Knowledge talk:WikiProject Religion/Archive 8

1272:

self-designation. Having said that, it is the case in pretty much all the major older Christian denominations, like the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches, that the information about the appointment of a new bishop and some biographical information, pretty much sufficient to establish notability, is published and released at the time of his ordination. But, in some cases, particularly if, for whatever reason, the bishop in question is from the early era of the church and the relevant local records of his church have not survived, even there it may be really hard to find anything beyond his name. In such cases, they probably wouldn't qualify as notable either. But, in general, for recent history, particularly the past few hundred years, yeah, it is a safe bet that any bishop from a major denomination will have had his biography published at the time of his ordination by the local newspaper and the denomination's relevant publications. That being the case, it is probably true that in those cases the individuals are suffiently notable. For some "self-proclaimed" bishops, or others of really small churches, it would probably be less clear regarding their notability. Hope that helps a little.

1062:(with which I'm fairly familiar from past work) contains a dozen chapters devoted to various individual "cults". For example, there's a 44-page chapter on Mormonism, a 32-page chapter on Jehovah's Witnesses, a 22-page chapter on the Unification Church, and a 20-page chapter on Scientology (page counts based on the book's table of contents). And the polemical bent of the book is, IMO, amply illustrated by many of the chapter titles — e.g., "Historical Heresy: Unorthodox Movements of Past Centuries"; "The Way International: Denying the Deity of Christ"; "Scientology: Mind-Altering Pseudo-Psychology"; and "The New Age Movement: The Occult Made Respectable". So we're definitely talking here about far more than just passing references. On the other hand, there are also chapters about movements other than the ones in dispute here — though I'll admit I haven't checked yet to see if we have established categories for books critical of Seventh-Day Adventism, Christian Science, the Bahá'í Faith, or the others dealt with in this particular book. — 4300:, has even received additional work from other editors, but, honestly, still ain't much, and it is really hard to see anyone considering it "B" class. Some of the others are also apparently written about, but perhaps in sources which are unlikely to be readily available to most of us, which makes getting secondary sources problematic. Some of the other proposed goals, like getting more page watchers, and assessing unassessed pages, would require a bit clearer organization of this project. I would like to see that myself, and trying to address that is one of the things I hope to raise next month, possibly after this thread dies down. For WikiSource and WikiQuote, I tend to agree with you. At least a few of the standard sources for quotations are now so old that their early editions are in the public domain, and can thus be used freely with proper citation on WikiQuote. For WikiSource, personally, I would love to see us try to find ways to get some of the public domain reference sources on religion, like most of the early volumes of Hastings' 3285:. One thing I have a very dim view of is people bullying or acting unprofessionally in Knowledge. The IP in the little show above was blocked by Dennis Brown, and I will make sure any editor who is simply harassing PassAMethod is similarly dealt with. It is one thing to have a reasonable debate about a person, quite another to hide behind a set of proxies and badger them. I don't care if it is being done with a supposedly noble goal, do things right or don't do them at all. If you and your brother both intend to continue to edit Knowledge, stop the games and the shit. If you get blocked because of his actions, you will know why and you'll be paying a price for his bad actions. Make it right or don't. Now... this sideshow has completely sidetracked the point of the editor who opened this thread. Can we get back to that please? -- 1740:

having slightly different understandings of God, you also have various denominations within those religions, different sects, cults, and so on. God can be defined by whatever a person decides they want God to be. So naturally you need to begin to pare down the article to what the READER is expecting to see when they come and look for an essay on God. Who, what, where, why, how, when, etc. Does God have a gender? Do you include God(s) like Greeks or Romans had, or just God, as in a singular all-powerful entity? I'm honestly not sure what to expect from your comments above. I've seen some of your other edits and you strike me as an editor who doesn't mind pushing for an unusual and somewhat biased view. I would suggest, focus on the mainstream first, cover the unusual second, mention the fringe if you must. --

3261:

create a Knowledge account. I saw that as a bad idea, even if using a tag on his user page stating that he is related to me. I don't want him to feel welcomed at this site or feel that he is welcomed to communicate with me on Knowledge. IP block exemption ensures that he cannot create another Knowledge account under our IP address and helps to keep me better disassociated from him. With or without it, he will still be using proxies to edit whatever part of Knowledge he wants to. But again, I stress that I do not believe that he has been the only IP targeting your edits. So all in all, taking away IP block exemption will hurt me. For instance, if my brother signs up for an account under a proxy, that proxy will be caught sooner or later, usually sooner, and so will the account associated with it if a

2740:

That's shown in the first paragraph of this section, and in your talk page archive. What History2007 stated, for example, is not because I caused you to edit badly. And not every IP, or proxy IP, who criticizes you is me. Take responsibility for your own bad editing. The fact that you call my reporting you to the appropriate people/venues victious harassment (my IP changes are not just two days later either) just shows how out of touch you are with the harm the majority of your edits cause. It's not like I didn't try to talk to you about your edits. You ignore sound advice any time it's given to you. You sometimes pretend to consider that advice, but your editing goes right back to doing what you did before. I started investigating your edits in December 2011 after you made a bad edit to the

1389:. Both of those sources, while fairly clearly tied to the Catholic Church, are are also in general counted as reliable sources, and sources which could be used to establish notability. I think at least the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Anglicans have a few sources of a similar nature as well. In general, though, personally, for bishops since at least the beginning of the 20th century, and probably the 18th in the West, it is almost certainly a safe bet that they are notable. Western churches have struck me as having a real tendency toward navel-gazing in the past few centuries, and have an almost endless stream of history books produced about themselves, often published by schools with ties to the denomination in question. I've even seen an 4394:

cause to maybe, if it is workable, add a section for a third article, specifically relating to matters of theology, organization, history and the like of the subject tradition. Acknowledging, for instance, that the recent Catholic sex abuse scandal is a major subject which could reasonably be considered important enough for inclusion in a Catholicism portal, the portal might well be more informative and useful to people if it could also be structured in such a way as to include, possibly in each item of rotation, some article which is specifically informative about the main focus of the portal, the "thinking" which is the primary reason for that specific topic existing. Thoughts?

4024:

we might like to set up for 2013. This would include goals not only for wikipedia per se, but also for any other entities, like WikiQuote, WikiSource, WikiNews, etc. For the English wikipedia, I think one goal which might be both useful and somewhat reasonably achievable would be to try to have at least started articles on all the major topics relating to religion in a global sense. This would, of course, include all the specific religions as well. Knowing that the list is far from being perfect, because some articles weren't completed on time and some might well have different titles here, I would think that those topics which have articles in the Lindsay Jones

1088:. Granted, it is hard to know, as per that article, what "defines" the notability of a book, but it is also somewhat hard to say that an article should be included in a category for simplying mentioning a given topic in passing, as seems to be the case here. I suppose the same thing would apply to including given authors of individual articles in an encyclopedia for inclusion in categories related to that encyclopedia. If the content of the article more clearly indicated the nature of the specific criticism of the groups in question according to sources other than the book itself, that might help more clearly establish the relevance of the given categories. 2963:. Flyer22's case was looked over, thoroughly it appears, where all of this was gone over, and there were comments that the IPs have edited articles that she has never edited. Besides that, as pointed out by her and others, there have been vastly similar and different times between editing. It's not a matter of IPs always criticizing you when Flyer22 is not on Knowledge. And let's not forget that not every editor is on Knowledge as much as you or the IPs. IPs also don't "log in"; you know that, though, because you've also edited as IPs. What else? Whenever it is that Flyer22 was granted IP block exemption, I've been following you since before that. 2147:

to me from what I've seen a lot of material is more or less languishing in WikiProjects or groups which have little if any current activity. I don't myself know exactly what it would look like, or how to make it most effective, but I think some sort of way to draw editors who know something about the topic in general to content needing input or improvement, whether directly in their field of interest or not, might be useful for a lot of content. I am leaving notices on the talk pages of the Mythology and Philosophy WikiProjects regarding this thread as well. Anyway, I would welcome any and all responses. Thank you for your attention.

1311:. However, if being a Bishop in a major Church like Anglican was alone notable (like a Academy Award), then the independence of the source might not matter as much if it was from a Church document. I'm not really sure how important Bishops are in every denomination like Anglicans, but it seems to me that there are some pretty low tier bishop positions, not everyone put in charge of a diocese. And a Bishop born somewhere like Chicago and given a small post, isn't likely to get mention in the local media; and thus may only get mentioned by the Churches own media, which would violate independence.-- 1802:

this site has ever seen. He has various warnings on his talk page, including recent ones, showing just that. He is always edit warring, and has been twiced blocked for it. He hardly ever takes matters to the talk page first and is reluctant to do so even when twice or thrice reverted. He issues vandalism-warning templates to editors just because they have reverted him, meaning during content disputes and not for real vandalism. He adds in unsourced or otherwise biased or contentious POV, often using vague edit summaries to sneak those POVs into articles, as is touched on in

4361:

Personally, I think it would probably be best to try all of the above, and, maybe, if there is a newsletter, find some sort of way to maybe develop cooperation with other WF entities regarding maybe including some of their material in any sort of "contests" here. Are there any other ideas out there? Also, are there any editors involved here who would be willing and able to help do any of the things proposed? I could try to help with a newsletter, and maybe help a bit on a contest, but this sort of thing generally works best if there are more than one person involved.

3228:

admitted to stalking Pass a Method's edits and Pass a Method decided to tie that account to me and a family member, even suggesting that I am any of the number of IPs that have stalked him. I am not. When I was originally blocked, while being guilty looked like a possibility when comparing similar article space and random support from any IP, there was evidence in favor of my innocence as well (and edit summary style was one aspect of that). The issue was complicated, which is shown in a portion of my archive that I

1036:

particular groups. I would think, in general, that maybe if a book gave lengthy attention to only a few groups called cults, then individual categories for those specific groups might be relevant. But if the individual groups only receive rather short attention, like maybe a comparatively small chapter, specifically about them, then I would question whether the amount of attention in the book itself would be sufficient for the inclusion of specific categories. Now, as an example, the book

31: 2364:"First, we're not even sure if the proposals have consensus" - your in the proposal process now and need to move forward on the recommendations or the proposal will just die like that last on. Your in the process of trying to gain consensus and should try to implement the ideas of those that have commented because you guys asked them to comment. If the project is not willing to adhere to the advice from those it asked the advice from, then there is not much we can do is there. 4176:

I know I would love to be able to see portions of articles highlighted by contributor, itemized lists of contributions currently in a given article by user, percentages on who is responsible for how much of a current article, numbers on how often various editors contribute to pages, any terms that users have a habit of removing or adding, lists of users that can be generated by specific editing patterns, etcetera. The public logs do provide all the data for that and more.

1114:

mentioned. Theoretically the solution might be to have a generic category "Books critical of christian cults" or something similar. I know there is a possible POV there, but I am going to try and produce an essay on the wider problem of "Main-line Christianity" which, if it could be objectively defined (and I think it can), might facilitate the structuring of many articles on Christianity and would also serve as a reference point for a category of the type suggested.

2695:

making the edits. You seem to have the energy to make several edits of a rather dubious nature, and I honestly cannot believe that the attempt to possibly use that as an excuse for your own seemingly ongoing problems of dubious edits in now multiple topics is of any use to anyone. Please focus on the quality of your own edits first. If you stop making questionable edits, it is unlikely that any "stalker" would have anything to stalk you over.

