant. Does it need expanding? Also the idea of connecting Prem Rawat with "the Sant Mat

2869:. I figure to wait for moving it into (probably) wikipedia space as an essay until the week after next, when some people will start returning from vacation, and probably file an RfC on any proposed changes additions at that time, although any input is clearly welcome before then as well. 690:

I don't care which way it goes, but we should do one thing or the other. If it is a rule that the Catholic Church can not be criticised, then no religion, religious group, or organisation should be criticised. If the criticism section for one article is kept, then well known and pointful

2525:. The article contains essentially no information on the scientific / medical views of attempts to alter an individual's sexual orientation / identity, and I consider it unbalanced and (at present) unencyclopedic. It has recently been nominated to appear on the main page under the 3456:

What I take from this comparison of relative term frequency percents to relative global movement percents, is that Christianity still appears to be over-represented in the article, based on its global prevalence. While the table confirmed the wordle, it sure was faster, easier,

1951:

It almost seems now that a Wiki-industry exists, bent on counselling editors and resolving issues, whether they exist or not. To just pick one source (like Melton) and ignore the years-long discussions that have revolved around these issues is, as we say in Knowledge, unhelpful.

1312:

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as

2730:

I was originally thinking, maybe, having it run over two months, the first to gather information on sources, proposals, concerns, etc., and the second to discuss strategy and implementation. Having said that, if a delay would be preferable, I would have no objections.

1868:—it already exists. Unless I'm mistaken, all that was being asked is whether related topics might be given a home there. Whether the Prem Rawat subproject should be deleted and its associated articles be merged into NRM or some other project should be discussed on its 2614:

is about as far removed from our NPOV policy as it is possible to get. One thing you'll learn quickly on wikipedia is that not everybody else in the world shares your point of view, especially on religion; that's why we strive to be as strictly neutral as possible.

2914:(means rows in Sanskrit), which I'd like to put up here with each word's meaning popping up as a tool tip (achieved by using the 'title' tag in HTML for each word.) That would allow any reader to try and figure out what a statement means, and write the translation. 1779:

number of Sant Mat articles with no project. Broadening the scope of that project is logical on several levels. I am not as familiar with the other topics, but I think it'd be beneficial to extend projects to cover existing articles in closely related fields.

3740:

Any particular pointers on how to round out coverage/reaction to "new" religions? What angles are appropriate? Specific information to look for? Are there any articles you can suggest about comparably new-ish belief systems that are at B, GA, or even FA

1703:(which seems to be what you are proposing). There is a fair amount of Japanese mythology which has nothing to do with Shinto. Also, I don't know that this project can just hand down an edict telling other projects that their scope has been altered. ··· 2786:

a common language. But why not try? My thought is to confine discussions within a specific religion, such as "Christianity" (or maybe something simpler! :) and not try to extend general topics to other religions unless it cries out for linkage.

1936:, probably the most successful project out there, allows for specific articles to fall within the scope of multiple related groups, and I don't see any reason why we wouldn't at least potentially be able to do the same if there is cause for it. 1872:. I don't see how the proposal affects placing related subjects into the project that we now have—if the existing subproject is renamed or if it is deleted/redirected to NRM (or whatever), then its associated content can move along with it. 1295:. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at 854:. These are just obvious ones. I'm sure many of the minor Christian groups, Buddhist Groups, subgroups, Hindu groups, etc, etc, etc have criticism pages in the main article. Some very major ones that do not include criticism sections are: 1228:

lobbying might be addressed if, when the task force is called on, interested editors who are also task force members abstain from voting on the issue at hand (though of course they should be able to comment). Long-time editors who

2700:

additional input, how to, maybe, get some of the other main articles up to FA, and any other issues that might arise. Then, maybe, if there is interest, we might be able to come up with a few plans to address these concerns.

3717:

is an obscure article about a niche religion (or "religion"). There are only a tiny handful of eyeballs on the article, and I'd appreciate some input on a couple of facets from editors experienced with this type of subject:

2781:

This is a bright idea. This could be used (as I understand it) to extract similar descriptions on a topic in multiple articles and put them into a single article which is then considered a "fork" from all those higher level

1582:

suspect that "Mariology" is a distinct topic, separate from a mere biography. They may cross link or even "fork" from each other, perhaps, but this would be pro forma. Can't really lump a bio with a spiritual topic, per se.

711:

to present a balanced representation of the published sources, as well as to maintain against edit warriors, and that might be the real (and understandable) reason other editors are wary of adding that type of material.

1212:

Or wording it another way, won't the task force be "summoned" when someone has lost an argument and wants to start it up again. In other words, mighten a task force be used to prolong arguments rather than allay them?

1209:

force's attention were called to a particular problem in an article. I suggest that normal channels be used for disagreements. They often work, though it is sometimes painful and takes time. At least it seems unbiased.

1902:

problem, many of what were once called Sant Mat concepts have become a part of mainstream Hinduism, and others are common to Buddhism, Jainism and other modern Eastern religions, educational systems and artforms. The

3300:

Hi Borock. I agree Christianity is the most "prevalent" religion, but I still was surprised by the relative prominence of the "Christianity"/"Christian" terms in the wordle. For the fun of it, I did a more boring

2389: 154:

Actually, there are only two sets of lists that are commonly called the "Ten Commandments". The Ritual Decalogue is commonly called the "Ritual Decalogue", which is why Talk: page consensus has always been that the

1232:

and keep arguments going is the situation we have now in many articles (major and minor). For some of those articles that lack much participation, this is a roadblock to improving (or restoring) article quality.

739:

I'd like to suggest we compile religion articles which have criticism sections and those that don't. Judge whether their inclusions or exclusions are fitting and whether they can be integrated into the articles.

3464:

So descriptively, the table and the wordle do show a relative imbalance in movement coverage. However, the editorial questions still remain. Should anything be done about the coverage imbalance? If so, what?

654:, however, in the interim I will not revert the user's edit another time. Perhaps other users would like to see if the word "cult" should remain in the article in the intervening time, to refer to Scientology. 694:

Some have stated that "controversies should be worked into the rest of the article". Perhaps. But the Catholicism article says nothing about child molestation, child abuse, gay marriage, war support, etc.

1865: 163:

article deals with what is commonly known as the "Ritual Decalogue". Of course, the Ten Commandments article does make reference to the Ritual Decalogue article, and no-one is suggesting it shouldn't.

1920:

Actually, I'm not sure that the apparent dispute betwen the above editors is that soundly based. The proposed restructuring was based on the way that all the religions mentioned are "categorized" in

1267: 571: 1824:

then more notable proponents, if they exist, should be used, rather than the Rawat brothers. If Sant Mat does not have more notable proponents, then it doesn't warrant its own Knowledge project. --

687:

include a criticism section. Other articles about religions, religious groups, and religious organisations have criticism pages, why are the well known controversies of the Catholic church absent?

3109: 1332: 130: 2932: 2084:

So, for a lot of material about what one of the most reliable sources out there considers the basic religious content, we have fairly weak content for a lot of the most basic religious content.

2068:

basic religious content. If anyone would be interested in developing those basic articles, or creating them if they don't exist, the quality of our content would probably benefit dramatically.

1092: 3890:...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place 3269:

article looks quite heavy on the sublect of Christianity to me. If so, is that intentional? As it should be? Does a visual aid like this help discussions about balance? What do you think?

3170: 4033:. Please feel free to add to the page, or make comments about what is already there. I figure to send it out into wikipedia space around the first of the month, for, I hope, broader input. 3098: 2290:

and hope to get some response shortly. I think maybe, for some of these, the best alternative might be something like "Arctic religion and mythology", but would welcome any other opinions.

347: 148: 2950: 2666: 1482: 1987:

Regarding notability. The comments made about Rawat's notability (or lack thereof) are based on the Biography of Living Persons definition for people who are "relatively unknown." See

392: 375: 4030: 2866: 1883:

The only reason the Rawat articles were placed into Wikiproject was because of the extreme contentiousness of all the articles. I would vote to remove it from Wikiproject altogether.

