Wikipedia talk:Notability (religious figures)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mere mention in central scriptures does not confer notability

For instance, Uzizah. Ever heard of him? I doubt it, because he's an insignificant great-great-great-great-great-grandson of King David. But he is mentioned in Matthew 1:9. Should he get an article? No, not really. -Amarkov moo! 01:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would disagree. He should have an article, even though it can never be more than a line or two long. Named people from certain foundational documents should all have articles. For Western Culture, this would include, amongst other things, the Bible and mst of Greek and Roman literature. Dsmdgold 10:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, we'll just have to disagree on that. I can't give any deep philosophical reason why an article that can only possibly be one line long is bad, I just think that it is. -Amarkov moo! 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that if we can't get more than a line or two, then what we should have is a redirect to a section of an article that covers several such people. However, for most of these minor characters, we can write more than a line or two. See the example I gave below about Beeri... mentioned in one phrase in scripture, yet the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica (dead tree) gave a paragraph to him, and we, who are not dead tree, could cover even more completely. In fact, I doubt you can find a minor character in the old or new testament for whom we couldn't get at least a paragraph written.
As for your example, the more common spelling of his name is Uzziah. He is mentioned in several books of scripture, and is not neerly as minor a character as you first thought. Here are two other encyclopedia's articles on him. Our article on him is a stub, even though it is several paragraphs long. GRBerry 13:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
For three thousand years the major intellectual preoccupation of societies with scripture-based religions has --not unreasonably--been studying their respective scriptures. Hundreds of thousands of books have been written during this time, and essentially everything possible will have been covered. People particularly--the allegorical and mystical methods of interpretation have seized on any possibility. It may not be in google, but that does not matter to notability. There will be sources for it all, and we should extend our coverage to the degree that the interested people can write them it. Thus people who come to remedy their ignorance will be able to do this--the very purpose of WP. DGG (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think DGG is saying that any religious figure (no mater how insignificant) of any notable religion, will be so well documented that they can easily met WP:BIO. Then I beleive he says; go forth and multiple the articles on religious figures and fear not the threat of WP:N for the tools of salvation are readily available. Jeepday (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I admit my puzzlement at the implied language, but yes, i mean create articles BOLDly and see what resources can be found. for historical figures there will always be references in libraries--and, soon enough in Google Book Search. DGG (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Because we are not limited to space in Wikipedia (as a volume of encyclopedic books would be, we have great flexibility. Why not include articles on all the religious figures as long as we can prove notability. That is the view from my porch. (Seenitall 22:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Why?

Why is separate page from Wikipedia:Notability (people) required at Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures)? Jeepday (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: Reasons for creating a guideline include the fact that the existence of religious figures is sometimes a matter of religious belief (so clarification of the nature of the sourcing is necessary); religious figure who are important within notable denominations sometimes lead relatively private lives; and a need to clarify when religious sources are appropriate and when external sources are required. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd also ask why. I note that Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) was, in the end, in large part rejected because we didn't need a separate guideline from WP:ORG. So, please focus some more on elaborating the reasons we need a separate guideline. GRBerry 17:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


I don't think we need a separate guideline. The one we have seems to work fine. (Seenitall 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Question

Bieng familiar with the Muslim faith, I know that there are several figures only very briefly mentioned in the religious texts. These figures (they can be considered mythical) are not mentioned anywhere else. Thus a wikipedia article about them can't contain more than 2 medium sized paragraphs (1 about description and 1 about interpretation). Should we have an article on such a figure?Vice regent 18:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources to support both, yes. Certainly for the analagous figures in the Jewish and Christian religious texts, there are multiple source books attempting to say who everybody is. Hopefully the same is true for Islamic figures.
For example, Hosea 1:1 says "The word of the Lord that came to Hosea son of Beeri during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the reign of Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel:". That is the full extent of the scriptural discussion of Beeri. There is a Jewish tradition as to who Beeri is: that he was a prophet, and that he was the prophet who first delivered certain verses in the book of Isaiah, and that he had certain ancestry. There is a different Christian tradition about him. So it should, in principle, be possible to write an article about a figure this minor in the scriptures. Dead tree encyclopedias wouldn't cover ever minor figure to the extent that we can, but this is an aspect of not being paper. The dead tree Columbia Encyclopedia has an entry for Beeri, which entry amounts to no more than we would put on a disambiguation page to disambiguate the two old testament figures with that name. (The article on Hosea in the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica would be a better source for an article on Beeri as it covers both traditions.) GRBerry 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Necessary?