4033:. It does seem to me that we have most of what the editors of that work considered the major topics relating to the major religious traditions of the world already covered, with perhaps rather weaker coverage of the smaller, less globally significant ones. That is one idea, anyway. I would be interested in seeing what the rest of you think, specifically including those of you who deal primarily with content in other WF entities. 2026:

significantly influence any future articles relating to other articles relating to regular scripture readings by adherents of a given faith. So far as I know, we have no particular guidelines in place for such readings during services, and it is likely these discussions will at least establish a precedent of some sort. And, yes, I think the input of non-Jewish editors who would not be likely to encounter the same sort of

3912: 497:, but which was later (accidentally?) deleted. I'm not claiming WP is intentionally biased against Christians (and my complaint really isn't about bias), but the end result is, for whatever reason, obviously not a list about religions in general but only about Christianity. (I sincerely doubt that I will like the article much more if it includes other religions, but at least it will be a closer match to its title.) 3209:"fellowship", etc to describe the "church". When I reverted PassAMethod's edits, I added the word "generally" to reflect the fact that "church" in English is a generally Christian word, but is also used by other groups. "Mosque" would not ordinarily be applied to a place of worship for Christians, nor would "synagogue". Each term generally reflects the faith of those who are a part of it. -- 4259:

important articles up to "Start" class, for instance. Otherwise, I do think that, once we have an idea of what the goals are, to, maybe next month, try to figure out specific ways of trying to achieve them. But, at least for the moment, I think it is probably best to try to find objectives we have a good chance of maybe achieving, and then figuring out methods to achieve them.

3251:

have been characterized as biased and problematic in one way or another. To me, this is why the IPs don't consistently make comments about the matter on Pass a Method's talk page, but rather address others about it. Sometimes, these approaches are wrong; other times, they are fine because they are taking the matter to a WikiProject that is meant to deal with such concerns.

429:, but it appears that consensus says otherwise. In that case, I request (again) that someone knowledgeable improve the page. At the very least, the page should be edited to reflect its scope. I'm sure that Christianity is not the only religion in which people have made predictions which failed to come true, but no other religion is currently represented. 2348:

think, but maybe just indicators of "best practices" or maybe most likely or useful sections. And there might be a problem, unfortunately, of people actively resisting "fixing anything", if doing so wouldn't agree with their own opinions or beliefs. That's always been one of the biggest problems with content related to belief systems of any sort.

773:(specifically, it does not distinguish between a list of articles with the phrase "Will of God" in the title, except for one song). On the other hand, it is completely unreferenced. This seems like a rather important topic, so I request that our experts use the abundant materials thrown together under this title to make into an article. Cheers! 2642:. I had told him that, John Carter did and IRWolfie did. Pass a Method makes all kinds of edits that defy rationality.... They are mostly minor edits that reduce quality, not just biased but random, useless edits, all over the place. If I drink 14 beers, then start editing, I would do the same... But I never drink 14 beers. 1884:/synth, dishonest and/or misleading edit summaries, and edit warring. But all of what I stated was to show just what a problematic/hypocritical editor he is and therefore what others are dealing with here, and that obviously includes his edits regarding religion, even though all of this information is better suited for the 2246: 1570:. I do not want to take further lead on this subject because I am not very versed in the discussions of religious articles on Knowledge. I'm just good at getting the ball rolling. If other editors find this all very interesting, they might want to invite editors from other Religious affiliated projects -- 4393:

One specific reservation I have about a lot of the religion or philosophy subject portals is the fact that, unfortunately, the inclusion of two articles, of which one is a biography, can be and is in some cases somewhat problematic in and of itself. For such subjects, I think there might also be just

4175:

watchlist expansion help enormously (for mid and short term changes). However, as someone who patrols regularly, I must agree with Astynax. It still is a headache. We can write additional Javascript tools, browser extensions, or externally hosted web applications if there is nothing else good enough.

4115:

near enough people to watch them. ClueBot can do only so much, and as everyone knows not just this project, but all of Knowledge has seen a migration of editors and IPS performing deletions or semi-vandals pushing fringe views now have open doors for doing what they want. Pending changes on many many

4023:

So far as I can tell, the English wikipedia seems to be the WF site that gets the most editors, so it made sense to me to maybe start this discussion here, and maybe post links to it elsewhere to bring in additional input. But I would be interested in finding out what if any possibly achievable goals

3771:

Reorganization: The page has some outdated information and is somewhat disorganized. I tried reorganizing the page, but apparently ran afoul of some rules regarding inline links and so my changes were undone. I would like to reinstate my previous changes, but do not want to start some sort of editing

3613:

I've only been observing this discussion, but the subject at hand seems disproportionally controversial, considering how some people have sabotaged this thread somewhat. Since it seems that everything needing to be established is established, would it be acceptable to close this discussion by putting

3375:

Unfortunately, there are no heroes here. The IP seems to be just "out to get him". PassaMethod is not a vandal, but his edits are far less than focused. And even if blocked can be back as a new account (as many others do) and waste time again. So it is best to try to talk PassaMethod into not editing

3280:

What I meant is that the IP editor could have simply left this alone. Instead they chose to come and confront PassAMethod here and confirm that they were the editor he was referencing. Like I have said many times, we have proper venues for debate on the content that an editor adds, and we have proper

2739:

Pass a Method, it is ridiculous to blame me for your atrocious edits or for your first block. I made sure that your edit warring was known, but it is your edit warring that led to your block. You've been blocked twice for it. Regarding your edits in general, various people have complained about them.

2146:

I was wondering what the rest of you might think of maybe trying to put out a newsletter for the religion/philosophy/mythology area, maybe something similar to MILHIST's Bugle or the Christianity Ichthus or something similar. There is a lot of overlap between the various topics, and honestly it seems

1879:

Only the latter part of my above commentary on Pass a Method is about sockpuppeting. And if the administrators didn't do anything about his return then, I don't see much of a chance of them doing anything about it now...unless they consider that he's engaging in the same type of behavior that got his

1856:

Regarding the comments about Pass a Method, those complaints should be filed at the Sockpuppet investigations board. Regarding the article, I think the most reasonable thing to do is to consult the best extant relevant reference sources and see how they construct the article. For our purposes, of the

1841:

confirmed the likelihood of that. But Pass a Method denied that he operated the other account, and was allowed to continue editing here because administrators apparently weren't sure if the issues that led to his original block still persist. So the fact that he was blocked before and got around that

1818:

and LGBT matters in biased or otherwise inappropriate ways. If anyone needs reporting, it's Pass a Method. Oh, and his claim that he is female is also very questionable due to some of his past editing behavior -- meaning that besides his behavior often being as testosterone-driven as every other male

1801:

It's ridiculous and extremely ironic that Pass a Method would report any editor for disruptive behavior and for one of the worst, if not the worst, biases he has ever seen. And that is because, as touched on by Avanu, Pass a Method is one of the more dispruptive editors, with one of the worst biases,

1252:

and so on) apply to bishops, but I don't think any of them should be taken to say that a congressman or an NBA player who has miraculously avoided significant coverage is still notable - these pages just outline criteria that make it extremely likely that such coverage exists. I similarly expect that

1019:

to the purpose of each of these books. But rather than just take unilateral action and revert, I'd like to bring this question to the attention of more people and see what (if any) consensus might exist — especially since these two articles don't seem to have very many people watching them. What do

349:

be used as many of these Gods are worshipped in today's world. At what point does a religious group re-gain validity? These groups have numbers, temples, celebrations, social networks, rituals, prayers, legally recognised organisations and scriptures; what more is needed for such groups to have their

3265:

comes across it. If he signs up for an account using our actual IP address, however, then that takes me along with him if he is shown to be a trouble-editor at any article. So far, he hasn't shown himself to be a trouble-editor at articles, except for any time that he followed the meatpuppet route.

2878:

Look at it from my point of view. You two claim to be siblings but since when do siblings edit such similar articles? I can make a list of at least 20 to 30 articles which both of you have edited. Either you two are identical twins, hence share such extremely similar interests. Or there is something

2863:

I answered your question. You didn't answer mine. And you should obviously leave her alone, per her request on her talk page. Not sure why you think she'd have any control over what an adult sibling does on Knowledge, as she's already stated that she does not. Aside from getting her IP blocked. This

2383:

asked for input from anyone, although I think a few individual editors, like me, may have done so on their own. There is another question regarding how representative, neutral and potentially biased any of the input to date has been, including my own. Lastly, there is one matter which was, I think,

1702:

When pushed on his tendentious editing Adjwilley replies with ignorance, for example stating that Baha'i faith is the same as Islam or understating the religious size of of other religions (i.e. he said that Zoroastrianism has 20,000 adherents). When corected he prefers a low-quality source (a daily

1494:

I tend to agree with you Jpacobb. Religious articles are not really my thing though, but I do find that notability requirements for religious factoids about the major faiths tend to be supported by the church's own publishing efforts. I personally think that waters down the articles of truly notable

3332:

Every angle has been considered. Hopefully, if he feels the need to complain about Pass a Method's edits in the future, it will be done the right way. He's stated before that if his editing directly causes problems for me, he will make sure that such problems stop. Again, I don't know if my brother

2694:

questionable nature. If, as I think is indicated by some of your own comments and indications of some of your earlier problems with similar editing with other topics, you consistently find your edits open to question, the most reasonable thing to do would be to open discussion of any changes before

2689:

PassaMethod, you seem rather clearly in the above comment to indicate that some of your edits may not be rational. Any reasonable person would know how to deal with that problem. If you can't edit rationally, don't edit. Period. It isn't hard. You seem to rather significantly overlook the fact that

2606:

I'm not that bothered by many of the examples you present (for example, an image actually depicting the Golden Rule seems an improvement over an image depicting the Good Samaritan for the Golden Rule article; I'm a little surprised WikiProject Bible considers the God article relevant; and I believe

2025:

There is currently discussion taking place at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha) regarding material to be included in wikipedia regarding this reading, as well as the others. Input is more than welcome, particularly as I believe the outcome of the eventual discussions regarding these articles may very well

1739:

Sorry to be first to comment here (since I did at AN/I also), but I think you are misinterpreting Adjwilley's statements. It almost goes without saying that an article on God will be fraught with complex discussions on what to include or leave out. Not only do you have each person within a religion

1693:

article. From his edits you get the impression that he believes there are only 3 religions in the world (Chistianity, Judaism, islam). For example on the talk page he has on numerous occasions argued against the mentioning of religions other than the above 3. He has in fact argued that only those 3

1393:

covering just the Franciscan missionaries to California for the first hundred years of that effort. Not bishops, not Catholics, not even Franciscan missionaries, but Franciscan missionaries to California for that one span of 100 years. Based on that book alone, I tend to think at this point it is a

599:

is the holy book. It's way out of my league, I only came across it in passing whilst assessing articles, but the respective talk pages detail some of the accusations which include edit-warring, facts not being supported by the supplied references and POV pushing. Would some kind soul care to have a

4389:

We could start Requests for comment on the talk pages of portals not yet at FP status, and possibly those already there, for the purposes of trying to establish which specific articles are most relevant to that topic. Upon completion of that, we could request input from those editors willing to be

3779:

There is a disgruntled former member of Eckankar who has recently started up his own small group called Akatha. Akatha members have been inserting argumentative statements into the sections on Eckankar beliefs and practices. The criticisms are phrased as if they come from an independent expert,

3746:

I think it's great. It could use more details. I've been trying to research different wiki policies lately. Since I am interested in editing religious articles there are questions that really haven't been answered in my research. Is there any location where consensus has been made regarding things

3250:

I do believe that, in addition to my brother, there have been IPs who belong to more than one person who have complained about Pass a Method's edits more than just one time. The main offender's intent does not seem to be to stress Pass a Method out, but to draw concern to his editing patterns that

3240:

on this matter. Contrary to Pass a Method's statement about identical twins, even identical twins often have different interests. My brother shares some of my interests in Knowledge articles, but he was mostly editing the same articles during his mission to offer support to me anonymously. Then he

2828:

Regarding the person who has been watching your edits, no, I did not admit that -- being Flyer22's brother -- to you or to anyone else while on Knowledge (why are you linking that woman's name twice anyway?). And you also have not answered my question: Has John Carter started that WP:RfC/U against

2672:

you over several months. This IP has been on my back since January and even managed to get me blocked once. I have managed to range-block this IP several times but my stalker always seems to come back 2 days later with a new proxy IP viciously harrassing me again. I have largely given up trying to

2388:

is a field with many of the same difficulties religion has. I would myself be very happy to see someone, almost anyone really, show an interest in taking the lead on this topic, but, like I said, I think I have already seen evidence that any input of mine, however neutral and objective I might see

1175:

talk page, a major problem related to this article was that there were very, very few good secondary sources available (possibly because the book was written for a niche audience, and not many outside reviewers considered it sufficiently noteworthy to merit any attention at all). I still think it

432:

I won't do the work myself, because I'm not educated on world religions and I don't want to put in the time to improve a page that I think is a bad idea to begin with. But I surely do encourage others to improve this page, if consensus is that it is an encyclopedic topic worthy of inclusion here.