1607:

I am posting this here for the purposes of basically centralized discussion, although I am linking to this discussion on the talk pages of all the projects and groups being discussed.

197: 3770:

but i doubt unless there is formal offline movement some where that attracts scholarly attention it will ever improve much. My primarily interest is "new religions" so i have watched

2035: 1149: 257: 3647:

and several other religions that used the title divine (sort of like elder I think). I'd start a stub for a common article for this use but don't know what to call it. Would it be

3092: 2468: 1505:

status of Jerusalem. This matter could have implications for other articles if changes are made and a similar pattern followed. So input from other editors would be helpful. Thanks

173: 2506: 2264: 2260: 1130: 124: 4147: 4103: 616: 105: 3007: 2994:

of ancient Christianity, but apparently I'm wrong because she is a "historian of religion" without an appointment in a department of history. Any input would be helpful. See

1587:

May not be that easy. Perhaps with a bio,separately, then another topic, "Views on Mary (mother of Jesus)." Not quite sure about new/merged topics. Like the basic idea though.

4125: 2692:

Also, there are, honestly, a lot of religious topics and Knowledge groups which would benefit from the input of additional editors. Also, right now anyway, I see only one FA,

1690: 669: 362: 358: 352: 348: 324: 3597: 3583: 2980: 2850: 2831: 1965:

Actually, one thing I see from the above is that there are a lot of statements of less than substantive support, like saying he is no longer notable, which seems contrary to

3530: 1906:

is widely accepted in India, in a secular as well as a religious sense. So pointing up this connection isn't really helpful to anyone looking for information on Prem Rawat.

1183:

I agree that this might be useful. In particular, I've seen editors trying to adhere to Wiki policies who have been driven off by people dedicated to constant PoV pushing,

3968: 2961: 1164: 786: 2639: 928:. My guess is that Catholicism has more negative pages on it than all other religions put together. Lots of enemies. I wouldn't be surprised if some of it is repetitve. 380: 3787: 2224: 2049: 2624: 1932:

necessary intention of limiting any articles to only one related group/project, if there is evidence that those articles do fall within the scope of multiple groups.

2651: 1465: 1459: 1083: 776: 3766:, with most of the community actions online in forums and such. I initiated a deletion discussion way back when i was a new here. It has enough scant refs to meet 3541: 1575: 1028: 977: 2975: 2923: 2906: 1833: 1792: 1602: 891: 754: 734: 715: 3147:

is not developing well and has become considerably less encyclopedic than most of the other criticism sections. It could use some academic attention IMO. Thanks.

704: 216: 3945:

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed.

3850: 3620: 2020: 2000: 1855: 1596: 1352: 525: 497: 2813: 2798: 2537:

and I would welcome any contributions from any editor, irrespective of whether their views on the article or the nomination are in agreement with mine or not.

2365: 1750: 1728: 1087: 342: 3992: 3722:

Any notions of good real-world sources for the subject? Google Scholar rapidly runs into returning hits for individual chapter/church web sites, which seem !=

2878: 2860: 2740: 2725: 2299: 2216: 2095: 1982: 1960: 1945: 1892: 1815: 1770: 1277: 1255: 1199: 4019: 1366: 948: 459: 3018: 2776: 2762: 1915: 1876: 833: 167: 2324:. What is it you're proposing? I'm only thoroughly familiar with the last of the three, glancingly with the first two, but I assure you that the article on 1237: 1222: 293:

and added a religion project template on the talk page. If that's a problem, just take it down, but I thought it in the scope of your project. Thanks!...

4086: 3518: 3294: 3193: 2353: 2250: 1400: 3461:

funner to make the wordle than to make the table. Also, if it weren't for the wordle, I wouldn't have noticed the imbalance or bother to make the table.

2286:

There is also, I think, a bit of a question about how to differentiate between "religion" and "mythology". I am leaving a note regarding this question at

1061:

in his book. In addition, there is also the issue that the Roman Catholic Church, despite that it may have not condoned it, certainly did not act against

2955: 2588: 2077: 611: 3492: 3182: 2240: 521: 3733:

for religion-associated articles? There's been a lot of back-and-forth at this article and on the talk page re. appropriate scope, but exhaustion and

3232: 2268: 2256: 2200: 1451: 1053:

Another issue that can be added to the newly proposed article section is the "Roman Catholic Church's involvement in organised crime". This has been

478: 278: 3568: 2417: 2356:, where a core of dedicated editors is likely to respond. I admire your diligence in approaching coverage of this area as a whole, and best wishes, 585: 4098: 3763: 3648: 3644: 2630: 1696: 1658: 3806:

where a slow editor war has been brewing over the lead. The discussion on the talk page seems deadlocked between the same three editors. Cheers.

3285:

Looks cool to me. On the other hand Christianity is the most common religion in the English speaking world so naturally it is the most "notable."

1177: 3754: 3087: 2927: 2767:

On wikipedia, maybe on one dedicated page for the purpose, which might expand to multiple pages depending on the amount and variety of comments.

851: 397: 4042: 3134: 2910: 2546: 2490: 1337: 307: 302: 97: 3845: 3156: 2712: 3815: 2463: 785:, which contains a section summarizing various controversies, plus 2 sub-articles which go into extensive detail. There are also articles on 481:. The article is about the theory that Jesus of Nazareth did not, or probably did not, exist as an historical being. Should it be moved from 430: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 3660: 3481: 3278: 1519: 1514: 4054: 2753:

Just so I understand this accurately, are you guys talking about having this discussion on Knowledge or having like a meet up in person?

464: 442: 566: 3559:, but I don't want to lose the material that I wrote, which is useful to the article since it is references missing from the article. 1435: 227:

reasoning. This debate has a history (on the talk page); my role has simply been to try and get things on-track, to form a consensus.

4029:

Well, it looks like we might actually get around to having the meeting discussed above on this page. The first draft can be found at

3048: 3043: 3014:

demands we rely on sources. I'm sure editors are aware of this, but it doesn't hurt to state, and restate, until the point is taken.

2116: 2060: 533: 261:, to clarify; quite a simple suggestion, and it could really do with more input, if anyone can contribute to the discussion, thanks, 4130: 3997: 3052: 2678: 1371: 554: 2328:

is well-developed, well-sourced, and makes careful distinctions between "mythology" and "religion." You might want to look at it.

250: 3775: 3205: 3120: 2384:

a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for

674: 600: 3504: 3035: 2393: 1926: 3973: 3161: 2530: 1869: 3588:

Is there some way to simply automatically combine the articles, by some algorithm or process, so all is in the right place?

2689:

articles it should be added to, or whether some separate multi-religious article should be created for the idea as a whole.

4089:

is a nearly completely orphaned article, i.e. it lacks a reasonable number of other articles that link to it. Work on it!

2551: 2312:

I don't see that you've gotten much response to this more than a month later. I'm somewhat unclear about your inclusion of

1648: 1529: 1442: 1427: 1423: 1415: 1273: 559: 2567:

seems to be a fairly significant concept that could be helpful to readers of the encyclopedia. WP does have articles on

2375: 1079: 451:

Since there is at least one editor arguing against the move, it would be good to get more input on this proposed move at

47: 17: 512: 3524: 3210: 2919: 2902: 2401: 2345: 2158: 2054: 1528:

has shown some messy article making. There are apparantly several similar and overlapping articles that exist, such as

590: 1969:. Having said that, I do note that in the most recent edition of Melton's book, whose table of contents can be found 1614: 644: 639: 529: 112: 4047: 3265:" and thought they could be an interesting tool to help review the balance in Knowledge articles. For example, the 4007: 3783: 3703: 3665: 3579: 3537: 3105: 3057: 2827: 1624: 1621:, most of which is directly related to some degree with the subject of King Arthur and the legends surrounding him. 1478: 1100: 818: 760: 632: 2397: 1470: 3220: 3114: 2287: 2212: 2208: 1557:

Each religion or denomination should have a subarticle in the form of "<Name of religion or denomination: -->

3955: 2454:

I would like some non-involved editors to take a look at these pages and the talk pages to see what they think.

