Talk:List of Wikimedians by religion/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Moved from old article name

Well, here goes nothing. I just hope this doesn't prove to be a masterwork of folly. More text on the difficulty of dealing with religion in an academic and NPOV context would be appreciated, as would suggestions as to whether or not this project should continue or be stopped post haste. --Dante Alighieri 08:53 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Another thought... should this be on the meta-Wikipedia? --Dante Alighieri 08:58 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think so. It would probably fit nicely somewhere linked from or to m:Wikipedians categorized by sub-cultural affiliation. --Camembert

Shouldn't this be a meta page? Something like Wikipedians categorized by sub-cultural affiliation? -- Wapcaplet 18:58 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I vote for meta, this is really off topic here... -- Rotem Dan 19:01 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It certainly shouldn't be in the article namespace - and yes, it should be at meta (as I said at it's old location, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia and Religion). --Camembert

Oh, when were all those things moved to meta? No-one will ever see them there. :( What was wrong with having them in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, along with Wikipedia:Wikipedians and its geographical subsections? -- Oliver P. 19:48 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Have a look at m:Talk:Anti-American Wikipedians if you can stomach it. I remember when we didn't just allow any old crap in the Wikipedia namesapce, you know... all this used to be fields, mumble grumle --Camembert

Ah, I participated in that discussion... That was pretty much when I came in. Was the decision to move the pages made in there somewhere? To be honest, I can't cope with reading all of that again... -- Oliver P. 22:07 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, I had expected the move to retain the old namespace by default. It should be fixed now. I agree that meta pages are currently pretty useless: They don't appear on my watchlist or in my recent changes, so I rarely ever read any of them. Mkweise 20:07 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I can't face rereading the discussion either (at least not at this time of night), but yes, I'm pretty sure that that's where the decision to move them all was made. (Reasons, IIRC: they were divisive, putting users in opposing camps when they should be loving each other and getting on; they didn't really serve the "pedia" part of "Wikipedia"; they were leading to a lot of ill-feeling (the anti-American list particularly)). This seems equivalent to those pages to me. --Camembert

 Moving works from here to there is one of the tactics of the cabal. It was reassurring that the cabal has not attacted this page in force---yet.Johnshoemaker 05:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

People seem to be putting what they were born as. "Born Jewish"... "born agnostic"... I don't quite see how one can be born with beliefs about religion... ;) -- Oliver P. 19:48 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I think everyone is born atheist, and has religious beliefs thrust upon them. But being an atheist myself, I may be biased... :) -- Wapcaplet 19:54 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

in the case of Judaism, thrust upon them with a scalpel -- Tarquin 20:43 1 Jun 2003 (UTC) (atheist but not voting)

Some Christians are circumcised also, of course. Koyaanis Qatsi

Some muslims also btw. Ant

Children of folks of all religions, in fact.

yup. But I've been particularly prickled by the headcase who was arguing in the talk page for circumcision recently that it was some vital cultural heritage and covenent with god to mutilate children. -- Tarquin

Hmm, there seems to be some disagreement about whether an atheist is someone who lacks belief in a god (in which case everyone is born an atheist), or someone who believes in the lack of a god (in which no-one is). The first of these isn't a belief system, so calling it anything "-ism" seems a bit silly to me. I would reserve the term "atheism" for the second. -- Oliver P. 22:07 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, the Atheism article makes the distinction clearly. As for calling it an -ism... I think the "ism" goes with "the", so "theism" is to have a religion, while "a-theism" is to not have one. Though, I have indeed met some (what the article calls "explicit" atheists) who do indeed make it a religion of believing in the non-existence of a deity. -- Wapcaplet 00:43 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Except that the "The" in Theism is from the Greek "Theos", which is a reference to God, not religion. So Theism is really God-ism, and Atheism is no-god-ism. Philip J. Rayment 16:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If *this* is kept here, and not moved to meta, I think a good deal of meta is gonna move back here very very soon. What is the current opinion about keeping or not keeping this here ? Anthere