324:

A group's status as "revivalist" or "reconstructionist" does not reduce the validity of that group's faith. Modern temples have been built to these Gods, clearly showing that they are still worshipped. Again, the primary issue is that referring to deities in the past tense implies that they do not

3844:

and I am requesting for assistance. By that I mean, I would like for editors to read the page, check sources, make sure there are no issues with the content be it original research or neutrality etc... I would also like to get the talkpage archived. It is extensive and it is a mess. In essence, I

3347:

The easiest thing for him to do would be to create a personal account under his own name. Regarding PassAMethod, I think that should problematic edits from that editor continue, an RfC/U is certainly an option, and it might not be a bad idea to give those who have had problems with PassaMethod in

3208:

However, "church" is generally used by Christians. Your point about the UUA is a bit flawed, because even though they are not Christian, they grew out of a Christian background and used terms from that background. If you speak to a person from UUA, they may use the term "congregation", "society",

1040:

by Ian Johnson contains only three stories, one of them about Falun Gong. If we had an article about that book, which we don't right now, I think having about a third of the book being about the subject would be sufficient for a category for Falun Gong. But if the group is only one of many groups

354:

to use the present text as we do with monotheistic deities, all these Gods, as previously mentioned are worshipped and "pagan" religions are expanding once more. What is the harm? The information is not altered in anyway other than recognising these deities are still revered, which, is completely

4258:

While some of the goals above are ones I would myself agree with, I think it is worth noting that I indicated I wanted any we propose to be rather easily achievable. It does no one any good, and might do some harm, if our goals were too ambitious. That's why I suggested bringing only the missing

4152:

Agree. I've had less time to watch the several on my list this year, and as a result have seen some deteriorate as described above. Part of the problem is systemic and long-standing. Without better tools, it becomes a headache (at least for non-admins) to sort through layers of bad-quality edits

3260:

Pass a Method, taking away my IP block exemption will not help matters. I didn't even request it. It was suggested to me, and I accepted it. But it was really a last resort type of thing because my brother continues to edit Knowledge, will not stop, and it was suggested by administrators that he

2378:

True. Personally, though, I don't think that any actions taken by me as an individual would be accepted by certain parties, shall we say. In fact, I am virtually certain that some individuals would argue that any action I might take is itself clearly biased. And I don't know of any time when the

2347:

First, we're not even sure if the proposals have consensus. And there is a fear on the part of some of wikilawyering and walls of text, which some think we may already have seen. I think similar things happened in the earlier proposal as well. Also, there was no intention of "dictation", I don't

1762:

I haven't looked at the edits of the editor mentioned; I said my piece at the discussion as invited to do, and left it at that. However, it seems to me this is a textbook example of an article where we must put a high priority on avoiding entrenched bias. A reader has a right to expect a general

3108:

Pass a Method, while I can understand that harrassment seems to be a problem, I still do see a bias in your contributions often. Please try to focus on making edits that are more neutral. As for this IP editor, I believe you need to be blocked immediately. PassAMethod never named the IP in his

2095:

and how it should be dealt with in that article. The first issue is whether a line should show for it in a bar chart and a second issue is whether the article should be renamed to reflect that legally Humanism is a "life stance" and not a religion though as far as I can see for many practical

511:

I would point out that Christianity is more likely to yield unfulfilled predictions because it is a very large, diverse, and decentralized religion, and because it is doctrinally inclined to suggest that an end of times (the event most often predicted) is coming in some relatively short order.

4360:

Another editor, less frequently used, is to, maybe, have editors review existing sources, including reference sources of various types, regarding this topic or some aspect thereof to see what they cover at sufficient length as at least an indicator as to what similar content might exist here.

4028:

which is probably the best reference work out there that deals substantively with "religion" on a global basis, could possibly get at least Start-class articles relating to them under whatever title might be appropriate here. For those of you who may not have already seen the listing of those

3227:

I was advised by email to respond here promptly, but I was three hours late to reading the email. The above just makes me sad. I've been through this already, and wouldn't risk going through it again. I'm not sure what Avanu means by "PassAMethod never named the IP in his comment," but the IP

1035:

I think the question here might be some form of overcategorization. They do seem to be categorized as "anti-cult" or something similar, which would make it more or less repetitive to further categorize them for individual groups, unless the books very clearly have significant discussion about

492:

there are non-Christian unfulfilled predictions and if this is supposed to be an article about religion generally, they should be included. The page has been inclusive since May, 2007 (when they removed the reference to Christians from the title), and in all that time, the only non-Christian

1113:

is concerned, my fundamental worry is the problem of deciding where overcategorization begins. I don't find the reasons given in the explanation of the removal of the templates very convincing: arguing for the "superiority" of one religion implies criticism (direct or indirect) of any other

536:

other religions which could be represented on the page. Surely, some persons have made "religious predictions" which have failed for some other religion (Judaism? Theosophy? Other?), no? If so, the article should reflect this fact. After all, it was renamed from "Unfulfilled historical

4385:

This is probably one of the more easily achievable objectives we could have, as I tend to think that most subjects which have religion-related portals will also have substantial numbers of good articles. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, we could do something like this, starting in January:

1271:

OK, this is a hard one. First, there are individual ministers in some denominations who have, so far as I can tell pretty much on their own, called themselves "Bishops". I can't see that their doing so would automatically qualify those individuals as being notable on the basis of their own

4291:

Achievable, maybe. Likely to be achieved, based on the prior history of activity of this group, that's another matter entirely, particularly the part about working to get all the "core" articles from the EoR up to B-class level. Having myself recently developed one of those articles,

307:

and the like, qualify as "revival" or "continuous"? So far as I can tell, there is some serious disagreement within the academic itself regarding that matter. Not that I necessarily object to Ian's ideas per se, just that it might not actually resolve anything more easily or clearly.

3775:

Vandalism: Eckankar is a relatively new religion and has some detractors. The page has sections for Criticism and Related Groups. I am of the opinion that criticisms belong under the Criticism section and discussion of other religious groups belong under the Related Groups section.

1013:). The reason given is that these polemical categories are not the main focus or notability of each book. I'm not at all convinced by this reasoning; indeed, it seems to me that criticism of such groups as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Scientology, and the Unification Church is 462:

It seems to me that this should either be made into a "list of" article, or should be turned into a more substantial article on the general phenomenon of failed predictions, rather than a list. As for other faiths, I recall that there have been some Lubavitcher rabbis who predicted

2269:

For future reference, try finding relevant (and reputable) sources to support a definition under attack. One, "Sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Two, it requires the other party to produce counter sources of equal/better quality or

2236:

took my attempt at compromise, "Some religions have one supreme deity, others have multiple deities of various ranks" and added "that may be considered universally supreme by their adherents simply because they are deities, regardless of their rank." This makes no sense to me.

1176:

would be helpful to include the categories in question (since I believe they are more than adequately justified via a direct appeal to the contents of the book); however, if others aren't prepared to agree, I can live with that and move on to other, more important issues. —

2751:. Even if Huron doesn't see the apparent bias in the religious-based edits I listed above, along with that very anti-religious comment (although it seems he was more so measuring each individual edit in comparison to each individual article), others (such as Avanu) do. 3019:

Since you want to sit here and focus on Flyer or any sibling she may have instead of what this section is about, it's safe to say that you have no real explanation for why your edits are what others have described them to be -- sort of, midly, or extremely problematic.

3401:. There is some dispute as to what the article should contain and also in relation to referencing. Perhaps some interested eds would consider putting it on their watch lists. Personally, I'm on the point of taking it off mine due to general lack of constructive input. 3299:

I appreciate you explaining, Avanu, and am glad that you will be looking out for any similar IP editors. As for my innocence, it's like I've stated and I have not played any "games and shit." But I've stated pretty much all I have to state about this case. Thank you.

1458:

We need to distinguish clearly between "reliable sources as such" and "sources which establish notability". I can think of a number of Anglican "in-house sources" which are certainly reliable ones once notability is established, but might not in themselves establish

4183:

we need to be systematic in our approach. An organised patrol task force could work. Fancy tools not withstanding, most editors are limited in how many pages they can actively patrol. Coordinating who looks at what can expand coverage or at least make us concious of

3767:

Hi, I am a fairly new editor with a lot to learn. I am trying to edit and clean up the page for my church, Eckankar. I have been a member of Eckanakr for 37 years and am a member of the ECK Clergy. I need help with two things - organization and removal of vandalism.

1108:

I sense that the book is descriptive rather than critical and what criticism there is may be implied rather than explicit. In the absence of further information about the book, I would find it hard to reverse the elimination of the template in this case. As far as

298:

The one reservation I have regarding the above is that there will often be some reasonable disagreement between the current possible "revival" group and at least some of the academic sources as to whether there is a continuous history. For instance, would belief in

2789:

relayed that he can verify that "those IPs are not Flyers." A lot of people would take that to mean that they are not connected to her true IP or Knowledge account. I like how you try to deflect attention, though. Nice tactic. Still, has John Carter started that

2096:

purposes it is treated like a religious denomination. I would welcome some thoughts from people actively involved in the Religion project. I note the proposed manual of style does not seem to cover Religion in articles and that might be something to address. --

703: 2476:'s edits to religion or religion-related articles? Or at least propose a topic ban with regard to his edits at these articles? There have been various complaints about this user's editing, not just to religion or religion-related articles, by the way. See 185:

It should be recognised that regardless of numbers all deities "past" are, to this day, acknowledged and even worshipped by people the world over and many of these religious groups are growing in number and regaining validity and legal recognition (see:

253:

are in past tense even though there's nothing stopping anyone from appropriating those ancient religions for their own purposes. The articles on ancient Egyptian deities are sometimes inconsistant, but mostly lean towards past tense ("So-and-so

2333:). So we have a problem - no progress - thus no talking - outsiders (non project members) are waiting to see some progress in the recommendations already there before bring up other problems. No need to keep talking if no-one is fixing anything. 3192:

Excuse me, but the premise here is false. I looked at the edits and they did not show bias against Christianity, just a non-Christian viewpoint. So, for example, "church" is a term used for non-Christian houses of worship, such as in the UUA.

3281:

venues to discuss editor conduct. Harassing someone or going personally to one editor after another is unproductive and unprofessional. I have no way of knowing if this brother of yours exists or is just a line you're feeding us, regardless,

1555: 1473:

of Chichester seems questionable (I lived in the diocese for much of his tenure) and can think of others; there are many small Anglican dioceses, specially newer ones, where the mere fact of having been the bishop does in itself not attract

487:

Frankly, it seems that any list we produce will necessarily be incomplete and arbitrary or biased, especially given the historic lack of enthusiasm in improving this article (but perhaps the folks here will surprise me!). But, in any case,

1257:). Should there, however, be a bishop without significant coverage, in my opinion his job alone does not make him notable. On the other hand, I'm rather skeptical of "inherent notability" in all contexts, and others might disagree with me. 1495:

bishops, but I don't really want to take up that cause personally. Perhaps the WikiProject Religion could as a group put something together to add to the Notability (People) guidelines. Or, perhaps better yet, put an essay together like

2463: 3715:

guidelines to religious pages. What do people think? We could expand with things like a list of religions where Bishops are notable positions. We could also add a lot more to the list identifying "independent" religious news sources.