1711: 944: 3857: 3851: 3611:

to do. Like I said, work with the existing article. If you have information to add to it then great. Cheers.

3069: 2995: 2575:

which are articles that also fall halfway between a dictionary and an encyclopedia, so articles on terms like

1733:

Actually, I don't think that this would be trying to "hand down an edict", and I wasn't actually referring to

3699: 3546: 3024: 2511: 913: 284: 1803:

the Sants appear more as a diverse collection of spiritual personalities than a specific religious tradition

2819: 2337: 2150: 2108: 1634: 822: 139:

traditionalist POV, then the article should be renamed 'traditionalist account of the TCs' or some such. —

2937:

I suggest a move back, in order to avoid defining saints and djinns as "deities". Comments are welcome at

452: 444: 3779: 3684: 3575: 3533: 3101: 2823: 1500:

status quo which has existed for about 3 years should remain (something that has been debated many times

1474: 1388: 1154: 595:

Fresh eyes would be appreciated on an RfC about whether, in using in-text attribution for sources on the

4081: 4070: 3630: 3139: 3039: 2620: 2313: 1322: 1306: 1297: 683:, but several of the editors have stated that it is against Knowledge policy. Neither does the article 38: 2990:

is not a proper "historian". I was under the impression that she was one of the most renowned living

916:? "Criticism of RC church" already mentioned above.And there is about 50 articles and sub-articles on 230:

I am posting here, and on the other two project group talk pages which are listed on that pages talk.

2632: 1024: 887: 794: 782: 750: 730: 700: 3065: 207:

I request that anyone please add their support/oppose rationale to the debate regarding the lede to

4024: 3990: 3795: 3676: 2459: 2333: 2325: 2321: 2186: 2136: 1841:

The Prem Rawat series of articles would be better suited to be included in a Wiki project entitled

1610:

I would like to suggest that the scope of the following groups and projects be altered as follows:

1537: 1510: 1431: 1246:

to go against policies or guidelines and not to over- or under-emphasize one opinion over another.

917: 309: 3472:

app was a fun exercise. Do any other articles seem to be itching for their own wordle? Regards,

1284:(revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the 741: 4094: 3979: 3830: 3820: 3237: 2683: 2497:, if I'm reading his English correctly. All help and advice will be gratefully received. Thanks, 1842: 1344: 1121: 802: 3061: 414: 217:

Talk:Meditation#Suggested change to lede regarding position of The Catholic Church on meditation

4138:

I removed this project from the entry talk page. Clearly not within the scope of this project.

3251: 2674: 2154: 1903: 1563: 1543: 1533: 1525: 1501: 1447: 1411: 551: 421:

about moving this back (officially)...I think the word "Shinto" is restrictive and misleading.

194: 3302: 2086:

John, everyone is allowed a bad-syntax day occasionally, but would you care to rephrase that?

1309:. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th. 4062: 4038: 3874: 3841: 3593: 3564: 3031: 2874: 2846: 2809: 2772: 2736: 2708: 2616: 2518: 2512: 2486: 2478: 2474: 2349: 2295: 2194: 2178: 2112: 2073: 1978: 1941: 1829: 1786: 1746: 1686: 1638: 1251: 1173: 814: 810: 806: 290: 144: 1970: 4015: 2841:

which would help, and, possibly, increase the quality of articles across the board. Maybe.

2317: 2182: 2170: 1455: 1314: 1020: 932: 883: 790: 746: 726: 696: 626: 596: 517: 418: 3509: 8: 4143: 3984: 3811: 3762:

I think I been one of the principal watchers of the page. I think it trends more along a

3616: 3003: 2938: 2647: 2640:

Talk:Christianity and violence#Should article be limited to material related to violence?

2584: 2568: 2455: 2422: 2388:

and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of

2144: 1996: 1888: 1851: 1506: 1419: 770: 388: 371: 316: 3574:

That happens, I can move it into user space while we figure out what to do if you like?

2405: 759:

You said that you were "pretty sure" about there being a criticism of Catholicism page.

635:), replacing the word "Church" to refer to Scientology, instead adding the word "cult". 437: 4090: 3951: 3477: 3326: 3310: 3274: 3228: 3201: 3152: 3144: 3083: 2946: 2794: 2594:

I've asked that it be speedily deleted, as an article declaring the Holy Bible and the

2522: 2361: 2204: 2166: 2162: 1717: 1592: 1305:

and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at

1218: 973: 940: 798: 482: 474: 466: 202: 120: 434: 3884: 3864: 2670: 2534: 2502: 2428: 2232: 2220: 2174: 2091: 1956: 1933: 1911: 1811: 1662: 1652: 1618: 1569: 1490: 1396: 1379: 1329: 826: 547: 486: 405: 190: 3171:

Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 29#Category:Antitrinitarianism

1540:

and so on. We need to round these up and prevent repetitive and redundant articles.

186: 4121: 4113: 4105: 4074: 4058: 4034: 3963: 3837: 3803: 3796: 3680: 3589: 3560: 3500: 3290: 3178: 2987: 2870: 2842: 2805: 2768: 2732: 2704: 2542: 2381: 2341: 2291: 2126: 2104: 2069: 2027: 1974: 1937: 1921: 1864:

Clarification: The proposal above has nothing to do with creating a subproject for

1825: 1781: 1742: 1682: 1247: 1169: 1109: 426: 337: 298: 175: 160: 156: 140: 132: 3711: 2962:

Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.truthaboutscientology.com_usage_in_BLPs

2521:

is a new article about a 14 step program which I think falls into the category of

2332:, however, is weak, and is on the "to do" list of the dynamo editor who developed 1302: 4011: 3750: 3656: 3636: 3556: 3552: 2758: 2572: 2413: 2329: 2122: 1441:

Agree. There is no need to separate out the Catholic view of Mary. The article

1383: 1373: 1106: 1062: 1058: 684: 622: 604: 490: 401: 320: 1806:

references. Can you explain how this project expansion might help the articles?

599:, we should include whether that source is an ordained minister or similar. See 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4139: 3959: 3917: 3895: 3807: 3734: 3612: 3129: 2999: 2971: 2643: 2595: 2580: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2385: 2228: 2045: 1992: 1884: 1847: 1496: 1362: 1229: 1184: 1145: 764: 665: 581: 502: 384: 367: 271: 243: 159:

article deal primarily with what is known as the "Ten Commandments", while the

3242: 1801:

tradition" when sources used in the Knowledge Sant Mat article point out that

3947: 3767: 3486: 3473: 3270: 3224: 3197: 3187: 3163: 3148: 3079: 2942: 2790: 2662: 2607: 2598:, as well as any other book with millions of religious adherents such as the 2560: 2553: 2526: 2494: 2482: 2448: 2357: 1988: 1704: 1588: 1214: 1117: 969: 936: 179: 116: 2986:

departments of history. The dispute arose when editors began to claim that

838:

A short look at religion main articles which include have a criticism page:

233:

I would be very grateful for some help, to resolve this issue. Many thanks,

3778:

actually has the best resource for existing sources but overall its light.

3771: 3730: 3723: 3692: 3015: 2857: 2722: 2498: 2087: 1952: 1907: 1898: 1873: 1807: 1767: 1721: 1642: 1405: 1392: 1234: 1196: 859: 830: 712: 651: 456: 3937:

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

572:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Knowledge

4117: 4003: 3926: 3496: 3286: 3174: 2693: 2656: 2603: 2563:, and it could use a lot of editing. I know WP is not a dictionary, but 2538: 2444: 1966: 1450:

where there is already a heavy emphasis on Catholic views of the subject.

925: 847: 680: 540: 511:

I would be interested in your thoughts on this, Trevor Laidler. E mail;-

422: 328: 294: 3078:

current structure. Any assistance and improvement would be appreciated!

