Talk:Interfaith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


Wikiproject_Sikhism
Sikhism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article Interfaith, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] merge and/or move

Is there any reason why this shouldn't be at Interfaith? Camelcase is hideous. --Pyroclastic 02:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sfuqua 03:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC) - Agreed. It also seems that the history of the interfaith movement needs more discussion, and interfaith with respect to other religions should be moved into separate pages. Sikhism is important to the interfaith movement, certainly, but should not be the dominant part of the page. Any thoughts before this is changed?

I agree entirely..it should be re-categorized, as well. Perhaps into the Religious Faiths, Traditions and Movements category?Jarrod Jabre 21:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

See my comments elsewhere - this page, Interreligious relations and Ecumenism could be rearranged/merged etc. Jackiespeel 21:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I merged Interfaith dialogue here. Please see Talk:Interfaith dialogue for old talk. Sam Spade 15:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This article should be moved to Interfaith dialogue or Inter-religious dialogue, much more common terms than "InterFaith". — goethean ॐ 17:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and long past time. NicM 17:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC).

The first term of the above loops back to this page. Jackiespeel 21:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I do not feel that Ecumenism should be merged here, though cross references are certainly welcome. My understanding and experience of Ecumenism is it is a term used primarily (only?) within Christianity and it refers to encouraged combined events for Christians of different labels. So, an Ecumenical service may include Lutherans, Baptists and Roman Catholics but it would probably not include Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Muslims, etc. An interfaith service would include and welcome people from all of the above and all referenced on our main article. Just my two cents. Keesiewonder 12:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Layout suggestion

The layout adopted in syncretism might be appropriate for this topic (or whichever of this group survives). Jackiespeel 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vatican II related edits

I changed the first paragraph reference to 1962 and removed the reference to John XXIII: while John XXIII inaugurated Vatican II in 1962, the Declaration on the Church's Relations to Non-Christian Religions (aka Nostra Aetate) was not approved and issued until the last session of the Council in 1965, under Paul VI. I also removed the bit about Vatican II disappointing traditionalists and Mel Gibson -- while this is true, this seems to veer off into the strictly-Catholic category, and I don't know that it belongs in the first paragraph of the "interfaith" entry. Makrina 02:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed "we" to Muslims

I think it's better to use Muslims than "we" in the text of the page.

  • Since this is complete, apparently didn't raise any problems, and was apparently submitted unsigned, can we delete it or archive it or move it in to the Muslim portion of this discussion page? It doesn't seem worthy of its own slot in the table of contents of topics we're discussing. Please note I am not suggesting we make any edits to the article - just to this talk page - for clarity of our current discussion topics. Keesiewonder 12:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and politics reference?

Could a comment on interfaith be put on Religion and politics - for example how the state handles various religions. Jackiespeel 21:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And could the title be expanded to include inter religious relations, as that article has been incorporated here?

Another area to put on the theoretical "University of Wikipedia Postdoctoral Research Projects" list (all those topics you wish *someone* would pursue, and produce a brilliant article on for Wikipedia (g).

Jackiespeel 11:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page rename request?

Please note: On 20 November 2006, I tried to organize our ideas into sections if they had migrated all over the talk page. It appears to me that Jackiespeel nicely raised the topic of title expansion and at some subsequent date, someone else not involved with the discussion, submitted a page rename request in such a way that the Wiki Gods did not allow it to go through. Keesiewonder 12:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And could the title be expanded to include inter religious relations, as that article has been incorporated here? Jackiespeel 11:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for time!

[edit] Interfaith = Nonfaith?

Whilst I think that genuine inter-faith work is valuable, it seems to me that a number of people parade around as "interfaith ministers", even presuming to call themselves "reverend", whilst really being little more than jumped-up new-agers more interested in psychobabble and astrology than anything else, and with absolutely no knowledge at all of any of the world's bona fide religions. Is it worth mentioning this? Ros Power 22:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam section

"Muslims understand themselves accept all Prophets and Books sent to different peoples throughout history, and regard belief in them as an essential principle of being Muslim. A Muslim is a true follower of Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and all other Prophets, upon them be peace. Not believing in one Prophet or Book means that one is not a Muslim. Thus we acknowledge the oneness and basic unity of religion, which is a symphony of God’s blessings and mercy, and the universality of belief in religion. So, religion is a system of belief that embraces all races and all beliefs, a road that brings everyone together in brotherhood."

While a beautiful declaration, this paragraph is just that, a declaration, rather than espousing facts. It's written in the first person plural, includes a religious overture to the Prophets, and sounds like the transcription of a spoken opinion. The neutrality is somewhat dissolved compared to the other sections, which try to state objective facts.

The other two paragraphs in the Islam section are better written, but need some prolix cleanup. I'd suggest editing this one, finding a source citation (it sounds like a quotation), or erasing it. AtenRa 12:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

-It looks like it was written by a Muslim who was trying to defend his religion against accusations of violence. Farae 03:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is a valid desire, but it is expressed poorly within the context of the article. I don't know where to find citations enough to give evidence to such an individual declaration. If the paragraph will not be edited to a more neutral view, I advocate removing it completely until someone can come up with one. AtenRa 21:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pearl S. Buck was a Sikh?

Maybe some reorganization is in store? A glance at the opening to the Interfaith article could lead someone to think that Pearl S. Buck was a Sikh. I don't think this was true, though she certainly displays great sensitivity and interfaith appreciation. Thoughts? Keesiewonder 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree; this page needs a bigtime cleanup. The bigger question is what the organization should be, and where to find the sources. -- Jeff3000 20:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Being a graduate student, I have access to a large library of online resources, so I can probably find almost anything. I'd say finding the resources is not going to be a problem. So, perhaps some time when either of us has some free moments, we can simply propose a new structure, migrate what he have to it after time for discussion, and all the while I'll try to poke in an absent resource here and there. How does that sound? For all my spare time ... i.e. I'm busy, so we'll need to be patient. Keesiewonder 20:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism Section

The Judaism section is heavily biased agianst Orthodoxy. There are plenty of Orthodox Rabbis involved in interfaith dialogue with Christians in the United States. This article only lists the opinions of the Haredi camp and not the Modern Orthodox. Furthermore this article is not the place to discuss the internal issues of Judaism (...Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism, which are regarded by Orthodox Jews as deviating from Jewish tradition.)

I agree and just rewrote the section. Please feel free to add your thoughts.129.2.203.195 04:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim section

I think you should change the wording of the part where you say muslims "claim" to believe in moses , jesus etc. I understand what you are saying but as it is documented in their holy book that they do believe in them I think you should omit the word claim.

[edit] Removed irrelevant material

I have removed most of the sections describing individual religions. There seems to be a common confusion that examples of being tolerant to members of other religions is enough to be included in this article. This is an article about interfaith dialog. The article needs to contain properly sourced descriptions of dialog between religions. I also found several examples of blatant original research in the article. Please do add information to the article, but only if you can cite reliable sources for what you add. Thanks, Gwernol 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interfaith Wikipedians?

Namaste. Does anyone know if there is any interfaith project on Wikipedia? In editing articles on Hinduism I have begun wondering how to get more multifaith readers to check for POV issues and basic comprehensibility of articles that often raise cross-cultural issues. Buddhipriya 02:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)