2231:

A bit silly, but I'm having an argument with an editor over this article. He wanted to define all deities as supreme beings in the initial sentence (and called me adultist for suggesting a children's book wasn't a good source). Hist

1170:

can be made only based on the content of the article (without direct reference to the book itself, and the attendant primary-vs.-secondary-source concerns), then there may not be much that can be done. As might be evident from the

1561:

So, following the above discussion on Bishops, I think an essay guide on notability of religious topics is in order. I took the liberty of creating a very rough draft; following the script laid down by reasonable consensus at the

4380: 706:? It doesn't seem quite the same to me, the one is about the creature in the Hindu pantheon, the other is about a creature important to Sri Lankan culture (using Buddhist images). Any input/thoughts/feedback welcomed. Thanks, 2240:

I've got a bigger problem with the article. Shouldn't it explain what the difference is between a 'god' and a 'deity'? If we can agree (ie find the sources) that there is one. Pagan theologian Michael York thinks there is - see

1348:. My Google search found only sources that were A) not a reliable source B) Anglican church related publication, or C) list of Bishops in the area which would call for a list page, and not an individual biography page. -- 3241:

got bold and created an account. That one was blocked for using proxies. And months after that, he created another one, which resulted in my block. In between offering me support, he was editing articles unrelated to me.

2005:

There is some current activity at the above page, which indicates that there is some difficulty defining exactly the term "religious traditions" in the article title. Any input on this matter would be more than welcome.

1465:

John Carter is perfectly right to point out the fact that there are many pastors of small groups who call themselves or are styled "bishops" by the group and have no claim to notability. (There must be hundreds in Chile

835:, a Greek mythology stub that I have been struggling for the past few days to find information on via the Internet and also through my own standard reference points. Any help that you can provide would be much obliged!! 2324:

The project members still have not implemented alot of the recommendations from the talk page. Like the "Criticism sections" - as no project can dictate the types of section or where content can or cant be placed

3848:. There is one editor who is section blanking so in order to check its neutrality, it may be best to make sure that the diff I just provided is used to compare any version that may exist upon reading the article. 3202: 4296:, using pretty much all the sources I could find on the topic in books and databanks available to me, I have to admit that I think it still probably is not a reasonable B-class. Another one I worked on as hard, 3543:

Lacking citation notwithstanding, that is a non-argument. One could claim any short video of a 'religion' reveling no substantial information on belief or dogma is really a relabeled or modified version of any

2760: 2615:

seems to already keep an eye on him. Was there an attempt to discuss these issues with him? I couldn't find anything on his talk page (except a notification of this thread), at least not in the last two weeks.

1394:

very safe bet that someone out there has written about pretty much all bishops in recent history and the like are probably significantly mentioned in some academic or independent history book or two somewhere.

3950: 3171: 3854:

Is the Discrimination section okay as far as Wiki policy? What about the Architecture section? Is there anything in it that would constitute the article being "Premotional?" Do you see any Original research?

3034:

I think you are underestimating the seriousness of IP hounding/socking. A few months back wikipedia lost one of their best admins because of an IP relentlessly stalking him. He eventually quit because of it.

2597: 3385: 355:

accurate. Those not worshipping the deities in question will still be able to understand the document perfectly and those that do worship them will have no cause to be offended. As I said; what is the harm?

1532:

which says "The Latter Day Saint concept of the office differs significantly from the role of bishops in other Christian denominations, being in some respects more analogous to a pastor or parish priest.".

1698:

lede. When you add details which are uncharacteristic of those 3 religions such as pantheism or deism he swiftly removes the information. When you add religions other than the above 3 he also reverts you.

1925:

on the article talk page. I'd like to keep the discussion focused on article content, and not perceived bias in other editors. Interested parties, of course, are welcome to participate in the discussion.

341:- to list a few - which use present tense in the introductory descriptions). I'm not suggesting that entire pages use present sense - obviously that would make the whole document read as nonsense (e.g. " 4403: 2549:, stated, "I find it quite astonishing that some editors are arguing that possibly giving a negative connotation to widely-held unscientific misconceptions is somehow a bad thing. Its a GOOD thing. 1084:

seems to contain only a passing reference to many or most of the groups involved in the categories under discussion. As such, they might be considered to not meet the overcategorization subsection

1462:

The difficulty with John Carter's last suggestion may well be getting hold of the independent book and this may do little more than reproduce selections of the more accessible "in house" material.

426: 2079: 4390:

involved in such an effort to work to bring a large enough number of those articles up to a good status that their inclusion in a portal would not be considered problematic in a FP candidacy.

2162:

It's a nice idea and good luck. I do have to wonder if this is the most productive location for your RfC, though. Either way, this is a persistent issue Knowledge has been grappling with. See

265:

I can't find anything in the manual of style about it, but I'd suggest using past tense for beings whose worship has died out, and then speaking in present tense of any revivals when they are

2184:

I couldn't think of a better place, unfortunately, except maybe the talkpages of the Mythology and Philosophy projects, which don't seem to get much more activity or attention than this one.

108: 3266:

But I do not condone him stressing you out in the way that he has, if that is the case. And I have done everything to keep him from editing Knowledge, with the exception of kicking him out.

1865:

the latter is rather closely tied to a particular "school" of study, so the former is probably the best for us. I will check that source's article on "God" on Monday and see what it says.

4078: 4030: 2124: 3686:

pertaining to the usage of BCE/CE and BC/AD. I'm alerting members of this project because of your discussion of era style guidelines for your project's MOS. The original RfC was posted

467:

within certain time periods, which did not materialize. I think L. Ron Hubbard may have made some specific Scientology related predictions that were rendered impossible upon his death.

419: 1132:". Certainly, all those Richwales named seem to be to have been described as NRMs at some point. If that is the case, a category about books critical of NRMs might also be reasonable. 145: 4353:

1) regular "newsletters," like that of the Military history WikiProject, which provide updates on content and at least one common page that almost all of the involved editors receive

2966:

Since before September 4, 2012 and after it. So I don't know what "little break" or "coincidence" you are referring to. I am continually reporting your edits to people or talk pages.

2105: 4001: 3994: 3780:

but without citations. I have moved these comments to the Criticism section, but he/they have repeatedly undone my changes and has done so anonymously - showing only an IP address.

1652: 208:

Using past tense implies that the deity in question is not a true divinity but rather a purely historical concept. It further suggests that these deities are no longer worshipped.

1029: 211:

In the interest of religious tolerance and equality all entries on the God, Gods and/or Goddesses of any religion should be referred to in the same fashion as any other divinity.

4111:: Get more people to watch pages. Many pages that have good content are still subject to ongoing unexplained deletions, including deletions of well referenced text and there are 831:

I noticed that the WikiProject Mythology page is pretty inactive. I was wondering if anyone here had the time to share their expertise with the editing and revising of the page,

676: 2431: 1627: 1210:, like congressman or NBA players. I see the title being treated as such on several biography pages and was wondering if any editor here could provide me with some insight. -- 988: 850:

It is just a symptom of a larger trend... How do you spell "editor attrition"? Long term editors seem to be getting fed up and leaving right and left, from multiple projects.

112: 3669: 3740: 1837:

Evidence was presented tying some of his behavior to that other account; anyone with common sense who compares the two accounts can see that they are the same person, and a

3870: 2156: 448:

I am certain there are non-Christian predictions myself. I will try to find sources and information in the next few days, but would welcome input from anyone else as well.

3653: 1594: 1639:

The above article was recently, so far as I can tell unilaterally, moved from the first title to the second. There has been a request for a move back to the old title at

111:- maybe somebody will be interested. This list will be regenerated so it may be a good idea to add this page to watchlist. Similar list on different topics are available 2414: 1851: 223: 4087:

As for WikiQuote and WikiSource, we need to establish their deficiencies. Since their content is either right or wrong, the question is more of coverage (than quality).

3060: 3046: 3029: 2906: 2890: 2873: 2858: 2838: 2823: 2803: 2780: 1253:

most bishops should have received significant coverage (and I'd say if a subject is a bishop that's a sufficient assertion of notability to prevent speedy deletion via

844: 385: 2879:

fishy going on. Some of the similar articles include completely random articles. And thats ignoring the fact that Flyer22 is always logged out when you are logged in.

2015: 1528:

At least one major religious grouping, the Latter Day Saints, have bishops which would not be automatically notable and any guidance would have to point this out. See

1452:

It may be an inevitable consequence of the dynamics of Knowledge and not wanting to upset people, but a lot of not-truly-notable stuff slips through the filters, e.g.

1897: 1874: 1614:

has suffered a mass deletion of links. The editor responsible for this has avoided the talk page and they appear to be edit warring. I have started a discussion here

1305:

However, following on John Carter's insights about Church publishing behavior around Bishop promotion, I would think that the Church's own publications would violate

3831: 3704: 3608: 3459: 3186: 2959:

I have not claimed to be anything. And, according to the sockpuppet experts, siblings edit similar articles when one is defending or otherwise supporting the other:

2704: 2684: 2310:

It's still "in the process" of being considered, I guess. There is a reasonable chance that the activity might pick up a little with school starting again, I think.

364: 293: 4334: 3503: 1940: 4330: 4312: 4268: 4125: 3965: 3218: 2593: 317: 3450:

Hoax. Only got 19 Google results, most of which are links to a single YouTube (comedy?) video made by apparent minors and one of which is the Knowledge article.

3444: 1663: 4121: 3627: 3477: 3381: 2647: 1563: 1554: 1496: 1185: 1097: 1071: 1050: 855: 3699: 3593: 3118: 1819:

at this site, he didn't know certain simple things about female anatomy. Like I stated before, he is either a very clueless female or he isn't a female at all.

1432: 1403: 1335: 982: 4157: 3357: 3333:

is the only IP who has focused so persistently on Pass a Method, but I do believe that he is willing to stop when seeing that his editing directly affects me.

3136: 3125:

Avnu i will try. But blocking the proxy IP is pointless coz he's just gonna come back 2 days later as he's done hundreds of times. I'm pessimistic about that.

2389:

myself as trying to be, would be challenged by at least a few parties and, on that basis, probably not as productive as any similar contributions from others.

1542: 1469:

There are probably a thousand active bishops (diocesan + assistant) in the Anglican Communion. While the occupants of major sees are probably notable, though

1141: 1123: 823: 350:

religion viewed as more than just a chapter in a history book? It's not an issue of political correctness, it's a simple matter of respect. There is no reason

4286: 4251: 4147: 4101: 4013: 3526: 3410: 2319: 2193: 2179: 889: 859: 576: 482: 457: 4370: 3900: 2625: 2283: 2141: 1834: 1772: 1749: 1372: 903: 3756: 2651: 2398: 2373: 2357: 2342: 1523: 1281: 345:" - past tense is needed here, obviously, as it is discussing a purely historical event) but when we are reading the introduction for a deity present tense 442: 356: 215: 4197: 4222: 3342: 3323: 3309: 3294: 3275: 2136: 1266: 817: 609: 546: 527: 506: 229:

At a quick glance over different articles, I believe that the past/present distinction is not over whether the deity is pre- or post-Christian (or else

4117: 3557: 3377: 2643: 851: 4004:

was created and populated and quickly targeted for deletion, and it seems logical that this project ought to weigh in on such discussion. Blessed be.

3939: 3795: 3314:

I asked you to stop the gaming occuring by your brother, who is theoretically in the same home as you. He is causing you problems by his behavior. --

2419:

Should the title of the Genesis creation myth article be called the "Genesis creation narrative" or the "Genesis creation myth". Input welcomed here:

2744:

article and did so after the first one, although (especially since the article is semi-protected) luckily others were there to side with me about it,

152: 3988: 3927: 2384:

one of the reasons that drew some of the other early editors in, specifically how to deal with "secular faiths" or whatever one wants to call them.

2039: 4349:

The ways other projects have been successful in getting attention to development of their content in wikipedia seem to include at least these two:

4069:

If we are considering more than just WP English, doing the same for each article in all working languages of the UN, EU, and AU would be fantastic.

3488:

Have heard of it when researching Tibet but was referred to as Ithonerilism it seems one of the children has changed the religion to fit his name

1998: 1885: 1828: 413: 157: 1294:

lists several accomplishments that are considered notable and can stand in for Significant coverage, but clearly states "meeting one or more does

918: 3705: 1622: 1731: 1234: 637: 284:

become as notable as the ancient worship, it might be worthwhile to adjust the tense of the article, but not simply for political correctness.