3746: 3652: 3216: 2754: 2409: 2190: 691:

controversies should be added to all religious articles at some point.

208: 164: 3640: 3125: 3099:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of deaths related to Scientology

2966: 2132: 2040: 1357: 1285: 1276:

for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were

1140: 874:. You might think these are too general for criticism, but of course 867: 660: 576: 473:

Comments would be appreciated at an RfC about the best title for the

315:

We are discussing whether the title of the article should be left at

264: 236: 2856:

resolving those endless and exhausting disputes would be wonderful.

2667:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Discordian calendar (2nd nomination)

1019:

come to an agreement now that Student7 has joined the discussion? --

3319: 3306: 3266: 3250:, with "religion"esque terms removed. Available at Wordle gallery, 3247: 1628: 921: 879: 855: 839: 3978:

There is a ongoing discussion on inclusion of this information at

2036:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jessica Rodriguez (3rd nomination)

1321:

to extend the reach of Knowledge worldwide. Please help us, with

1272:

Version 0.8 is a collection of Knowledge articles selected by the

1268:

Religion articles have been selected for the Knowledge 0.8 release

3904: 3671: 3651:? IS anyone clear about when this title or description is used? 2140: 871: 1318: 1131:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America

398: 2236: 1734: 1700: 1093:

Relevant AFD discussion page - The Most Hated Family in America

1301:

with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's

3737:

have led me to back away from that clump. Thoughts/exemplars?

3531:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/L. Ron Hubbard/archive2

2599: 2244: 997:

simply a documentation of the facts surrounding major events.

875: 863: 843: 3252:

http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/2994488/Wikipedia_-_Religion

1165:

Knowledge:WikiProject Islam/Islam and Controversy task force

787:

Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

4131:

Talk:Rosie O'Donnell#Removal of templates from Wikiprojects

3119:

There is a discussion as to the notability of clergymen at

2063:, you will first see a list of what the 2nd edition of the 1551: 1547: 3469: 3093:

Notification of List of deaths related to Scientology AFD

2469:

Help requested: Articles on Muhammad and Ali in the Bible

1113: 3259: 2661:

This AfD might be of interest since the parent article,

1278:

selected based on their assessed importance and quality

408: 1741:

to basically make organization and development easier.

1353:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The Bridge (2006 drama)

106:

Request for Comment. Antisemitism and the New testament

4112:

Could someone from this project please let us know if

3555:

but without realizing there already was an article at

2219:

seems to be primarily discusses in three paragaphs at

882:

does not have a criticism page in the main article. --

850:(has two separate criticism sections in the article), 111:

Editors are requesting outside comment on the article

2034:

Ongoing AFD deletion discussion for this article, at

1637:

be expanded to include the closely related topics of

3194:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Roy Abraham Varghese

3123:

that may be of interest to members of this project.

2354:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

2061:

Knowledge:WikiProject Religion#Potential work groups

650:

It is likely that I am going to report this user to

601:

Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#RfC_on_in-text_attribution

3825:Here is a PBS program that could be a good source: 4116:should be a part? And remove the template if not? 3493:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Counter-missionary 2227:is discussed primarily in a few paragraphs of the 1191:to recuse themselves from voting might help there. 3774:and similar journals for such coverage. I think 1673:by J. Gordon Melton or the second edition of the 1627:be expanded a bit, and maybe renamed, to include 1466:Would some one here Close and Summarize this RFC? 409:_Ryukyuan_religion-2010-08-02T07:46:00.000Z": --> 399:_Ryukyuan_religion-2010-08-02T07:46:00.000Z": --> 3802:Some more knowledgeable eyes would be useful at 2865:I've started a possible outline of structure at 2390:Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions 1697:Knowledge:WikiProject Japan/Mythology task force 1659:Knowledge:WikiProject Japan/Mythology task force 1603:Possible reorganization of some related projects 1495:There is currently a discussion taking place at 1418:into the article. To note,t here was an article 1293:Religion articles and revisionIDs we have chosen 1163:another one, right? Anyway, I have noticed that 3858:Recent changes were made to citations templates 3852:Citation templates now support more identifiers 3529:Is Currently up for Featured article review at 3305:of the four largest religious movements in the 3223:, it would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks! -- 2473:Could I have some help please, on the articles 2348:(a massive undertaking bursting with info) and 2021:AFD relevant to this project - Jessica Feshbach 852:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 781:The article which comes immediately to mind is 383:looks like it is need of similar treatment. -- 3729:What is the general consensus re. appropriate 2981:Historians of religion and 'historians proper" 2493:beginning "I have found...", which points to 1065:~, and its prosecution of Jews in its heyday. 617:Disruption at article, "Operation Snow White" 131:move to delete one of the lists of TC's from 3495:. The article is supported by this project. 3121:Knowledge talk:Notability (people)#Clergymen 4055:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting 3246:Wordle constructed from Knowledge article, 2956:www.truthaboutscientology.com usage in BLPs 2933:Moving "Tutelary deity" back to "Tutelary"? 2918:Someone give me a hand. Thanks.JC Ahangama 1695:I'm not sure how well that would work with 679:There is demand for a criticism section at 323:, or moved to something else entirely like 2203:is a redirect to a three-sentence stub on 2059:If you look at the Proposed workgroups at 1617:be expanded a bit to include the topic of 567:Church of Scientology editing on Knowledge 2119:are at B-class, and actually fairly good, 2117:Relationship between religion and science 3241: 3776:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jediism 2398:this project's listing in one big table 1291:We would like to ask you to review the 14: 3927:http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 3311:their corresponding global percentages 2820:Wikipedian Academy of Religion meeting 1927:The Encyclopedia of American Religions 1471:Talk:Judaism and violence#Rfd thoughts 1338:Relevant AFD - The Bridge (2006 drama) 1328:For the Knowledge 1.0 editorial team, 1112:that was written and presented by the 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4048:Request for input in discussion forum 3639:(actually a redirect to a section of 2427:I have noticed that on articles like 1554:be moved to [[Mary (disambiguation). 2638:Fresh eyes are needed for an RfC at 1649:Knowledge:WikiProject Zoroastrianism 1530:Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) 1520:Need help cleaning up and organizing 1443:Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) 1424:Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) 1416:Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) 1120:about the family at the core of the 25: 3514:Check out the proposed wikiproject 23: 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Religion 2996:Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#NPOV_tag 2346:Glossary of ancient Roman religion 2159:Religions of the Ancient Near East 1671:Encyclopedia of American Religions 1661:be expanded to include the native 1389:Talk:Catholic_Church#Article_class 24: 4161: 4031:User:John Carter/Religion meeting 3258:I recently started playing with " 2867:User:John Carter/Religion outline 2211:is a redirect to the Start-class 2197:are all currently at Start-class, 1615:Knowledge:WikiProject King Arthur 113:Antisemitism in the New Testament 4008:Category talk:Former theocracies 3998:Category talk:Former theocracies 1669:various religious groups in the 1625:Knowledge:WikiProject Prem Rawat 1473:It just closed yesterday. Thanx 1101:The Most Hated Family in America 819:Criticism of the Catholic Church 29: 3221:Aharon ben Ab-Chisda ben Yaacob 3215:If an editor familiar with the 2789:Anyway, basically a good idea. 2288:Knowledge:WikiProject Mythology 2213:Australian Aboriginal mythology 2209:Australian Aboriginal religions 742:Knowledge:ASSERT#Article_naming 675:Criticism and Religion Articles 289:I started cleaning up the page 4108:be a part of this Wikiproject? 3905:http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567 3309:article and compared those to 2559:I just created a stub article 2265:South American Indian religion 2261:North American Indian religion 2038:. Thank you for your time, -- 1436:16:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 1401:12:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 1367:06:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 1333:23:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC) 1256:23:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC) 1238:22:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC) 1223:22:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC) 1200:18:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC) 1178:20:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC) 1150:18:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC) 574:. Thank you for your time, -- 13: 1: 3974:Delhi Akshardham Fire in 2009 3788:23:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 3755:22:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 3661:20:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 3621:00:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 3598:00:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 3584:00:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 3569:00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 3542:18:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 3157:14:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC) 3135:15:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC) 3110:22:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 3088:03:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC) 3019:00:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC) 3008:17:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC) 2879:17:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC) 2861:10:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC) 2851:18:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC) 2832:17:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC) 2822:, Its an interesting thought 2679:09:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 2652:17:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC) 2625:18:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC) 2589:07:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC) 2547:13:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC) 2380:I have created together with 2125:is a redirect to the B-class 1422:that was already merged into 1124:(info from lede of article). 1088:09:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC) 978:11:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC) 914:List of sexually active popes 621:Please see repeated edits by 4002:If you know something about 3505:20:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC) 3482:03:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC) 3295:20:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC) 3279:19:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC) 3233:18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 3219:could look over and improve 3206:14:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 2976:04:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC) 2951:21:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC) 2814:19:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC) 2799:21:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC) 2777:18:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC) 2763:15:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC) 2741:21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC) 2726:19:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC) 2713:18:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC) 2507:10:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC) 2464:00:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC) 2418:20:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC) 2366:15:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC) 2338:Imperial cult (ancient Rome) 2300:16:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 2151:African traditional religion 2109:Proto-Indo-European religion 2096:15:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC) 2078:17:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 2050:09:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 2001:15:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC) 1983:15:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC) 1961:04:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 1946:15:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 1916:12:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 1893:18:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 1877:17:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 1856:15:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 1834:08:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 1816:14:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC) 1793:21:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 1771:18:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 1751:16:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 1729:16:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 1691:15:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 1635:Knowledge:WikiProject Taoism 1597:16:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 1576:03:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC) 1561:Could this be accomplished? 