I think it should be at meta. Koyaanis Qatsi

To me, moving something to meta is pretty much equivalent to deleting it, since I never read anything there. Anyway, meta is supposed to be about discussing and formulating things, according to the stuff at the top of its Main Page, so this sort of thing doesn't fit there any more than it does here... And I'd like to see when these things are updated, in Recent Changes or even my Watchlist. Just out of curiosity... :) -- Oliver P. 22:07 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree. How can this possibly help us write an encyclopaedia? It is a distraction and a waste of time. Bollocks to meta. Delete it altogether. GrahamN 22:12 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That means you disagree! Okay, maybe I wasn't very clear. I meant that I'd prefer it to be kept here. It's just a bit of harmless fun, isn't it? It would only be updated fairly infrequently, so it's not as if it would detract from the encyclopaedia, or Recent changes would be swamped... -- Oliver P. 23:32 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If it's "harmless fun", then maybe that's a reason to move it (or delete it, I don't mind either way really). Sorry if this sounds puritanical, but the 'pedia ain't for harmless fun, it's for encyclopaedia building. You can get your harmless fun with joyriding and casual drug use, like the rest of us (harumph). --Camembert

Careful what you ask for, there: I eat your kind for harmless fun! Mkweise 00:25 2 Jun 2003 (UTC) :-)

If there's a vote, I vote for meta. I'm generally in favour of the Wikipedia: namespace being kept minimalist. Martin 16:15 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In light of the recent Canadian and Australian census results, should we be adding a "=== Jedi ===" category to this? ;) -- John Owens 08:25 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

And the UK, despite the lies of politicians who said that self-avowed Jedis would not be counted. Bleh.

I'd just like to point out that the original title of this article was Wikipedia: Wikipedia and Religion. It was my hope that it could deal primarily with the difficulties in dealing with religion in a community encyclopedia project. The list of affiliations was a secondary issue, meant largely to illustrate the above statement (that people from many religions use Wikipedia) and to enable those who are looking for someone with knowledge about a given religion to find someone. I agree that the article as it is currently titled definitely belongs in the meta, but I still think that under the old title, and with more on the issue that I mentioned, it is quite appropriate for the Wikipedia: namespace. --Dante Alighieri 20:01 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In the curent page, I took a shot at framing the issue of the "difficulties in dealing with religion." What do you think? Rednblu 01:52 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Go ahead and put some text back there with a link to this page. Then even when this page gets moved to meta (which either it should be or the other stuff should be moved back), then your discussion won't be -- and it won't be overwhelmed by the list either. -- Toby Bartels 21:23 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My response to this article can be found at Wikipedia:Wikipedians by race. MB 21:52 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Could a meta-sysop please move this page to Wikipedians by religion. Similarly for Wikipedia:Wikipedians by race. Thanks. MyRedDice 23:31 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Why all the stuff about fact versus faith or non-faith, slaves, enlightenment, etc.? I thought this meta-page was just here to let Wikipedians identify their religious affiliation. -- Wapcaplet 13:05 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I removed it. Here follows the removed text. It can go to a separate article, but please not in this article. (A link would be OK) --FvdP 21:21 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia has users from all over the world, so naturally there are many religions represented by those users. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and has a stated policy in favour of a neutral point of view, religious discussions become problematic. It can be difficult to ascertain how much of a religion's doctrine is based on fact and how much on faith.

For this reason, it is crucial that we develop a procedure wherein we all recognize how to implement NPOV when one party does not recognize the difference between 1) fact and 2) faith or non-faith. For example, the more enlightened party might allow those whose minds are yet bound in darkness to have their own page proclaiming faith or non-faith as fact--with a short paragraph at the end summarizing the enlightened view that refutes the major items of faith or non-faith that contradict fact. (The preceding example does not advocate a solution but is presented here merely to illustrate the problem in NPOV that needs a solution.)

For it is the curse of enlightenment to proclaim fact in the public square with the same religious zeal of those whose minds are slaves--to either faith or non-faith. Perhaps the appearance of fairness, a convincing NPOV, might do more service to improve the quality of the conversations in the public square of Wikipedia than would a forceful line-by-line convincing.

To further this end of developing an NPOV procedure that even the slaves can recognize as fair--whether slaves of faith or non-faith--this page provides a neutral forum in which all who wish can declare the essence of their faith or non-faith--which may or may not show proper regard for fact. That is, anyone hoping to discover some procedure to implement actual NPOV can peruse this page in looking for clues to a better procedure for implementing NPOV. For example, if you find yourself in a NPOV tussle with someone with a particular religious or non-religious bent, you might consult someone from the table below who has a similar religious or non-religious bent.