4344: 3417: 3348:

different topic areas of wikipedia a chance to get together and try to find a way to perhaps reduce the indicidence of such problematic edits.

2481: 2458: 2058: 1483: 94: 86: 4042: 2895:

Another oddity is that you resumed stalking me (after a lil break) after your sister received IP block exemption. Is that also a coincidence?

959: 140:. The previous nomination was archived due to lack of supports (or opposes, for that matter). The criteria for Featured Articles may be found 1806:(the "A suggestion" part), and he is always removing religious information from articles (leads or otherwise) and is often trying to promote 950:

Just the definition of the "arabic/Quranic word which means "Christ the son of Mary"." Not sure what to do about it, either AfD or redirect?

881: 836: 81: 69: 64: 59: 3654: 1966: 661: 3674: 938: 754: 369:

FYI, when "gods" is pluralized it is no longer capitalized, as "God" is capitalized not because of his divinity, but because the word is a

2074: 1675: 3944: 3826: 3051:

Okay. I will try to discuss things with you more instead of just taking the issue to someone or someplace else. That is fair, after all.

2477: 2219: 1993: 876:. If you have any time at all to spare later, please consider taking a look at either of them! A lot of editors have come out to work on 4273:

Save the later two semi-serious sub-points of my first suggestion, all the above are easily achievable over the whole year via teamwork.

715: 1455:. Do we need "sub-encyclopaedia"s such as en.basketball.wikipedia.org into which much of the not really notable stuff could be moved? 868:

Hopefully the trend reverses itself. I really need some support on relatively obscure areas of Greek and Babylonian mythology, such as

3236:, "there was a range of views, and differing interpretations of events, however there wasn't a consensus to unblock." Dennis has also 1803: 788: 418: 276:

may be why the articles are divided into past-tense and present tense: Zeus is notable for the ancient Greeks' worship of him, while

123: 3415: 2257: 1999: 3891:

about that over on the article's talk page. I hope that some editors with more knowledge on the topic will come weigh in. Thanks,

494: 3993: 2304: 880:

but the other one is a little 'under the weather' so to speak as far as article quality goes. It's adequate but not quite there.

2550: 2420: 237:

would be in present tense), but whether the modern worship of that deity is a continuous tradition or a reconstructed revival.

3875: 2120: 1615: 1345: 3159:

which states "may be removed if concerns arise". This is in the hope of more transparancy, not a lack of good faith. Thank you

1010: 679:. I'm wondering if anyone could offer information regarding notability and any potential references for building an article? 2812:'s brother. You have also not answered my question. Have you spoken to your sister about stalking me? If so, what was said? 3430:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3390: 3052: 3021: 2865: 2830: 2795: 2752: 2062: 1889: 1843: 1842:

by creating a new account, in addition to his continued disruptive behavior, means that he shouldn't be editing this site.

1820: 1041:

included in a book, I can't see a reason to overburden the article with what might be considered excessive categorization.

688: 381: 3649:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1640: 965:

Less knowledgeable than I should be on this subject. Is the term actually used in the Qur'an? If so, let's redirect it to

3747:

like religious publications as sources, details about what makes a religion/church notable for the English wiki etc... ?

3585: 3495: 2110: 1958: 1448:

As an Anglican I have read the above with a certain amount of amused interest. Perhaps the following comments may help.

47: 17: 3953:

piece. (It covers an alleged systemic Wikipedian bias against non-Abrahamic religions, not Christianity in particular.)

1306: 1207: 4326: 3905: 3155:

To any admins watching this, i would like to request removal of IP block exemption from Flyer22's account. This is per

2589: 2242: 1104: 1005: 582: 128: 3329: 3237: 2964: 737:

as to whether or not to move those pages to article titles reflecting the singular nature of each of the works in the

1643:, and I would welcome the input of any editors regarding the name and content of the article in question. Thank you. 329:

a deity in the Ancient (nation) Religion" doesn't read particularly awkwardly at all (as can be seen on the pages of

2487:

With regard to religion or religion-related articles as of late, here are some problematic edits the user has made:

741:, rather than the current Septuagint-based titles. The input of any interested editor would be greatly appreciated. 269:. I believe that this is the pattern for the mostly used distinction, which would reflect an unconscious consensus. 4206: 3762: 2639: 1566:. This project seems to have more than a few interested editors so I encourage you all to take a look, debate, and 2668:

History2007, sorry for any inconvenience. Its difficult to edit rationally when the most persistent IP stalks and

2267:

needs a lot of cleaning up. In my experience, haphazard and poorly citied articles encourage this sort of dispute.

1344:

was the article that inspired me to ask this question. The only citation is an obituary, which isn't considered a

3846: 3621: 3229: 2442: 978: 750: 3435:

We have a very odd new article that fell to uncat. Does anyone have any familiarity with this claimed religion?

2864:

section is not about any of that. So either focus on what it is about, or just stop commenting in this section.

3888: 2092: 1599: 2030:

problems regarding this content as some Jewish editors might be excepted to would also be very much welcome.

2020: 1291: 595:, which appears to be a newly-formed religion based on the teachings of a 14th century Indian guru, of which 1298:

guarantee that a subject should be included". Given that, actual practice is that these biographies survive

3970: 3851:

My questions about the diff are about some sections that I contributed but need other editors to evaluate:

3391: 1201: 1128:

It does seem to me that these books might be discussing groups which might all fall in the broad field of "

1077: 869: 399: 3660:

Please see this discussion concerning the notability and authenticity of this supposed Druidic catechism.

3177:

The appropriate venue to make such a request would be at one of the administrator noticeboards, not here.

3109:

comment, but here comes someone happily stepping in and playing games. I will be following up on this. --

1377:

I should probably clarify what I said above. I was thinking, particularly in recent days, of sources like

1000: 652:

pls list the portal in the directory of religions also at other place where you think it should be listed.

3198: 2585: 2578: 2570: 2116: 1922: 1881: 1718: 2517: 2562: 2546: 2163: 2044: 1529: 913: 614: 596: 588: 38: 2233: 1709:

states that a lede should include any prominent controversies. Adjwilley however has decided that the

3800: 2539: 2504: 2436: 1680: 969:. If not, it's a foreign-language redirect, which we don't generally use, and it should be deleted. – 532:

Perhaps you're right. I wouldn't know, since I don't know world religions, but there surely must be

109:

list of articles about priests, without image in infobox on this wikipedia, but with image on plwiki

3783:

How can I make the organizational changes I want to make and also ensure that the vandalism stops?

3687: 3440: 3406: 3056: 3025: 2869: 2834: 2799: 2756: 1893: 1847: 1824: 1608: 1206:

I am looking for some policy that states that Bishops have default notability without establishing

943: 699: 2528: 4018: 3589: 3499: 3166: 3131: 3041: 2901: 2885: 2853: 2818: 2775: 2679: 2214: 2088: 1962: 894:

lol I definitely sympathize with the editor attrition thing. I'll take a crack at Bident though.

360: 219: 2496: 2207: 4293: 3984: 3961: 3194: 2326: 1341: 1129: 720: 642: 4399: 4366: 4308: 4264: 4038: 4009: 3896: 3604: 3599:??? You're the same guy as earlier. Now it's pretty obvious you're a troll in on the hoax. 3353: 3182: 2700: 2394: 2353: 2315: 2189: 2152: 2057:

added today. I added the tag to indicate the page is being surpassed by the new proposal at

2035: 2011: 1989: 1870: 1768: 1726: 1671: 1648: 1470: 1399: 1379: 1277: 1137: 1093: 1046: 605: 572: 453: 409: 313: 289: 141: 119: 926: 3791: 3712: 3581: 3491: 3473: 3455: 2960: 2453: 2253: 2132: 1538: 1499:. I find that one incredibly useful for determining the notability of military subjects. -- 955: 899: 795: 770: 711: 657: 633: 794:

As there has been no movement on this, I have disambiguated the page in a accordance with

769:

currently has a disambiguation tag on it, but it is clearly not a disambiguation page per

567:, and elsewhere under the search "failed predictions of the end of the world" might help. 8: 3436: 3402: 3262: 2427: 1981: 1946: 1935: 1838: 1657: 1633: 1182: 1076:

I don't doubt that you are right, as you know more about the book than I do. But I think

1068: 1026: 974: 759: 746: 726: 592: 374: 129: 2785:

I have no comment on my identity, except to say that administrator and sockpuppet clerk

2294:

It looks like there hasn't been activity on this in over a month. Is this still current?

3733: 3695: 3161: 3126: 3036: 2896: 2880: 2848: 2813: 2770: 2674: 2473: 2209: 2080: 2050: 1971: 1721: 1720:. I would appreciate some more eyes on this article since we seem to be going nowhere. 1587: 1516: 1425: 1385: 1365: 1328: 1227: 693: 619: 4074: 3980: 3976: 3957: 3866: 3801: 3752: 3338: 3305: 3271: 2786: 1479: 1119: 623: 464: 194: 4395: 4362: 4304: 4281: 4260: 4246: 4217: 4192: 4142: 4096: 4034: 4005: 3916: 3892: 3841: 3833: 3665: 3600: 3552: 3349: 3233: 3178: 2748: 2696: 2612: 2390: 2349: 2311: 2300: 2278: 2201: 2185: 2174: 2148: 2031: 2007: 1985: 1954: 1866: 1764: 1667: 1644: 1629: 1567: 1395: 1273: 1133: 1089: 1085: 1042: 944: 885: 840: 812: 783: 601: 568: 542: 537:

predictions by Christians" five years ago, yet still has no non-Christian content!

522: 502: 477: 449: 438: 405: 309: 285: 115: 3861:

Thank you all for your time. I am watching this page in case there are questions.

1664:

Template talk:Religion topics#RfC on what articles to be included in this template

3787: 3469: 3451: 3319: 3290: 3214: 3114: 2791: 2669: 2447: 2289: 2249: 2128: 1745: 1534: 1249: 951: 934: 922: 895: 734: 707: 672: 653: 629: 564: 1299: 1254: 425:

I honestly would prefer that this article be deleted, for reasons I've outlined

46:

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

3817: 3615: 3522: 3156: 2621: 2423: 2369: 2338: 2070: 1929: 1706: 1686: 1262: 1245: 1177: 1063: 1021: 995: 970: 966: 742: 738: 730: 684: 280:

is notable for worship of him past and present. Should some modern worship of

273: 266: 102: 4062:, all major religions highlighted there, and all their major denominations to 2611:

was appropriate because it's not just a name for Christian institutions), but

3718: 3691: 3683: 3675: 3376:

when he has had one beer too many, and getting the IP to stop chasing him...

2385: 2330: 2224: 2101: 2027: 1572: 1501: 1410: 1350: 1313: 1241: 1212: 563:, from religioustolerance.org, which is I think considered a reliable source 137: 2053:

has been marked as failed... however there is an ongoing tlak about the tag

4154: 4063: 3862: 3748: 3334: 3301: 3267: 2844: 2809: 2766: 2513: 2500: 2465: 1619: 1475: 1115: 560: 250: 198: 149: 4205:

I still think a patrol task force is a good idea. Perhaps liaise with the

3578:

I have also heard of Ithonerilism it is some sort of cultish Hindu thing

205:

deities to prevent offence to those still worshipping pre-Christian Gods.

4381:

One specific proposal: try to bring Religion-related portals to FP status

4277: 4242: 4213: 4188: 4138: 4092: 3934: 3922: 3661: 3548: 2843:

Since you answer my question with another question, should i instead ask

2558: 2296: 2274: 2170: 1947: 1835:

been permanently blocked before, but came back under his current account.

1811: 803: 799: 774: 766: 760: 666: 538: 513: 498: 468: 434: 370: 300: 242: 2745: 622:

describes a limited opportunity for Knowledge editors to have access to

4322: 3858:

Feel free to edit it if you see problems there. That would help a lot.