1550:, and the disambiguation at 1382:has reverted my rerating of 1138:Thank you for your time, -- 823:Controversies about Opus Dei 658:Thank you for your time, -- 560:Relevant AFD discussion page 366:single coherent article. -- 363:Sex segregation and religion 359:Religion and sex integration 353:Sex segregation and religion 349:Religion and sex integration 325:Dean (ecclesiastical office) 7: 3780:The Resident Anthropologist 3576:The Resident Anthropologist 3534:The Resident Anthropologist 3433: 3413: 3393: 3373: 3353: 3183:13:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 3102:The Resident Anthropologist 2928:20:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC) 2911:20:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC) 2824:The Resident Anthropologist 2665:is a part of this project: 2447:or the ultra-controversial 2376:WikiProject cleanup listing 1515:14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 1483:18:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 1475:The Resident Anthropologist 1460:14:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 1323:your WikiProject's feedback 1029:18:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 949:23:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 892:03:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 834:03:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 777:02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 755:01:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 735:00:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 716:21:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 705:21:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 670:23:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 612:17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC) 586:22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 555:22:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC) 223:I emphasize my request for 211:, in the following thread; 189:and comment/vote. Thanks, 10: 4166: 4148:11:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC) 4126:22:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 4099:04:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 4043:15:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC) 4020:02:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC) 3993:07:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 3908:), now you can simply use 3643:) but I keep running into 3525:L Ron Hubbard FA Candidacy 3434: 3414: 3394: 3374: 3354: 3211:Samaritan expert requested 2579:are not unprecedented. -- 2314:Religion in ancient Greece 2235:gets a paragraph or so in 2055:Weakness of basic articles 1414:about merging the article 1307:Knowledge talk:Version 0.8 1303:articles with cleanup tags 1298:Knowledge talk:Version 0.8 912:Absent? Hardly. How about 591:RfC on in-text attribution 534:15:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 498:23:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC) 460:08:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 432:07:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC) 3969:03:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC) 3846:09:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC) 3816:21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 3333: 3330: 3325: 3318: 2633:Christianity and violence 2406:the index of WikiProjects 2243:gets a few paragraphs in 1739:Encyclopedia of Religion, 1351:Relevant AFD, please see 795:Criticism of Christianity 393:12:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 381:Origin of sex segregation 376:12:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 343:17:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC) 303:10:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC) 279:15:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 251:19:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC) 198:15:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 3745:Thanks for the input. -- 3666:Input at obscure article 3510:Wikiproject Conservatism 3468:In any event, using the 2334:Religion in ancient Rome 2326:Religion in ancient Rome 2322:Religion in ancient Rome 2283:anyone sees fit to give. 2225:Southeast Asian religion 2187:Religion in Ancient Rome 2137:Native American religion 2065:Encyclopedia of Religion 1675:Encyclopedia of Religion 1538:Roman Catholic Mariology 918:Catholic sex abuse cases 570:. AFD discussion is at, 438:_Ryukyuan_religion": --> 435:_Ryukyuan_religion": --> 431:_Ryukyuan_religion": --> 415:_Ryukyuan_religion": --> 327:. Opinions are welcome! 310:Talk:Dean (Christianity) 174:Proposed redirect, from 168:03:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 149:00:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 125:20:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC) 3980:Talk:Akshardham (Delhi) 3162:Need some attention at 3115:Notability of clergymen 1843:New Religious Movements 1651:be expanded to include 1410:There is discussion at 1345:The Bridge (2006 drama) 1122:Westboro Baptist Church 803:Scientology controversy 652:Arbitration Enforcement 258:Now a second discussion 185:Please see my proposal 4077:at 15:44, 5 April 2011 3551:I started the article 3355:Christianity/Christian 3255: 3169:Please take a look at 2703:Anyway, any interest? 2221:Central Asia#Religions 2155:Afro-American religion 1904:Guru-shishya tradition 1723:Join WikiProject Japan 1544:Mary (mother of Jesus) 1534:Catholic views on Mary 1526:Mary (mother of Jesus) 1448:Mary (mother of Jesus) 1412:Mary (mother of Jesus) 1159:Yeah, I know, like we 4071:Project Messenger Bot 4069:Automated message by 3547:I have made a mistake 3245: 3032:Christian eschatology 3025:Christian eschatology 2519:Homosexuals Anonymous 2513:Homosexuals Anonymous 2487:Muhammad in the Bible 2479:Ali in the scriptures 2475:Muhammad in the Bible 2350:List of Roman deities 2271:don't even exist yet. 2195:Sociology of religion 2179:Mesoamerican religion 2113:Mesopotamian religion 1639:Chinese folk religion 1546:needs to be moved to 1319:Knowledge for Schools 815:Criticism of religion 811:Criticism of Buddhism 807:Criticism of Hinduism 291:Economics of religion 285:Economics of religion 42:of past discussions. 4006:, please respond at 3303:word frequency count 2394:the tool's wiki page 2318:Hellenistic religion 2217:Inner Asian religion 2183:Prehistoric religion 2171:Hellenistic religion 1315:One Laptop per Child 1097:There is an AFD for 791:Criticism of Judaism 597:Historicity of Jesus 453:Talk:Ryukyuan Shinto 3635:We have an article 2939:Talk:Tutelary deity 2569:Trope (linguistics) 2145:Religious phenomena 1897:I agree. And I see 1420:Blessed Virgin Mary 1155:Possible task force 1128:AFD is located at: 783:Jehovah's Witnesses 479:the discussion here 317:Dean (Christianity) 4087:Church maintenance 4082:Church maintenance 3989: 3631:Divine as a title? 3256: 3145:Criticism of Islam 3140:Criticism of Islam 2998:. Thanks greatly. 2523:conversion therapy 2253:is a dab page, and 2251:Germanic religions 2205:Altaic mythologies 2167:Religion in Greece 2163:European religions 2143:, the redirect of 1821:Seriously question 1798:Seriously question 1274:Knowledge 1.0 team 799:Criticism of Islam 483:Christ myth theory 475:Christ myth theory 467:Christ myth theory 3983: 3932:|jstor=0123456789 3454: 3453: 3395:Buddhism/Buddhist 2429:Gospel of Matthew 2233:Thracian religion 2175:Religion in Korea 2147:, are at C-class, 1727: 1663:Religion in Japan 1653:Iranian religions 1619:Celtic polytheism 1380:User:Afterwriting 1372:Article class of 952: 935:comment added by 610: 537: 520:comment added by 496: 487:Jesus myth theory 485:to, for example, 406:Ryukyuan religion 277: 249: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4157: 4025:Religion meeting 3987: 3986:Around The Globe 3967: 3933: 3929: 3922: 3921: 3911: 3910:|arxiv=0123.4567 3907: 3900: 3899: 3889: 3883: 3879: 3873: 3869: 3863: 3804:Ritual decalogue 3797:Ritual decalogue 3716: 3707: 3688: 3316: 3315: 3133: 3073: 3055: 2988:Paula Fredriksen 2617:Til Eulenspiegel 2491:contained a line 2342:User:Haploidavey 2241:Tibetan religion 2127:Slavic mythology 2105:Indian religions 2028:Jessica Feshbach 1922:J. Gordon Melton 1789: 1784: 1724: 1718:Talk to Nihonjoe 1714: 1710: 1707: 1574: 1572: 1567: 1558:views on Mary". 