Plus, I don't like that slaves vs enlightened business. That looks just like empty words. Most people try to enlighten themselves (even those with which I or you would disagree). There are no slaves except in a few sects. --FvdP 21:21 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Relgions vs non-religions

JamesDay removed the big religion/nonreligion headers, saying in the edit summary "way too many of those under "non-religious" were religious beliefs, including organised religious beliefs". What does that mean? The only things listed under "non-religious" were agnosticism, atheism, materialism, and secular humanism. Which of those is an organised religious belief??? The distinction may not be universally valid, but those 4 can usefully be grouped together, so I'll put it back. -- Toby Bartels 19:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand why materialism is included. It seems arbitrary unless the list contain an exhaustive list of tenable positions regarding the mind-body problem which would be impertinent and redundant, as all Christians (e.g.) are de facto dualists.

If materialism remain in the list, I don't think that it's usefully grouped with the other three positions, which concern the existence of god and the possibility of a consistent ethical system (roughly) in the absence thereof. Materialism is a purely metaphysical position which happens to form a mutually exclusive set with theism, which, I guess, motivated its addition to the list. The inclusion of materialism, to me, is no more relevant than that of determinism or free will (e.g.); either may be subsumed within a religious dogma, but neither constitutes a religious belief in se.

--Lafuerzasindical 10:20, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You have a good point, but I'm inclined to preserve listings that people have used for their own self identification. I don't want to encourage listing (say) Dualism, but if somebody listed it and put themselves there, then I wouldn't want to remove it.

However, if we got a lot of these questionable entries, then we could easily split them off into List of Wikipedians by metaphysical belief, or whatever seemed most appropriate for what we had at that time. Nothing is ever finished in a wiki.

-- Toby Bartels 19:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anglican Church

Almost all Protestant denominations consider themselves catholic in the generic sense -- part of the universal body of Christ. Anglicanism is no exception. But Anglicanism is not Catholic in the specific sense that's used here to classify religions -- they are not in communion with the Pope. If we list Anglicans under Catholicism on the grounds that they're catholic in the generic sense, then we'd have to do the same with Baptists and Lutherans! -- Toby Bartels 20:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That was not the basis on which I consider The Church of England to be Catholic. The Church of England is a part of the Catholic Church which broke off from Rome in the reign of Elizabeth the First claiming apostolic continuity and claiming to be Catholic.

The official CoE website refers to itself as Catholic (capital C) and upholding the Catholic faith repeatedly and I cannot find a single reference to it regarding itself as Protestant (whereas it refers to other churches as specifically Protestant). If you use the word Catholic to mean in communion with the Pope then you are in the strange position of for example denying that the en:Old Catholic Church is Catholic as it is in communion with Canterbury not Rome. Please see the discussion under en:Talk:Catholicism. In any case the CoE is not Protestant and I have listed it separately --AndrewCates 13:05, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Anglican Church, AKA the Church of England, is almost a definitive example of Protestantism. The Church was founded by Henry 8th when he broke away from Rome: please supply your evidence that the Church of England has re-submitted itself to the authority of the Pope! --Phil | Talk 13:20, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The act of Reunion resubmitted the church of england to papal rule. The current schism dates from Elizabeth the first and if you believe the papal decree at reunion to be valid has nothing to do with Henry VIII --AndrewCates 13:24, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) And while we are on the subject the martyrdoom of saints under Bloody Mary, under papal approval had a lot to do with the subsequent refusal of papal authority by Elizabeth. But the act of Schism (excommunication of the Queen) was the Pope's. --AndrewCates 13:26, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) But to be more serious there is a well established principle of NPOV here, not Roman dogma. The Anglican communion is around 70 million people who are called Catholic by their official bodies. The Church Of Rome may decide to label them Protestants but only those who chose to call themselves that are Protestants. I may object to the Rev Moon using the word "Rev" and "church" but these words are not copyright imprimator. I know that the RCC has systematically tried to portray events in a particular manner and deny the Anglican Catholicism. One popular book "Catholics for Dummies" even claims that RCism has was illegal in the UK for hundreds of years following Henry deliberately ignoring Queen Mary in the middle. But WikiPedia is not supposed to be a catechism. Please find me the CofE's official declaration of its Protestant nature. I have told you where it says it is Catholic.