3315: 3286: 3210: 3110: 2581: 1741: 930: 2061:. Can we get a few more people to comment on the old page pls ... see 993:

Several "Books critical of ..." categories were recently removed from

4297: 3808: 3518: 2617: 2365: 2334: 2066: 1258: 704:

Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Makara (The Dragon in Sri Lanka)

680: 1763:

encyclopedia to make an effort to do so on big/general questions. --

1713:

lede should not include any controvrsies, but should instead state "

4059: 3956:

A similar invitation has been posted at the Atheism Wikiproject. --

3884: 3877: 3517:

It would be more impressive if you had heard of a reliable source.

2769:'s brother. Has your sister had a word with you about stalking me? 2524: 2097: 1953:

FYI, the usage of the term "No religion" is up for discussion, see

238: 197:

page uses present tense in regards to him as the central figure of

187: 3845:

invite fresh new editors to edit the page. The current article is

2507:, but "mythological" still currently remains the first descriptor. 1976:

There is a request for comment regarding the scope of the article

1815: 1453: 334: 277: 246: 234: 4238:- There's no need for 2000+ unassessed pages under this project. 2608: 1703:

newspaper) over a higher-quality source from research reports.

877: 873: 832: 330: 304: 230: 4318: 3690:

where you may follow the link to the live discussion. Thanks.

2673:

battle my stalker because my stalker has more energy than me.

2741: 2225: 1807: 281: 245:

are in present tense and their worship never died out, while

404:

I would like to join this group - anything that I need do?

325:(or no longer) exist. Furthermore the example of "So-and-so 3328:

And all of that has been discussed at length, Avanu, which

2535: 2492: 647: 343:

Ancient Egyptian cults honour Horus at his temple at... etc

163: 3786:

Thanks. I can also be reached at steve at runfeldt.com --

2574: 2523:

Removed the part about "church" refering to a "Christian

2123:. Please express any views you may have on the matter at 1977: 1710: 1695: 1690: 4202:

Oh my! Is the tool thing too scary of an undertaking? :)

4153:

piled on by 1 or more PoV-pushers or outright vandals.

3397:

This article is marked as of interest to this project,

2512:

Removed "Christian church" and "Christianity" from the

1564:

Knowledge:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide

1497:

Knowledge:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide

338: 4303:, which I think now are public domain, on WikiSource. 2484:

for some of the editor's other problematic editing.

989:

Removal of polemical categories from two book articles

2588:, "Editor shows a pattern of bias in overall edits." 3655:

Knowledge:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Coelbren Rhodd

2206:

You are invited to give an opinion on this proposal

3979:to rename the article as "Anti-Islamic sentiment". 2415:

Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth

725:There are discussion underway at the talk pages of 262:(nationality) Religion/Mythology" reads awkwardly). 4180:On the issue of article degradation be systematic: 2063:Knowledge talk:Religion#Failed proposal from 2009 1240:I don't think any of the specialized subpages of 3807:Some more eyes on this article would be useful. 2464:Editor biased against religion and specifically 3706:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide 3468:Have nominated for speedy deletion as G3/hoax. 1886:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 1857:two best religion reference encyclopedias, the 1641:Talk:Existence of God(s)#Article title question 1616:Template_talk:Religion topics#Deletion of links 1556:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide 929:. (Of course I provide my reasoning there.) -- 2421:Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move 2059:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style 1302:with poor citations like a baseball stat site. 824:Hey, I think the Mythology WikiProject is dead 201:, so too should the present tense be used for 166:) and all other pages relating to deities use 136:The article on George Went Hensley is again a 4356:2) some sort of "contest" to develop content. 3951:User:Pass a Method/Christian POV on Knowledge 3949:Any editors are welcome to contribute to the 2534:Added "mythological" as first description of 2142:Newsletter for religion/philosophy/mythology? 591:and some of the surrounding articles such as 587:There seems to be a bit of a war going on at 3711:I created this essay in order to help apply 2607:given the Church of Scientology his edit to 2443:Talk:Hunger_strike#RfC_on_inclusion_criteria 2083:and by extension other Religion in articles. 493:prediction I've seen listed was one which I 921:, and immediately below it, I propose that 802:into it. As always, more work can be done. 4077:status for all other article linked to in 3915:You are invited to join the discussion at 1921:I have responded to the above accusations 559:At least a few links for such predictions 3840:Hi. I am one of three regular editors at 3682:There is a current RfC on the wording of 1880:previous account indefinitely blocked -- 1685:Although he is generally an okay editor, 1080:might be relevant. As is, the article on 648:http://en.wikipedia.org/Portal:Ravidassia 2441:Could you please join the discussion at 2000:List of founders of religious traditions 158:All Entries Concerning Religious Figures 14: 4317:Speaking of WF projects improving the 2557:Biased, religion-related edits at the 2243:Michael York: Not All Gods Are Deities 2121:Category:Religion and belief templates 1715:what most people generally do agree on 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3426:The following discussion is closed. 3399:though as yet has received no rating 1689:has been acting very strange on the 671:I'm looking for input regarding the 25: 3945:Essay on religious POV in Knowledge 2808:You have already admitted to being 23: 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Religion 4079:User:John Carter/Religion articles 1105:Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion 1006:Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion 24: 4414: 3975:There is currently a proposal at 420:Unfulfilled religious predictions 4116:articles would have been great. 4066:status would be good objectives. 3910: 3645:The discussion above is closed. 2690:several of your edits are of an 2640:lack of rationality in the edits 2245:and he's a reliable source, see 1984:. Any and all input is welcome. 1340:Perhaps an example is in order. 29: 4002:Category:Metatheory of religion 3995:Category:Metatheory of religion 2638:It is not just bias, it is the 1166:If the category decision w/r/t 4345:How to achieve goals for 2013? 3478:14:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC) 3460:14:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC) 3445:14:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC) 3411:19:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC) 3386:20:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 3358:17:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC) 3343:00:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC) 3324:00:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC) 3310:00:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC) 3295:00:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC) 3276:00:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC) 3219:00:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC) 3203:23:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 3187:17:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC) 3172:19:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 3137:20:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 3119:19:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 3061:18:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 3047:18:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 3030:18:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 2907:18:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 2891:18:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 2874:18:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 2859:18:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 2839:17:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 2824:17:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 2804:17:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 2781:17:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 2761:16:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 2705:17:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC) 2685:10:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC) 2652:22:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC) 2626:19:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC) 2598:18:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC) 2499:, while removing "traditional 2459:18:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 2093:Norwegian Humanist Association 1982:Talk:God#Scope of this article 170:in primary descriptions. E.g. 144:. Anyone wishing to do so may 13: 1: 4404:16:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 4335:01:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC) 4313:16:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC) 4287:15:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC) 4269:22:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC) 4049:Improvement of major articles 4014:20:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 3901:23:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC) 3887:needs to change. I made some 3871:02:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 3827:23:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC) 3796:19:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC) 3757:02:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 3678:RfC on BC/AD and BCE/CE usage 2432:13:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC) 2284:15:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 2087:There is a discussion in the 1787:somewhat off topic commentary 1286:Interesting responses. Huon, 4371:16:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC) 4252:19:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC) 4223:21:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC) 4198:17:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC) 4158:16:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC) 4148:19:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC) 4126:19:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC) 4102:09:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC) 4043:19:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC) 3989:17:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC) 3966:19:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC) 3940:17:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC) 3928:17:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC) 3741:00:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC) 3700:16:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC) 3670:16:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC) 3392:Religion in national symbols 2472:Will someone keep an eye on 2468:at religion-related articles 1694:should be emphasised in the 1408:I guess that makes sense. -- 1290:was a poor choice of words. 233:would be in past tense, and 7: 4236:Assess all unassessed pages 3628:21:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC) 3609:22:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC) 3594:22:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC) 3558:10:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC) 3527:09:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC) 3504:05:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC) 3232:, and which is why, within 2571:Knowledge:WikiProject Bible 2399:15:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 2374:22:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 2358:22:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 2343:22:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 2320:20:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 2305:19:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 2258:13:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 2220:08:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC) 2194:20:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 2180:20:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 2157:20:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC) 2137:11:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 2117:Category:Religion templates 2111:Category:Religion templates 2106:15:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 2091:pages on the status of the 162:Suggest that this page (on 10: 4419: 4029:articles, it can be found 3906:RfC at Talk:Religion#Image 2547:Genesis creation narrative 2119:be merged into its parent 2075:17:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC) 1863:Religion Past and Present, 1530:Bishop (Latter Day Saints) 1308:Independent of the subject 789:23:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 755:05:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC) 716:01:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC) 689:12:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC) 597:Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji 589:Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji 583:Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji 547:15:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC) 528:15:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC) 414:22:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 386:10:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 365:14:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 318:18:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 303:as a hero, and presumably 294:18:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 224:17:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 176:the father of Gods and men 153:17:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 138:Featured Article Candidate 124:22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 4026:Encyclopedia of Religion, 3832:Request for attention at 2527:institution or building." 2040:15:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 2016:20:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 1994:15:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 1967:05:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 1941:20:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC) 1898:00:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC) 1875:22:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC) 1852:21:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC) 1829:20:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC) 1773:12:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC) 1750:05:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC) 1732:05:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC) 1676:21:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC) 1595:18:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC) 1543:08:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 1524:05:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 1484:18:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 1433:19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 1404:15:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 1373:06:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 1336:06:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 1282:20:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 1267:16:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 1235:16:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 1186:18:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 1142:17:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 1124:16:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 1098:16:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 1072:06:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 1051:20:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 1030:02:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 983:14:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 960:13:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 662:22:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 638:15:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 610:17:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC) 577:00:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 507:11:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC) 483:01:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC) 465:the coming of the Messiah 458:23:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 443:15:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 3763:Updates to Eckankar Page 3647:Please do not modify it. 3428:Please do not modify it. 3230:recently commented about 3195:I'm StillStanding (24/7) 1859:Encyclopedia of Religion 1653:20:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC) 1623:21:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 1102:Having read the article 939:12:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 904:21:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC) 890:01:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC) 860:21:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC) 845:03:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC) 818:12:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC) 700:Makara (Hindu mythology) 3330:was addressed recently. 2503:"; this was tweaked by 2089:talk:Religion in Norway 1604:The important template 1130:new religious movements 798:, and have also merged 4294:Nerses IV the Gracious 4207:Counter-Vandalism Unit 4164:On the issue of tools: 3876:Invitation to discuss 1600:Mass deletion of links 1342:John Franklin Spalding 1292:WP:Notability (people) 4325:would also be cool.-- 2115:I have proposed that 2021:Weekly Torah portions 1471:Roger Wilson (bishop) 1078:WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION 42:of past discussions. 3971:Islamophobia article 3623:concerning my deeds. 3614:it in a blue field? 2497:"mythological" to it 2125:the merge discussion 1882:WP:Original research 1380:L'Osservatore Romano 1208:Significant coverage 1202:Are Bishops Notable? 702:the same subject as 400:I would like to join 3917:Talk:Religion#Image 2552:This show his bias. 2164:WP:Expert retention 1634:Existence of God(s) 925:should be retitled 727:Books of Chronicles 593:Ravidassia Religion 130:George Went Hensley 3429: 3238:recently commented 2847:on her talk page? 2474:User:Pass a Method 2081:Religion in Norway 2051:Knowledge:Religion 2045:Knowledge:Religion 1662:Please comment at 1386:Our Sunday Visitor 914:proposal to rename 620:Knowledge:HighBeam 615:Knowledge:HighBeam 4285: 4250: 4221: 4196: 4146: 4100: 4081:would be amazing. 3977:Talk:Islamophobia 3938: 3926: 3802:Religious offense 3727: 3584:comment added by 3556: 3494:comment added by 3427: 3096: 3095: 2794:against you yet? 2561:article, such as 2437:Hunger strike RfC 2282: 2178: 1917: 1916: 1681:Bias by Adjwilley 1581: 1510: 1419: 1359: 1322: 1221: 1020:people think? — 624:HighBeam Research 195:Jesus of Nazareth 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4410: 4319:Way of St. James 4276: 4241: 4212: 4187: 4173:show all changes 4137: 4091: 3932: 3920: 3914: 3913: 3842:La Luz del Mundo 3834:La Luz del Mundo 3824: 3815: 3739: 3736: 3730: 3728: 3725: 3624: 3618: 3596: 3547: 3506: 3283:it will stop now 3169: 3164: 3134: 3129: 3044: 3039: 2904: 2899: 2888: 2883: 2856: 2851: 2821: 2816: 2778: 2773: 2719: 2718: 2682: 2677: 2491:Messed with the 2456: 2450: 2273: 2217: 2212: 2169: 1955:Talk:No religion 1939: 1932: 1783: 1782: 1729: 1724: 1630:Existence of God 1613: 1607: 1593: 1590: 1584: 1582: 1579: 1522: 1519: 1513: 1511: 1508: 1431: 1428: 1422: 1420: 1417: 1371: 1368: 1362: 1360: 1357: 1334: 1331: 1325: 1323: 1320: 1233: 1230: 1224: 1222: 1219: 945:Masih Ibn Maryam 810: 781: 698:Is this article 520: 475: 178:- as opposed to 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4418: 4417: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4383: 4347: 4021: 4019:Goals for 2013? 