1230:reject consensus 1110:documentary film 951: 929: 825:. There is even 773: 767: 609: 607: 536: 514: 495: 493: 439: 436: 416: 410: 400: 335: 319:, moved back to 276: 274: 268: 262: 248: 246: 240: 234: 176:Ritual decalogue 161:Ritual Decalogue 157:Ten Commandments 133:Ten Commandments 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4165: 4164: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4114:Rosie O'Donnell 4110: 4106:Rosie O'Donnell 4084: 4078: 4050: 4027: 4000: 3985: 3976: 3946: 3931: 3924: 3915: 3913: 3912:, likewise for 3909: 3902: 3893: 3891: 3887: 3881: 3877: 3871: 3867: 3861: 3855: 3831:God Fights Back 3823: 3821:God Fights Back 3800: 3697: 3674: 3670: 3668: 3637:Anglican divine 3633: 3557:Christian Deism 3553:Christian deism 3549: 3527: 3512: 3489: 3240: 3238:Religion Wordle 3213: 3190: 3167: 3142: 3124: 3117: 3095: 3046: 3030: 3027: 2983: 2958: 2935: 2818:I like it, the 2686: 2684:Annual meeting? 2659: 2642:. Thanks . -- 2636: 2631:Help needed at 2612:"pious fiction" 2573:Deus ex machina 2557: 2552:Need help with 2516: 2471: 2425: 2378: 2340:(that would be 2330:Roman mythology 2269:Uralic religion 2257:Arctic religion 2231:article, while 2201:Altaic religion 2123:Slavic religion 2057: 2023: 1787: 1782: 1722: 1712: 1705: 1605: 1570: 1564: 1562: 1524:Discussions at 1522: 1493: 1468: 1446:then merged to 1408: 1384:Catholic Church 1377: 1374:Catholic Church 1340: 1280:, then article 1270: 1157: 1095: 1063:The Third Reich 1059:Gianluigi Nuzzi 1021:IronMaidenRocks 930: 884:IronMaidenRocks 878:has one. Edit: 775: 771: 765: 747:IronMaidenRocks 727:IronMaidenRocks 697:IronMaidenRocks 685:Catholic Church 677: 619: 605: 603:. Many thanks, 593: 562: 543: 515: 505: 491: 471: 449: 447:request to move 445:Ryukyuan Shinto 412: 402:Ryukyuan Shinto 356: 329: 321:Dean (religion) 313: 287: 272: 266: 263: 244: 238: 235: 205: 183: 136: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4163: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4109: 4102: 4083: 4080: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4049: 4046: 4026: 4023: 3999: 3996: 3975: 3972: 3943: 3942: 3854: 3849: 3835: 3834: 3822: 3819: 3799: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3764:Cyber religion 3743: 3742: 3738: 3731:external links 3727: 3667: 3664: 3649:Divine (title) 3645:Puritan divine 3632: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3548: 3545: 3526: 3523: 3511: 3508: 3488: 3485: 3452: 3451: 3448: 3445: 3442: 3439: 3436: 3432: 3431: 3428: 3425: 3422: 3419: 3416: 3415:Hinduism/Hindu 3412: 3411: 3408: 3405: 3402: 3399: 3396: 3392: 3391: 3388: 3385: 3382: 3379: 3376: 3372: 3371: 3368: 3365: 3362: 3359: 3356: 3352: 3351: 3348: 3345: 3342: 3338: 3337: 3335: 3332: 3329: 3324: 3323:Movement Terms 3322: 3298: 3297: 3239: 3236: 3212: 3209: 3189: 3186: 3166: 3160: 3141: 3138: 3116: 3113: 3094: 3091: 3075: 3074: 3026: 3023: 3022: 3021: 2982: 2979: 2957: 2954: 2934: 2931: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2838: 2787: 2783: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2685: 2682: 2658: 2655: 2635: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2596:Book of Mormon 2556: 2550: 2515: 2510: 2489:in particular 2470: 2467: 2456:RomanHistorian 2441:Gospel of John 2437:Gospel of Luke 2433:Gospel of Mark 2424: 2421: 2377: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2284: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2254: 2248: 2229:Southeast Asia 2198: 2148: 2130: 2120: 2056: 2053: 2032: 2031: 2022: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1880: 1879: 1859: 1858: 1836: 1818: 1795: 1773: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1678: 1666: 1656: 1646: 1632: 1622: 1604: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1584: 1583: 1521: 1518: 1507:BritishWatcher 1502:over the years 1497:Talk:Jerusalem 1492: 1489: 1487: 1467: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1428:173.24.117.126 1407: 1404: 1376: 1370: 1349: 1348: 1339: 1336: 1269: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1210: 1203: 1202: 1192: 1188: 1156: 1153: 1136: 1135: 1094: 1091: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 769: 737: 719: 718: 676: 673: 656: 655: 647: 646: 642: 618: 615: 592: 589: 561: 558: 542: 539: 504: 501: 470: 463: 448: 441: 411: 396: 355: 346: 312: 308:Discussion at 306: 286: 283: 282: 281: 221: 220: 204: 201: 182: 172: 171: 170: 135: 129: 128: 127: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4162: 4149: 4145: 4141: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4128: 4127: 4123: 4119: 4115: 4107: 4101: 4100: 4096: 4092: 4091:Michael Hardy 4088: 4079: 4076: 4072: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4045: 4044: 4040: 4036: 4032: 4022: 4021: 4017: 4013: 4010:. Thanks. -- 4009: 4005: 3995: 3994: 3991: 3988: 3981: 3971: 3970: 3965: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3935: 3928: 3920:|0123456789}} 3919: 3906: 3897: 3886: 3876: 3866: 3859: 3853: 3848: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3832: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3818: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3805: 3798: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3752: 3748: 3739: 3736: 3732: 3728: 3725: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3715: 3714: 3710: 3705: 3701: 3696: 3695: 3691: 3686: 3682: 3678: 3673: 3663: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3642: 3638: 3622: 3618: 3614: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3581: 3577: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3544: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3532: 3522: 3520: 3517: 3507: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3484: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3471: 3466: 3462: 3460: 3449: 3446: 3443: 3440: 3437: 3429: 3426: 3423: 3420: 3417: 3409: 3406: 3403: 3400: 3397: 3389: 3386: 3383: 3380: 3377: 3369: 3366: 3363: 3360: 3357: 3349: 3346: 3343: 3340: 3339: 3328: 3321: 3317: 3314: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3263: 3262: 3253: 3249: 3244: 3235: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3208: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3185: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3165: 3159: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3137: 3136: 3131: 3127: 3122: 3112: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3100: 3090: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3054: 3050: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3028: 3020: 3017: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2978: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2968: 2963: 2953: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2930: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2915: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2859: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2839: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2724: 2720: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2701: 2697: 2695: 2690: 2681: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2663:Discordianism 2654: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2634: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2613: 2609: 2608:Bhagavad Gita 2605: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2577:pious fiction 2574: 2570: 2566: 2565:pious fiction 2562: 2561:Pious fiction 2555: 2554:Pious fiction 2549: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2529:- nomination 2528: 2524: 2520: 2514: 2509: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2466: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2452: 2450: 2449:Jesus Seminar 2446: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2420: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2402:by categories 2399: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2255: 2252: 2249: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2199: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2149: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2131: 2128: 2124: 2121: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2103: 2102: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2066: 2062: 2052: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2037: 2030: 2029: 2025: 2024: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1930: 1928: 1923: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1900: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1881: 1878: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1844: 1840: 1837: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1822: 1819: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1804: 1799: 1796: 1794: 1791: 1790: 1785: 1777: 1774: 1772: 1769: 1765: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1725: 1719: 1715: 1708: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1679: 1676: 1672: 1667: 1664: 1660: 1657: 1654: 1650: 1647: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1633: 1630: 1626: 1623: 1620: 1616: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1608: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1585: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1573: 1568: 1566: 1559: 1555: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1517: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1503: 1498: 1488: 1485: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1444: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1403: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1385: 1381: 1375: 1369: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1359: 1354: 1347: 1346: 1342: 1341: 1335: 1334: 1331: 1326: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1310: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1299: 1294: 1289: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1236: 1231: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1211: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1193: 1189: 1186: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1166: 1162: 