Revision as of 17:45, 25 May 2014 editJeff3000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,952 edits comments← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:18, 10 June 2014 edit undoKaffeburk (talk | contribs)54 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
:I agree with points raised by Islam90. Also, it makes no sense to have the current image in the "Other" subsection which repeats uselessly the 3 major religions already covered. We should instead have an image which is about the minor religions (NOT Judaism, Christianity, Islam). ] (]) 15:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | :I agree with points raised by Islam90. Also, it makes no sense to have the current image in the "Other" subsection which repeats uselessly the 3 major religions already covered. We should instead have an image which is about the minor religions (NOT Judaism, Christianity, Islam). ] (]) 15:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
::It's about ], which states that minority viewpoints don't get as much or even any mention in pages. In this case, there are most a thousand Babis in the world with no significant ] about them being Abrahamic. If we want to mention any smaller religions, there's a whole bunch that have much more notability that the Babis. Regards, -- ] (]) 17:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | ::It's about ], which states that minority viewpoints don't get as much or even any mention in pages. In this case, there are most a thousand Babis in the world with no significant ] about them being Abrahamic. If we want to mention any smaller religions, there's a whole bunch that have much more notability that the Babis. Regards, -- ] (]) 17:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
== History of the concept and criticism is missing == | |||
How did the term "Abrahamic religions" originate and who promotes it? There seems to be strong link to Liberal Christianity also known as Liberal Theology. There is also a clear political aspect of the term, to relativize the religions in order to make them them more compatible and that way promote multiculturalism. Criticism of the concept is also missing. From a Christian view its hard to agree that the God in the Bible that tells hes followers to not be a part of this world, and that Satan is the ruler of all political and military power and therefore not to not participate is the same God as the God in Islam that teach the opposite, that Allah is the ruler of the world and he wants his followers to take military, religious and political power by warfare and such thing. | |||
--] (]) 15:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:18, 10 June 2014
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abrahamic religions article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abrahamic religions article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Diversity within the major Abrahamic religions
Most of the Abrahamic religions considered here, in addition to differing from each other, are internally quite diverse, including for example non-Trinitarian Christian religions like Mormonism and Christian Science, and the Sunni and Shia in Islam. Differences in theology, dietary customs, etc. within the branches, especially of Christianity and Islam, need to be discussed in greater detail.CharlesHBennett (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps - greater detail than what? Is there a limit to the detail? I think the "line" would be where the discussion between the religions falls into too much discussion of diversity within the religions - that is what other articles are for. So for example Mormonism is a hot topic inside Christianity, but from the perspective of an Abrahamic grouping it's clearly not Judaism, not Islam, not the Baha'i Faith, not any of the small religions way at the bottom. Similarly for Sunni and Shia - there is no way to mistake either for Judaism or Christianity or the Baha'i Faith and so on. From a pov of the sources discussing abrahamic grouping I don't see a lot of diversity represented. An acknowledgement of it I can see - but not an extended discussion of individualized practices compared and contrasted, for example. This article should be focused at the levels of issues across the religions. --Smkolins (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, plus more so. Well put. To those raised outside of the the West's three dominate Abrahamic religions, they seem like different sects of the same religion, ...like three peas in a pod. Likewise I think that many of us raised within that culture are unaware of how strikingly similar the three Abrahamic religions actually are within a global context. I added a paragraph on "some unusual but similar and unifying characteristics when compared to the major non-Abrahamic religions."
But because I believe more people from the Abrahamic mind set will be reading here, these (invisible!? under-valued?) important similarities need to be expanded. ...Because fish cannot see the water. Indeed "similarities" is inferred in the subject title, but are largely absent, —other than hinting at common (seemingly unimportant!?) origins.
--71.133.254.31 (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford
- Agree, plus more so. Well put. To those raised outside of the the West's three dominate Abrahamic religions, they seem like different sects of the same religion, ...like three peas in a pod. Likewise I think that many of us raised within that culture are unaware of how strikingly similar the three Abrahamic religions actually are within a global context. I added a paragraph on "some unusual but similar and unifying characteristics when compared to the major non-Abrahamic religions."
- Addendum: quoting myself: "unaware of how strikingly similar the three Abrahamic religions..."
put another way is: unaware of how strikingly different the three Abrahamic religions are from the rest of the religions. Many people (including myself) have erroneously focused on some obvious similarities such as murder prohibition..., to the exclusion of the rest...such as Man's place and relationships in the universe and the related existential relationships: —is Man slave or king or, —noble or sinner or..., —of God or of Nature or of..., —is God... —is Nature... —is Mind & Intellect.... Afterlife? ??