3998: 3973: 3947: 3911: 3908: 3883:The article on 3881: 3838: 3818: 3809: 3805: 3765: 3734: 3731: 3724: 3719: 3717: 3709: 3680: 3658: 3651: 3650: 3626: 3622: 3616: 3579: 3489: 3432: 3422: 3395: 3167: 3162: 3132: 3127: 3097: 3042: 3037: 2902: 2897: 2886: 2881: 2854: 2849: 2819: 2814: 2776: 2771: 2724: 2680: 2675: 2495:article to add 2470: 2454: 2448: 2439: 2417: 2327:WP:Advice pages 2292: 2266: 2229: 2215: 2210: 2204: 2144: 2113: 2085: 2047: 2023: 2003: 1974: 1951: 1933: 1927: 1918: 1788: 1727: 1722: 1683: 1660: 1637: 1628:Recent move of 1611: 1609:Religion topics 1605: 1602: 1588: 1585: 1578: 1573: 1571: 1559: 1517: 1514: 1507: 1502: 1500: 1426: 1423: 1416: 1411: 1409: 1366: 1363: 1356: 1351: 1349: 1346:reliable source 1329: 1326: 1319: 1314: 1312: 1228: 1225: 1218: 1213: 1211: 1204: 991: 948: 916: 826: 804: 775: 764: 735:Books of Samuel 723: 696: 673:Church of Satan 669: 645: 617: 585: 514: 469: 423: 402: 384: 377:John Chrysostom 160: 134: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4416: 4382: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4358: 4357: 4354: 4346: 4343: 4342: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4289: 4274: 4255: 4254: 4239: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4210: 4203: 4185: 4177: 4169:revisionjumper 4150: 4135: 4129: 4128: 4105: 4104: 4088: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4070: 4067: 4053: 4052: 4020: 4017: 3997: 3992: 3972: 3969: 3946: 3943: 3930: 3907: 3904: 3880: 3874: 3837: 3830: 3804: 3799: 3764: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3720: 3708: 3703: 3679: 3673: 3657: 3652: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3620: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3545: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3463: 3462: 3437:MatthewVanitas 3433: 3424: 3423: 3421: 3414: 3403:RashersTierney 3394: 3389: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3222: 3221: 3190: 3189: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3053:65.117.207.142 3022:65.117.207.142 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2893: 2866:65.117.207.142 2831:65.117.207.142 2796:65.117.207.142 2753:65.117.207.142 2726: 2725: 2722: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2601: 2600: 2566: 2565: 2554: 2553: 2542: 2541: 2531: 2530: 2520: 2519: 2509: 2508: 2505:another editor 2469: 2462: 2438: 2435: 2416: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2295: 2291: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2271: 2268: 2264: 2228: 2223: 2203: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2167: 2143: 2140: 2112: 2109: 2084: 2078: 2046: 2043: 2022: 2019: 2002: 1997: 1973: 1970: 1950: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1890:161.139.147.98 1844:161.139.147.98 1821:161.139.147.98 1790: 1789: 1786: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1687:User:Adjwilley 1682: 1679: 1659: 1656: 1636: 1626: 1601: 1598: 1574: 1558: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1503: 1487: 1486: 1467: 1463: 1460: 1456: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1412: 1352: 1315: 1303: 1214: 1203: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1173:Another Gospel 1168:Another Gospel 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1111:Another Gospel 1082:Another Gospel 1060:Another Gospel 1054: 1053: 996:Another Gospel 990: 987: 986: 985: 967:Jesus in Islam 947: 942: 915: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 863: 862: 825: 822: 821: 820: 763: 758: 739:Masoretic text 731:Books of Kings 722: 721:Proposed moves 719: 695: 692: 668: 665: 644: 643:Portal Listing 641: 627: 616: 613: 584: 581: 580: 579: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 422: 417: 401: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 388: 380: 270: 263: 214: 159: 156: 146:leave comments 133: 127: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4415: 4406: 4405: 4401: 4397: 4391: 4387: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4368: 4364: 4355: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4336: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4320: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4310: 4306: 4302: 4299: 4295: 4290: 4288: 4283: 4279: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4266: 4262: 4257: 4256: 4253: 4248: 4244: 4237: 4234: 4233: 4224: 4219: 4215: 4208: 4204: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4194: 4190: 4182: 4181: 4174: 4170: 4166: 4165: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4156: 4151: 4149: 4144: 4140: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4127: 4123: 4119: 4114: 4110: 4107: 4106: 4103: 4098: 4094: 4089: 4086: 4082: 4080: 4076: 4071: 4068: 4065: 4061: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4050: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4040: 4036: 4032: 4027: 4016: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4003: 3996: 3991: 3990: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3968: 3967: 3963: 3959: 3954: 3952: 3942: 3941: 3937: 3936: 3929: 3925: 3924: 3918: 3903: 3902: 3898: 3894: 3890: 3886: 3879: 3873: 3872: 3868: 3864: 3859: 3856: 3852: 3849: 3847: 3843: 3835: 3829: 3828: 3825: 3823: 3822: 3816: 3814: 3813: 3803: 3798: 3797: 3793: 3789: 3784: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3769: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3737: 3729: 3723: 3714: 3713:WP:Notability 3707: 3702: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3677: 3672: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3656: 3648: 3629: 3625: 3619: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3606: 3602: 3598: 3597: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3586:108.23.41.104 3583: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3559: 3554: 3550: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3505: 3501: 3497: 3496:108.23.41.104 3493: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3479: 3475: 3471: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3431: 3419: 3413: 3412: 3408: 3404: 3400: 3393: 3388: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3340: 3336: 3331: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3264: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3170: 3165: 3163:Pass a Method 3160: 3158: 3138: 3135: 3130: 3128:Pass a Method 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3045: 3040: 3038:Pass a Method 3033: 3032: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2965: 2962: 2961:WP:MEATPUPPET 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2908: 2905: 2900: 2898:Pass a Method 2894: 2892: 2889: 2884: 2882:Pass a Method 2877: 2876: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2857: 2852: 2850:Pass a Method 2846: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2822: 2817: 2815:Pass a Method 2811: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2788: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2779: 2774: 2772:Pass a Method 2768: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2743: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2721: 2720: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2693: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2683: 2678: 2676:Pass a Method 2671: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2614: 2610: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2586:reverting him 2583: 2579: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2567: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2555: 2551: 2548: 2544: 2543: 2540: 2537: 2533: 2532: 2529: 2526: 2522: 2521: 2518: 2515: 2511: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2485: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2467: 2461: 2460: 2457: 2452: 2451: 2444: 2434: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2422: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2387: 2386:Pseudoscience 2382: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2285: 2280: 2276: 2263:That article 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2244: 2238: 2235: 2227: 2222: 2221: 2218: 2213: 2211:Pass a Method 2208: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2176: 2172: 2165: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2139: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2108: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2094: 2090: 2082: 2077: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2042: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2018: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2001: 1996: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1969: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1959:76.65.131.160 1956: 1949: 1942: 1937: 1931: 1924: 1920: 1919: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1785: 1784: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1730: 1725: 1723:Pass a Method 1719: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1697: 1692: 1688: 1678: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1666:. Thank you. 1665: 1655: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1635: 1631: 1625: 1624: 1621: 1617: 1610: 1597: 1596: 1591: 1583: 1577: 1569: 1565: 1557: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1531: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1520: 1512: 1506: 1498: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1461: 1457: 1454: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1434: 1429: 1421: 1415: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1392: 1388: 1387: 1382: 1381: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1369: 1361: 1355: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1332: 1324: 1318: 1310: 1309: 1304: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1231: 1223: 1217: 1209: 1187: 1184: 1181: 1180: 1174: 1169: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1112: 1107: 1106: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1070: 1067: 1066: 1061: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1039: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1028: 1025: 1024: 1018: 1017: 1012: 1008: 1007: 1002: 998: 997: 984: 980: 976: 972: 968: 964: 963: 962: 961: 957: 953: 946: 941: 940: 936: 932: 928: 927:Shinkō shūkyō 924: 920: 905: 901: 897: 893: 892: 891: 887: 883: 879: 875: 871: 867: 866: 865: 864: 861: 857: 853: 849: 848: 847: 846: 842: 838: 834: 829: 819: 816: 815: 811: 809: 808: 801: 797: 796:WP:DABCONCEPT 793: 792: 791: 790: 787: 786: 782: 780: 779: 772: 771:WP:DABCONCEPT 768: 762: 757: 756: 752: 748: 744: 740: 736: 732: 728: 718: 717: 713: 709: 705: 701: 691: 690: 686: 682: 678: 674: 664: 663: 659: 655: 649: 640: 639: 635: 631: 625: 621: 612: 611: 607: 603: 598: 594: 590: 578: 574: 570: 566: 562: 558: 548: 544: 540: 535: 531: 530: 529: 526: 525: 521: 519: 518: 510: 509: 508: 504: 500: 496: 491: 486: 485: 484: 481: 480: 476: 474: 473: 466: 461: 460: 459: 455: 451: 447: 446: 445: 444: 440: 436: 430: 428: 421: 416: 415: 411: 407: 387: 383: 379: 378: 372: 368: 367: 366: 362: 358: 357:Crisscrossono 353: 348: 344: 340: 336: 332: 328: 323: 322: 321: 320: 319: 315: 311: 306: 302: 297: 296: 295: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 268: 264: 261: 257: 252: 248: 244: 240: 236: 232: 228: 227: 226: 225: 221: 217: 216:Crisscrossono 212: 209: 206: 204: 200: 196: 191: 189: 183: 181: 177: 175: 169: 165: 155: 154: 151: 147: 143: 139: 131: 126: 125: 121: 117: 114: 110: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4392: 4388: 4384: 4359: 4348: 4327:85.55.204.69 4301: 4235: 4209:if possible. 4179: 4178: 4172: 4168: 4163: 4162: 4112: 4108: 4072: 4048: 4025: 4022: 3999: 3981:AndyTheGrump 3974: 3958:Demiurge1000 3955: 3948: 3933: 3921: 3909: 3882: 3860: 3857: 3853: 3850: 3839: 3820: 3819: 3811: 3810: 3806: 3785: 3782: 3778: 3774: 3770: 3766: 3721: 3710: 3681: 3659: 3646: 3580:— Preceding 3490:— Preceding 3434: 3425: 3418:Ethanarilism 3416:New article 3398: 3396: 3374: 3282: 3263:WP:CheckUser 3191: 3154: 3153: 2787:Dennis Brown 2767:User:Flyer22 2691: 2590:94.76.201.77 2584:stated when 2514:Universalism 2486: 2471: 2466:Christianity 2446: 2440: 2418: 2380: 2293: 2239: 2230: 2205: 2145: 2114: 2086: 2054: 2048: 2024: 2004: 1975: 1952: 1862: 1858: 1839:WP:CheckUser 1804:this section 1714: 1705: 1701: 1684: 1661: 1638: 1603: 1575: 1560: 1504: 1447: 1413: 1391:encyclopedia 1390: 1384: 1378: 1353: 1316: 1307: 1295: 1287: 1215: 1205: 1178: 1172: 1167: 1110: 1103: 1081: 1064: 1059: 1037: 1022: 1015: 1014: 1004: 994: 992: 949: 917: 830: 827: 813: 806: 805: 784: 777: 776: 765: 724: 697: 670: 646: 618: 586: 533: 523: 516: 515: 489: 478: 471: 470: 431: 424: 403: 376: 351: 346: 342: 326: 259: 255: 251:Sol Invictus 213: 210: 207: 202: 199:Christianity 192: 184: 179: 173: 171: 168:present text 167: 161: 135: 107:I generated 106: 75: 43: 37: 4396:John Carter 4363:John Carter 4305:John Carter 4261:John Carter 4118:History2007 4073:Attempting 4035:John Carter 4006:DeistCosmos 3893:groupuscule 3735:talk to me! 3601:Ian.thomson 3378:History2007 3350:John Carter 3179:John Carter 2749:Herostratus 2697:John Carter 2644:History2007 2613:John Carter 2559:Golden Rule 2391:John Carter 2350:John Carter 2312:John Carter 2234:latest edit 2186:John Carter 2149:John Carter 2032:John Carter 2008:John Carter 1986:John Carter 1948:No religion 1867:John Carter 1812:agnosticism 1765:Yngvadottir 1668:John Carter 1658:Related RfC 1645:John Carter 1589:talk to me! 1518:talk to me! 1474:notability. 1427:talk to me! 1396:John Carter 1367:talk to me! 1330:talk to me! 1274:John Carter 1229:talk to me! 1134:John Carter 1090:John Carter 1043:John Carter 852:History2007 767:Will of God 761:Will of God 602:FlagSteward 569:John Carter 450:John Carter 406:ACEOREVIVED 371:proper noun 310:John Carter 301:King Arthur 286:Ian.thomson 258:a deity in 243:Ahura Mazda 116:Bulwersator 36:This is an 4323:Wikivoyage 4058:Improving 3788:Sarunfeldt 3617:Backtable 3470:Shearonink 3452:Shearonink 2747:including 2582:User:Avanu 2449:Mohamed CJ 2250:Dougweller 2129:DH85868993 2127:. Thanks. 1972:RfC on God 1833:He's also 1535:Dougweller 1038:Wild Grass 952:Dougweller 923:Shinshūkyō 896:Peter Deer 800:God's plan 708:Shearonink 694:Need input 675:affiliate 654:McKinseies 630:Wavelength 95:Archive 12 87:Archive 10 4321:guide on 4298:Karl Beth 4167:enabling 4155:• Astynax 3544:religion. 3234:WP:ARBCOM 2829:you yet? 2723:Off-topic 2692:extremely 2670:wp:hounds 2525:religious 2501:spiritual 2424:IRWolfie- 2049:The page 1930:Adjwilley 1568:WP:BEBOLD 1244:(such as 1086:WP:DEFINE 971:Roscelese 743:Evanh2008 490:of course 150:• Astynax 82:Archive 9 76:Archive 8 70:Archive 7 65:Archive 6 60:Archive 5 4171:and the 4113:no where 4109:Key goal 4060:Religion 3889:comments 3885:Islamism 3878:Islamism 3692:Cynwolfe 3582:unsigned 3492:unsigned 2792:WP:RfC/U 2577:article. 2569:Removed 2516:article. 2202:Criteria 1250:WP:MUSIC 979:contribs 751:contribs 272:Indeed, 239:Damballa 188:Y.S.E.E. 4134:Agreed. 4075:B class 3863:Fordx12 3836:Article 3749:Fordx12 3726:kriegls 3420:- hoax? 3335:Flyer22 3302:Flyer22 3268:Flyer22 3157:WP:IPBE 2845:Flyer22 2810:Flyer22 2545:At the 2381:project 2290:The MoS 1816:atheism 1707:WP:LEAD 1580:kriegls 1509:kriegls 1476:Jpacobb 1466:alone.) 1418:kriegls 1383:and/or 1358:kriegls 1321:kriegls 1288:default 1246:WP:PROF 1220:kriegls 1116:Jpacobb 1016:central 335:Demeter 278:Krishna 274:WP:NOTE 267:notable 260:Ancient 247:Shangdi 235:Abraxas 193:As the 39:archive 4278:Sowlos 4243:Sowlos 4214:Sowlos 4189:Sowlos 4139:Sowlos 4093:Sowlos 3935:Sowlos 3923:Sowlos 3684:WP:ERA 3676:WP:ERA 3662:Mangoe 3549:Sowlos 2609:Church 2455:(talk) 2331:WP:OWN 2297:Sowlos 2275:Sowlos 2171:Sowlos 2028:WP:POV 1620:Lionel 1242:WP:BIO 1003:) and 882:DrPhen 878:Bident 874:Bident 870:Sharur 837:DrPhen 833:Bident 807:bd2412 778:bd2412 733:, and 600:look? 539:Phiwum 517:bd2412 499:Phiwum 472:bd2412 435:Phiwum 427:before 347:should 331:Athena 305:Merlin 231:Yahweh 172:"Zeus 132:at FAC 103:Images 4184:gaps. 3772:war. 3688:here, 3316:Avanu 3287:Avanu 3211:Avanu 3111:Avanu 2742:Human 2573:from 2563:this. 2270:stop. 2226:Diety 1808:deism 1742:Avanu 1183:wales 1069:wales 1027:wales 1009:(see 999:(see 931:Hoary 828:Hey! 651:: --> 650:: --> 495:added 282:Hadad 16:< 4400:talk 4367:talk 4331:talk 4309:talk 4282:talk 4265:talk 4247:talk 4218:talk 4193:talk 4143:talk 4122:talk 4097:talk 4039:talk 4031:here 4010:talk 3985:talk 3962:talk 3919:. — 3897:talk 3867:talk 3792:talk 3753:talk 3696:talk 3666:talk 3605:talk 3590:talk 3553:talk 3523:talk 3519:Huon 3500:talk 3474:talk 3456:talk 3441:talk 3407:talk 3382:talk 3354:talk 3339:talk 3320:talk 3306:talk 3291:talk 3272:talk 3215:talk 3199:talk 3183:talk 3168:talk 3133:talk 3115:talk 3057:talk 3043:talk 3026:talk 2903:talk 2887:talk 2870:talk 2855:talk 2835:talk 2820:talk 2800:talk 2777:talk 2757:talk 2701:talk 2681:talk 2648:talk 2622:talk 2618:Huon 2594:talk 2536:Hell 2493:Soul 2482:this 2480:and 2478:this 2428:talk 2395:talk 2370:talk 2366:Moxy 2354:talk 2339:talk 2335:Moxy 2316:talk 2301:talk 2279:talk 2254:talk 2216:talk 2190:talk 2175:talk 2153:talk 2133:talk 2102:talk 2071:talk 2067:Moxy 2036:talk 2012:talk 1990:talk 1963:talk 1936:talk 1923:here 1894:talk 1871:talk 1861:and 1848:talk 1825:talk 1769:talk 1746:talk 1728:talk 1672:talk 1649:talk 1618:. – 1539:talk 1480:talk 1400:talk 1278:talk 1263:talk 1259:Huon 1179:Rich 1138:talk 1120:talk 1094:talk 1065:Rich 1047:talk 1023:Rich 1011:here 1001:here 975:talk 956:talk 935:talk 919:Here 900:talk 886:talk 872:and 856:talk 841:talk 747:talk 712:talk 685:talk 681:Y12J 677:here 658:talk 634:talk 606:talk 573:talk 565:here 561:here 543:talk 534:some 503:talk 454:talk 439:talk 410:talk 361:talk 337:and 314:talk 290:talk 249:and 241:and 220:talk 164:Zeus 142:here 120:talk 113:here 4000:So 3812:Pam 2765:Hi 2580:As 2575:God 2098:Erp 1980:at 1978:God 1957:-- 1711:God 1696:God 1691:God 1632:to 1459:it. 1296:not 749:) ( 667:ToV 375:St 352:not 203:all 190:). 182:. 180:was 4402:) 4376:3) 4369:) 4333:) 4311:) 4267:) 4124:) 4064:FA 4041:) 4012:) 3987:) 3964:) 3899:) 3869:) 3794:) 3755:) 3716:-- 3698:) 3668:) 3607:) 3592:) 3525:) 3502:) 3476:) 3458:) 3443:) 3409:) 3384:) 3356:) 3341:) 3322:) 3308:) 3293:) 3274:) 3217:) 3201:) 3185:) 3117:) 3059:) 3028:) 2872:) 2837:) 2802:) 2759:) 2703:) 2650:) 2624:) 2596:) 2445:. 2430:) 2397:) 2372:) 2356:) 2341:) 2329:- 2318:) 2303:) 2265:is 2256:) 2248:. 2192:) 2155:) 2135:) 2104:) 2073:) 2038:) 2014:) 1992:) 1965:) 1896:) 1888:. 1873:) 1850:) 1827:) 1814:, 1810:, 1771:) 1748:) 1674:) 1651:) 1612:}} 1606:{{ 1541:) 1482:) 1402:) 1300:A7 1280:) 1265:) 1255:A7 1248:, 1140:) 1122:) 1096:) 1049:) 981:) 977:⋅ 958:) 937:) 902:) 888:) 858:) 843:) 753:) 729:, 714:) 687:) 660:) 636:) 626:. 608:) 575:) 545:) 505:) 456:) 441:) 412:) 382:τω 373:. 363:) 339:Ra 333:, 327:is 316:) 292:) 256:is 222:) 174:is 148:. 122:) 91:→ 4398:( 4365:( 4329:( 4307:( 4284:) 4280:( 4275:— 4263:( 4249:) 4245:( 4240:— 4220:) 4216:( 4211:— 4195:) 4191:( 4186:— 4145:) 4141:( 4136:— 4120:( 4099:) 4095:( 4090:— 4051:: 4037:( 4008:( 3983:( 3960:( 3931:— 3895:( 3865:( 3821:D 3790:( 3751:( 3738:) 3732:( 3722:D 3694:( 3664:( 3603:( 3588:( 3555:) 3551:( 3546:— 3521:( 3498:( 3472:( 3454:( 3439:( 3405:( 3380:( 3352:( 3337:( 3318:( 3304:( 3289:( 3270:( 3213:( 3197:( 3181:( 3113:( 3055:( 3024:( 2868:( 2833:( 2798:( 2755:( 2699:( 2646:( 2620:( 2592:( 2538:. 2426:( 2393:( 2368:( 2352:( 2337:( 2325:( 2314:( 2299:( 2281:) 2277:( 2272:— 2252:( 2188:( 2177:) 2173:( 2168:- 2166:. 2151:( 2131:( 2100:( 2069:( 2065:. 2055:I 2034:( 2010:( 1988:( 1961:( 1938:) 1934:( 1928:~ 1892:( 1869:( 1846:( 1823:( 1767:( 1744:( 1717:" 1670:( 1647:( 1592:) 1586:( 1576:D 1537:( 1521:) 1515:( 1505:D 1478:( 1430:) 1424:( 1414:D 1398:( 1370:) 1364:( 1354:D 1333:) 1327:( 1317:D 1276:( 1261:( 1232:) 1226:( 1216:D 1136:( 1118:( 1092:( 1045:( 973:( 954:( 933:( 898:( 884:( 854:( 839:( 814:T 785:T 745:( 710:( 683:( 656:( 632:( 628:— 604:( 571:( 541:( 524:T 501:( 479:T 452:( 437:( 408:( 359:( 312:( 288:( 218:( 118:( 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Religion/Archive 8 - Knowledge

Index