1152: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1142: 1133: 1132: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1123: 1119: 1118:Louis Theroux 1115: 1111: 1108: 1105:, which is a 1104: 1103: 1102: 1090: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1080:91.182.53.128 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 979: 975: 971: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 950: 946: 942: 938: 934: 927: 923: 919: 915: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 893: 889: 885: 881: 877: 873: 869: 865: 861: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 837: 836: 835: 832: 828: 827:this category 824: 820: 817:, as well as 816: 812: 808: 804: 800: 796: 792: 788: 784: 780: 779: 778: 774: 768: 762: 758: 757: 756: 752: 748: 743: 738: 736: 732: 728: 723: 722: 721: 720: 717: 714: 709: 708: 707: 706: 702: 698: 692: 688: 686: 682: 672: 671: 667: 663: 662: 653: 649: 648: 645: 643: 640: 638: 637: 636: 634: 631: 628: 624: 614: 613: 608: 602: 598: 588: 587: 583: 579: 578: 573: 569: 568: 557: 556: 553: 549: 538: 535: 531: 527: 523: 519: 513: 509: 500: 499: 494: 488: 484: 480: 476: 468: 462: 461: 458: 454: 446: 440: 433: 428: 424: 420: 407: 403: 395: 394: 390: 386: 382: 378: 377: 373: 369: 364: 360: 354: 350: 345: 344: 341: 340: 336: 334: 333: 326: 322: 318: 311: 305: 304: 300: 296: 292: 280: 275: 270: 269: 260: 259: 255: 254: 253: 252: 247: 242: 241: 231: 228: 226: 219: 218: 214: 213: 212: 210: 200: 199: 196: 192: 188: 181: 180:Covenant code 177: 169: 166: 162: 158: 153: 152: 151: 150: 146: 142: 134: 126: 122: 118: 114: 110: 109: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4129: 4111: 4085: 4051: 4028: 4001: 3977: 3944: 3936: 3898:|0123.4567}} 3875:cite journal 3856: 3836: 3824: 3801: 3772:Nova Religio 3744: 3712: 3708: 3694:Article talk 3693: 3689: 3669: 3634: 3550: 3528: 3516:Conservatism 3515: 3513: 3491:Please see: 3490: 3467: 3463: 3458: 3455: 3375:Islam/Muslim 3299: 3264: 3260: 3257: 3214: 3192:Please see: 3191: 3168: 3143: 3118: 3096: 3076: 2991: 2984: 2965: 2959: 2936: 2920:71.11.226.86 2916: 2903:71.11.226.86 2901: 2718: 2702: 2698: 2691: 2687: 2671:Jaque Hammer 2660: 2637: 2611: 2576: 2564: 2558: 2517: 2472: 2453: 2426: 2379: 2083: 2064: 2058: 2039: 2033: 2026: 1925: 1899:User:Astynax 1838: 1820: 1802: 1797: 1780: 1775: 1763: 1738: 1674: 1670: 1643:Confucianism 1609: 1606: 1571:XANDERLIPTAK 1565: 1560: 1556: 1542: 1523: 1494: 1486: 1469: 1409: 1378: 1356: 1350: 1343: 1330:SelectionBot 1327: 1311: 1296: 1290: 1281: 1271: 1243: 1160: 1158: 1139: 1137: 1129: 1099: 1098: 1096: 1078: 1054: 860:Christianity 693: 689: 678: 659: 657: 629: 620: 594: 575: 565: 563: 548:Slrubenstein 544: 510: 506: 472: 450: 413: 379: 357: 338: 331: 330: 314: 288: 265: 256: 237: 232: 229: 224: 222: 215: 206: 191:Slrubenstein 184: 137: 78: 43: 37: 4075:John Carter 4059:John Carter 4035:John Carter 4004:theocracies 3838:WhisperToMe 3681:visual edit 3590:DeistCosmos 3561:DeistCosmos 3350:Relative % 3331:Terms freq. 2960:Please see 2871:John Carter 2843:John Carter 2806:John Carter 2769:John Carter 2733:John Carter 2705:John Carter 2694:Bahai Faith 2604:Lotus Sutra 2527:DYK project 2445:Bart Ehrman 2423:POV pushing 2382:Smallman12q 2292:John Carter 2070:John Carter 1975:John Carter 1938:John Carter 1826:John Brauns 1783:Will Beback 1743:John Carter 1683:John Carter 1288:algorithm. 1248:John Carter 1170:John Carter 931:—Preceding 926:Inquisition 848:Scientology 772:Speak to me 681:Catholicism 564:Please see 522:Superartist 516:—Preceding 36:This is an 4012:Uzma Gamal 3901:(or worse 3344:Relative % 3217:Samaritans 2992:historians 2535:WP:CANVASS 2191:Sacred art 1934:WP:MILHIST 1866:Prem Rawat 1655:in general 1452:Malke 2010 1107:television 766:Backtable 761:Here it is 623:R3ap3R.inc 606:SlimVirgin 492:SlimVirgin 209:Meditation 203:Meditation 98:Archive 10 4140:Griswaldo 3860:(such as 3808:Griswaldo 3641:Anglicism 3613:Griswaldo 3334:Relative 3130:talk page 3016:• Astynax 3000:Griswaldo 2858:• Astynax 2782:articles. 2723:• Astynax 2644:Noleander 2581:Noleander 2386:WolterBot 2133:Mandaeism 1993:Sylviecyn 1885:Sylviecyn 1874:• Astynax 1870:talk page 1848:Sylviecyn 1768:• Astynax 1491:Jerusalem 1286:WikiTrust 1235:• Astynax 1197:• Astynax 968:problem. 868:Shintoism 831:• Astynax 713:• Astynax 469:page name 457:• Astynax 385:The Anome 368:The Anome 90:Archive 8 85:Archive 7 79:Archive 6 73:Archive 5 68:Archive 4 60:Archive 1 3956:contribs 3948:Headbomb 3885:cite web 3865:citation 3474:RichardF 3341:Global % 3327:Movement 3320:Religion 3307:Religion 3271:RichardF 3267:Religion 3261:Wordles' 3248:Religion 3225:Vassyana 3198:Kitfoxxe 3149:Student7 3080:Vassyana 2943:JoergenB 2791:Student7 2358:Cynwolfe 1629:Sant Mat 1589:Student7 1282:versions 1215:Student7 970:Student7 945:contribs 937:Student7 933:unsigned 922:Crusades 880:Buddhism 856:Hinduism 840:Kabbalah 633:contribs 546:assume. 530:contribs 518:unsigned 117:Student7 4104:Should 3960:physics 3735:WP:DGAF 3704:history 3685:history 3672:Jediism 3450:------ 3049:protect 3044:history 2719:Comment 2499:Top Jim 2392:). See 2141:Miracle 2088:Rumiton 1953:Rumiton 1908:Rumiton 1808:Rumiton 1776:Support 1764:Support 1393:Johnbod 1185:WP:IDHT 872:Sikhism 465:RfC on 39:archive 4118:Jnast1 3768:WP:GNG 3741:level? 3497:Borock 3470:Wordle 3336:% Dif 3287:Borock 3175:Mangoe 3164:WP:CFD 3053:delete 2610:to be 2539:EdChem 2495:WP:NOR 2483:WP:NOR 2439:, and 2320:, and 2237:Thrace 2223:, and 2193:, and 2139:, and 2111:, and 1989:WP:NPF 1839:Object 1735:Shinto 1701:Shinto 1055:proven 503:Naamah 477:. See 423:DaAnHo 417:Wanna 404:-: --> 332:bd2412 295:Ocaasi 165:Jayjg 4073:from 3964:books 3925:|url= 3918:JSTOR 3903:|url= 3896:arxiv 3747:EEMIV 3724:WP:RS 3713:Watch 3653:RJFJR 3435:Total 3070:views 3062:watch 3058:links 2964:. -- 2755:Ltwin 2600:Quran 2410:Svick 2245:Tibet 1991:. 1355:. -- 876:Islam 864:Bahai 844:Islam 641:, and 267:Chzz 239:Chzz 225:brief 141:kwami 16:< 4144:talk 4122:talk 4095:talk 4063:talk 4039:talk 4016:talk 3952:talk 3923:and 3914:|id= 3892:|id= 3842:talk 3812:talk 3784:talk 3751:talk 3700:edit 3677:edit 3657:talk 3617:talk 3594:talk 3580:talk 3565:talk 3538:talk 3519:here 3501:talk 3478:talk 3447:100% 3441:100% 3430:-2% 3410:-7% 3390:-2% 3370:11% 3291:talk 3275:talk 3229:talk 3202:talk 3179:talk 3153:talk 3126:J04n 3106:talk 3097:See 3084:talk 3066:logs 3040:talk 3036:edit 3004:talk 2972:talk 2967:Cirt 2947:talk 2924:talk 2907:talk 2875:talk 2847:talk 2828:talk 2810:talk 2795:talk 2773:talk 2759:talk 2737:talk 2709:talk 2675:talk 2648:talk 2621:talk 2585:talk 2571:and 2543:talk 2531:here 2503:talk 2477:and 2460:talk 2414:talk 2404:and 2362:talk 2336:and 2296:talk 2239:and 2135:and 2115:and 2092:talk 2074:talk 2046:talk 2041:Cirt 1997:talk 1979:talk 1971:here 1967:WP:N 1957:talk 1942:talk 1912:talk 1889:talk 1852:talk 1830:talk 1812:talk 1788:talk 1747:talk 1699:and 1687:talk 1641:and 1593:talk 1552:Mary 1548:Mary 1511:talk 1479:talk 1456:talk 1432:talk 1406:Mary 1397:talk 1363:talk 1358:Cirt 1317:and 1252:talk 1219:talk 1174:talk 1161:need 1146:talk 1141:Cirt 1084:talk 1025:talk 974:talk 941:talk 888:talk 821:and 751:talk 731:talk 701:talk 666:talk 661:Cirt 627:talk 582:talk 577:Cirt 552:Talk 526:talk 443:RFC 427:talk 419:talk 389:talk 372:talk 361:and 351:and 299:talk 195:Talk 187:here 145:talk 121:talk 3487:AfD 3459:and 3444:118 3438:89% 3427:15% 3421:17% 3418:15% 3407:17% 3401:24% 3398:21% 3387:21% 3381:24% 3378:21% 3367:47% 3361:36% 3358:32% 3188:AfD 2657:AfD 2606:or 2485:. 2400:or 1924:'s 1706:日本穣 1391:. 1325:! 1244:not 1116:'s 1114:BBC 1057:by 550:| 541:RfC 193:| 178:to 4146:) 4124:) 4097:) 4065:) 4041:) 4018:) 3982:. 3962:/ 3958:/ 3954:/ 3934:. 3930:→ 3916:{{ 3894:{{ 3888:}} 3882:{{ 3880:, 3878:}} 3872:{{ 3870:, 3868:}} 3862:{{ 3844:) 3833:." 3814:) 3786:) 3753:) 3702:| 3683:| 3679:| 3659:) 3619:) 3596:) 3582:) 3567:) 3540:) 3521:. 3503:) 3480:) 3424:18 3404:20 3384:25 3364:55 3313:. 3293:) 3277:) 3231:) 3204:) 3196:. 3181:) 3173:. 3155:) 3108:) 3086:) 3068:| 3064:| 3060:| 3056:| 3051:| 3047:| 3042:| 3038:| 3006:) 2974:) 2949:) 2941:. 2926:) 2909:) 2877:) 2849:) 2830:) 2812:) 2797:) 2775:) 2761:) 2739:) 2711:) 2677:) 2650:) 2623:) 2602:, 2587:) 2545:) 2505:) 2462:) 2435:, 2431:, 2416:) 2408:. 2396:, 2364:) 2316:, 2298:) 2267:, 2263:, 2259:, 2215:, 2207:, 2189:, 2185:, 2181:, 2177:, 2173:, 2169:, 2165:, 2161:, 2157:, 2153:, 2107:, 2094:) 2076:) 2048:) 1999:) 1981:) 1959:) 1944:) 1914:) 1891:) 1854:) 1832:) 1814:) 1749:) 1720:· 1716:· 1713:投稿 1709:· 1689:) 1595:) 1536:, 1532:, 1513:) 1481:) 1458:) 1434:) 1399:) 1365:) 1254:) 1221:) 1176:) 1148:) 1086:) 1027:) 976:) 947:) 943:• 924:, 920:. 890:) 870:, 866:, 862:, 858:, 846:, 842:, 829:. 813:, 809:, 805:, 801:, 797:, 793:, 789:, 753:) 733:) 703:) 695:-- 668:) 584:) 532:) 528:• 489:? 455:. 429:) 391:) 374:) 301:) 273:► 245:► 147:) 123:) 115:. 94:→ 64:← 4142:( 4120:( 4093:( 4061:( 4037:( 4014:( 3966:} 3950:{ 3840:( 3829:" 3810:( 3782:( 3749:( 3726:. 3709:· 3706:) 3698:( 3690:· 3687:) 3675:( 3655:( 3615:( 3592:( 3578:( 3563:( 3536:( 3499:( 3476:( 3347:N 3289:( 3273:( 3254:. 3227:( 3200:( 3177:( 3151:( 3132:) 3128:( 3104:( 3082:( 3072:) 3034:( 3002:( 2970:( 2945:( 2922:( 2905:( 2873:( 2845:( 2826:( 2808:( 2793:( 2771:( 2757:( 2735:( 2707:( 2673:( 2669:. 2646:( 2619:( 2583:( 2541:( 2501:( 2458:( 2412:( 2360:( 2294:( 2247:, 2129:, 2090:( 2072:( 2044:( 1995:( 1977:( 1955:( 1940:( 1929:, 1910:( 1887:( 1850:( 1828:( 1810:( 1745:( 1726:! 1685:( 1677:. 1665:. 1645:. 1631:. 1591:( 1509:( 1477:( 1454:( 1430:( 1395:( 1361:( 1250:( 1217:( 1172:( 1144:( 1134:. 1082:( 1023:( 972:( 939:( 886:( 749:( 729:( 699:( 664:( 630:· 625:( 580:( 524:( 425:( 387:( 370:( 339:T 297:( 143:( 119:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Religion/Archive 6 - Knowledge

Index