--71.133.254.31 (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford
- Addendum: quoting myself: "unaware of how strikingly similar the three Abrahamic religions..."
History
the history section is laughable, as is the structure of the article only focused on the main 3 religions as if they were sorted out of nowhere. the history section should address the similitude between ancient religions and the abrahamic ones, the way the bible was written as the new testament and the quran. Sorry you don't like the idea it has been written by men, but as far as we know, it has.Klinfran (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
inconsistent editing
I'ld like to note this edit which is inconsistent with Islam90 trying to introduce Babism as Abrahamic with such edits as where he makes precisely the inverse change - aside from using an unreliable source to try to make the point. A lot of work was done by me to include minority Abrahamic religions but I never saw any reliable source refer to Babism as Abrahamic. --Smkolins (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
--- Babism is the true source of Baha'ism How not classified as Abrahamic?
--- the image is important to Show data of Minor Abrahamic Religions --Islam90 (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- There are a lot of reliable sources that mention the Baha'i Faith as Abrahamic. Your assertion is original research. There is also the bar of undue weight. Because of that Misplaced Pages policy Mention of the Baha'i Faith has to be in line with the number of sources (which mean it's less that Judaism/Christianity/Islam), and undue weight means that Babism and other super small religions don't get mentioned at all. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Babism is Abrahamic, See Book:Abrahamic religions --Islam90 (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Then why did you take it out here? Look - the points are:
- you are adding Babism based on a poor source, and other times taking it out
- Of the smaller Abrahamic religions, the section we are dealing with, the Baha'i Faith stands clearly more significantly in the sources than all the others, even all the others put together. So putting them on a par is a miscarriage of the sources. This is the SAME reasoning that puts the Baha'i Faith not on a par with the Big Three, and thus, not generally mentioned in parallel with the other three. This is the kind of balance generations of editors have built time and time again.
3) Particular to Babism the religion is tiny to the point of being uncountably small. So pulling all the religions together just to add Babism is not sound. --Smkolins (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your points don't follow Misplaced Pages policies. Other Misplaced Pages pages, cannot be used as sources, see Verifiability, no original research and WP:RS. Bayanic.com is a self-published source and also cannot be used. And based on the undue weight policy, views of extreme minorities shouldn't even get included. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you are against Babism all the time? it's an Abrahamic and it's the true source of Baha'ism and Azali Babism. --Islam90 (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Babism is an Abrahamic
There are many reasons to classified Babism as Abrahamic:
- Babism divided from Shaykhism Shi'a Islam.
- The Bab (founder of Babism) claimed that he is the Islamic Mahdi get link.
- Babism belive in Abraham as a major prophet get PDF
- Babism belive in Abrahamic Prophets like Moses, Jesus and Muhammad go to this link.
- Baha'i Faith and Azali are divided from Babism so, How Baha'i Faith classified as Abrahamic and Babism No?
- Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí (founder of Baha'i Faith) was one of Followers of The Bab.
- Baha'i Faith (Abrahamic) Belive in Babism and The Bab See Kitab-i-Aqdas 65 and 77.
- Population of Babis is more than 4,000 and this is near to Samaritanism.
- See Book:Abrahamic religions until Smkolins Tried to sabotage it.--Islam90 (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- it wasn't sabotage and calling it sabotage is inflammatory. We are making points about wikipedia procedures and standards and you are making accusations. Get on the game.
- It is clear the that website is an unacceptable source for wikipedia work.
- This has nothing to do with being "against" Babism. Again you take personal stances instead of a reasoned approach. You yourself took Babism etc out of Abrahamic into Iranian religion at this edit. Why did you do that if here you are so insistent (still without sources or balance of proper accounting of how sources make the case) here to the other categorization? --Smkolins (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
--if Baha'i Faith is Abrahamic, so Babism is Abrahamic also, But I think Both of them is Iranian --Islam90 (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- All of the above is original research, and not acceptable as per Misplaced Pages policy. I've noted the policies above, but I'll do so again below:
- No original research. You cannot have something in Misplaced Pages that isn't cited in a reliable source. And that includes a synthesis of other facts, like what you are trying to do. From the policy page: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
- Undue Weight. Small minority views don't get to be in any Misplaced Pages article. From the policy page: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not"
- Verifiability. Other Misplaced Pages articles, such as the Book or Template that you are referencing are not acceptable as sources. From the policy page: "Do not use articles from Misplaced Pages as sources. Also, do not use websites that mirror Misplaced Pages content or publications that rely on material from Misplaced Pages as sources."