Incidentally the discussion is not new. We spent a long time on talk catholic on it and reached a reasonable settling point at disambiguation on en:Catholicism --AndrewCates 13:33, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page -- http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/neale/prots.html -- is the only one I could find that explains why Anglicans are not Protestant, rather than why that are Catholics -- I'll note it's a transcription of something from 1852. I welcome more links that explains the position that why Anglicans are not Protestant. BCorr|Брайен 16:43, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Moved from article header:

However, classification is not easy. The repeated replacement of the Anglican Church (which is the Catholic Church in the UK) into Protestantism by some Roman Catholics has left poor Anglican Catholic AndrewCates aka BozMo with no valid home! I suppose keeping this kind of squabble out of the main en is at least positive. If you wish to learn about the Catholic nature of the Anglican Church I suggest you start with the offical CofE site [What it means to be Anglican] on upholding the Catholic faith.

BCorr|Брайен 16:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A useful heading that we should keep is Catholicism in the sense of w:en:Catholicism -- the doctrines of the churches that are in communion with the Pope. (Note that not all of these are Roman Catholics; there are also Croatian Catholics and others. Also, this arguably includes sedevacantists and other small groups, such as the true Catholic Church, that disagree about who the Pope is. For these reasons, the people that listed themselves only under "Catholicism" shouldn't be moved under "Roman Catholicism" -- even though chances are that they all belong there -- since we cannot be sure.)

Less, useful, it seems to me, are headings of Protestantism (churches descended historically from the Western church but not in union with the Pope) and churches that are Catholic in the sense of following apostolic succession. Certainly we can't keep both of these headings and maintain the current tree structure; more importantly, the negative definition of Protestantism makes it rather less interesting, to the point that the Anglican Church doesn't consider this part of its identity.

Furthermore, if AndrewCates (BozMo) does not identify as Protestant, then we should not force him to be listed as Protestant.

For all of these reasons, the current system, where Anglicanism is not listed under either Catholicism or Protestantism, seems clearly the best to me. Is there any reason why Andrew can't be relisted under Anglicanism using this system?

-- Toby Bartels 19:21, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. w:en:Anglicanism should not be under w:en:Catholicism, but I do understand that some may object that it shouldn't be under w:en:Protestantism either. I was tempted to move all the "Catholics" into w:en:Roman Catholicism the other day, but that's a can of worms I do not wish to open. Removing the Catholic/Protestant supersections seems like a cunning plan. — OwenBlacker 19:37, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Well that's an unacceptable way forward for me too. I was quite involved in the w:en:Catholicism discussion and accepted that the sense in which Anglicans are Catholic is a disambiguation versus the "communion with jp2" definition. --AndrewCates 20:50, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)oh and thanks for being reasonable by the way --AndrewCates 20:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is still an open issue incidentally on the various places in WP where it is implied the Church of England is Protestant. To date I have queried these on talk pages where I have found them, and then changed them, without hitting an edit war. BCorr has quite reasonably asked for someone more recent official statements on the issue. There are many comments by Anglican bishops on it but that's not quite the same as an official statement (intellectual dissent by bishops is accepted, and there are even protestant bishops). I am a bit busy and will need some time on this (my books are all in storage). What I can say is that I was taught theology at Cambridge University by two people who are now Anglican bishops and I went through ordination selection ("deferred"!) for the C of E, and every senior Anglican I have heard on the issue has said that the C of E is not Protestant but rather the established Catholic Church in England, embracing protestants but with a Catholic foundation. I agree however that a sizeable percent of those in the pews, and a significant minority of priests regard the C of E as protestant. --AndrewCates 10:41, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Quakers

Have I missed some major theological point, but should't this be listed as a denomination of Christianity? 80.255.219.52 20:17, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Religions/Non-religions/Cults/etc

Hey, this division into classes (Religions, Non-religions, Cults, etc is totally POV! I demand that I am... oops, I demand that we put all categories on an equal basis, immediately! Jnc 22:11, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Non-religions - Agnosticism - Antireligious - Atheism (Confused?)

I'm a bit confused. I'm not religious, nor anti-religous. I just don't believe in any higher beeings. Where should I sign up under? RoceKiller 15:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See w:Weak agnosticism, w:Strong agnosticism, w:Weak atheism, w:Strong atheism. — Jeandré, 2005-01-04t19:02z

Religion bashing

Why are people allowed to bash other religions when they list their own? Who really cares why you are the religion that you are, and why you think someone else's religion is so stupid?

Ignore them. They should just leave a comment on their belief, you're right, but just ignore the rest. Orthologist