- You insertion of the Babism in that article breaks all three of thove above policies. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't Konw why Persecution? Babism is an Abrahamic religion due to sources and scriptures, also it's the true source of Baha'i Faith so How we can make it as Abrahamic and this is not? --Islam90 (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Did you even read any of the above, WIkipedia is not about everything that is true, it's about notability, verifiability, etc, etc. BTW, I've reported you for reverting more than 3 times. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm about to leave for the day, but I found this source supporting Babism as an Abrahamic religion. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone disputes that Babism comes from an Abrahamic lineage, but it's also a notion of notability and undue weight. If you read the archives of this talk page, you'll notice that the same discussion has been made about the Baha'i Faith, where there are relatively large number of citations that it is an Abrahamic Faith, but in relation to the number of sources that state the Abrahmic religions are the big three (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) the number of sources, and the number of followers of the Baha'i Faith (6-8 million) is much lower, and thus the consensus was made that mention of the Baha'i Faith had to be much less than the big three. This was to follow WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE specifically. Now in relation to Babism, where the number of sources and mention is another order of magnitude lower, and is a religion of at most a couple thousand followers, the bar gets even higher for inclusion. There are tons of very small religious groups that could be mentioned as Abrahamic, but it's not neutral or encyclopedic for the mention of those religions to be placed all over Misplaced Pages. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- An excellent summary of the issues. I was one of the people working all phases of this including the Baha'i entries and what Jeff3000 says is exactly what happened over three cycles of major edits I've been involved with. --Smkolins (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone disputes that Babism comes from an Abrahamic lineage, but it's also a notion of notability and undue weight. If you read the archives of this talk page, you'll notice that the same discussion has been made about the Baha'i Faith, where there are relatively large number of citations that it is an Abrahamic Faith, but in relation to the number of sources that state the Abrahmic religions are the big three (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) the number of sources, and the number of followers of the Baha'i Faith (6-8 million) is much lower, and thus the consensus was made that mention of the Baha'i Faith had to be much less than the big three. This was to follow WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE specifically. Now in relation to Babism, where the number of sources and mention is another order of magnitude lower, and is a religion of at most a couple thousand followers, the bar gets even higher for inclusion. There are tons of very small religious groups that could be mentioned as Abrahamic, but it's not neutral or encyclopedic for the mention of those religions to be placed all over Misplaced Pages. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm about to leave for the day, but I found this source supporting Babism as an Abrahamic religion. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Did you even read any of the above, WIkipedia is not about everything that is true, it's about notability, verifiability, etc, etc. BTW, I've reported you for reverting more than 3 times. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with points raised by Islam90. Also, it makes no sense to have the current image in the "Other" subsection which repeats uselessly the 3 major religions already covered. We should instead have an image which is about the minor religions (NOT Judaism, Christianity, Islam). Khestwol (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's about undue weight, which states that minority viewpoints don't get as much or even any mention in pages. In this case, there are most a thousand Babis in the world with no significant notability about them being Abrahamic. If we want to mention any smaller religions, there's a whole bunch that have much more notability that the Babis. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
History of the concept and criticism is missing
How did the term "Abrahamic religions" originate and who promotes it? There seems to be strong link to Liberal Christianity also known as Liberal Theology. There is also a clear political aspect of the term, to relativize the religions in order to make them them more compatible and that way promote multiculturalism. Criticism of the concept is also missing. From a Christian view its hard to agree that the God in the Bible that tells hes followers to not be a part of this world, and that Satan is the ruler of all political and military power and therefore not to not participate is the same God as the God in Islam that teach the opposite, that Allah is the ruler of the world and he wants his followers to take military, religious and political power by warfare and such thing.
--Kaffeburk (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- High-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class Christianity articles
- Mid-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- C-Class Judaism articles
- Mid-importance Judaism articles
- C-Class Islam-related articles
- Mid-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- C-Class Bahá'í Faith articles
- Mid-importance Bahá'í Faith articles
- WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles
- C-Class Ancient Near East articles
- Mid-importance Ancient Near East articles
- Ancient Near East articles by assessment