I really don't think this is all that necessary. Criteria 1 and 4 are redundant to the main criterion. People which 2 applies to are pretty much considered inherently notable as is (being in the Bible, Qur'an, etc, how much more notable can you get?). Same for criteria 3. I dislike 5. This is basically like letting the religious group choose who is notable. Without original research, how are we to determine what an "important figure" is in the religion without sources (which would make this criterion moot)? Mr.Z-man 00:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Z-Man. This is a perfect example of WP:CREEP. Can the proposers point me to an article or XfD discussion where this guideline would have added something beyond the general notability guideline? UnitedStatesian 01:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
But a religion (not just a "religious group") can also be regarded as a field and co-religious experts as experts in that field. Notability is determined with respect to a field in many other cases; WP:PROF lets academics determine which academics are notable; WP:FICTION lets literary critics determine which literature is notable. Only sports and politics might pass general notability guidelines. Disagreement with whether religion should be treated the same way may stem from disagreement about what a religion is. Should it be regarded as an organization to be treated something like a corporation, or a field of experts to be treated something like academics? The answer likely depends on whether one likes religion or not. Without guidance, AfDs of religion-related articles are likely to reflect people's attitudes towards religion in general or particular. The proposed guidelines clarify that certain matters require evidence from outside the religion while other matters are satisfied by evidence from within it. One could agree or disagree with the proposal, but having guidelines is helpful to enable AfDs to be run consistently. --Shirahadasha 14:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Shirahadash what notability requirements beyond WP:BIO do you envision for Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures)? What religious group beyond the population that votes at AFD would decide what was notable? At what level would of sect would you divided the ability define notability? Would a voter have to declare an affiliation to a specific group? Jeepday (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
And still, how does a religious group indicate who is notable? Take the Catholic Church for an example. Popes and saints are clearly notable while most local parish priests are not. But what of cardinals or bishops or any of the other groups in the Catholic Church hierarchy? How are we to determine who in the Church is notable when it is not explicitly stated? Most Catholics have probably not even heard of an Apostolic Administrator but in canon law they are equivalent with diocesan bishops; should we have articles about them like we do for many bishops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Z-man (talk • contribs) 02:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Unless "notability" is restricted to the major denominations in each country, then virtually any leader of a small religious organisation would be notable. This then leads on how to define what a major denomination is, and whether it is by percentage of population, or by percentage of country covered, or by wealth, etc. This guideline needs to be more specific if it is to be useful otherwise Wikipedia will end up with more articles that can never be expanded beyond stub status. Assize 04:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that discussion is taking place on Wikipedia talk:Notability as to whether ANY of these notability sub-pages are actually required. The outcome of that discussion will directly affect this proposed guideline. —gorgan_almighty 11:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) It's certainly the proposed guideline makes notability of religious figures depend on notability of the denomination, which requires discussion of how we know whether a denomination is notable. The intention is that if the denomination meets the regular definition of notability -- it's published about in the outside world etc. -- then its religious figures meet notability requirements. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this done in practise?

If so, examples, please. If not, it should be rejected. Guidelines aren't written to force a particular method of doing something; they are written to document currently-accepted practise. --Iamunknown 01:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable?

How would Shyam D. Buxani the founder of Direct Worship of the Actual God be judged for notability by this proposal? Jeepday (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well by the proposed guideline, there are two routes: If the religion itself is independently notable (which, since it has an article, it presumably is), then the guideline makes the founder notable as the founder of a notable religion. Of course he could also be notable by standard criteria as well. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rejected

{{rejected}}

This proposal does not appear to be moving towards consensus, any thoughts for or against adding {{historical}}? Jeepday (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

{{rejected}} seems more appropriate here. The short discussion was almost overwhelmingly negative. Mr.Z-man 03:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the discussion so far is that the current wording of the proposal is too broad. I think there is some merit in a tightly defined criteria. This proposal needs more work. Assize 13:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the last above. One of the major problems I see is that it's hard to know, based on the existing text, whether every founder of a "notable" splinter group of a major religion is considered notable or not, and what to do if perhaps the founder is, as it were, more notable than the group he founded. Also, there are further questions. Granted, every Pope is considered notable, but would the same apply to leaders of all the other religious groups which have separate articles in wikipedia? And what do we do if the religion is notable enough to have a separate article, but, for whatever reason, doesn't have one yet? I can see cases where the founder of a short-lived group would be more notable than the group he founded. I have no idea how to answer these questions, but I think that they could be addressed. John Carter 17:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
one special case is when the group is known by his name. Possibly one guideline might be that one article would be enough if there were no notable individual otherwise. But if there are notable disciples, we'd probably need more than one article. 01:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This meets the criteria for rejection. For a while historical was used as a euphemism for rejection, but the distinction has been recently clarified at the policy page and it is now very clear that the historic tag is only valid for pages which were once accepted as policies or guidelines but are now obsolete or superseded. --Kevin Murray 15:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The rejection tag was a bit premature. There hasn't yet been real opportunity for discussion, or any invitation to interested parties, and this was only in rough draft stage, not at a point to be summarily dismissed. I expressed interest on this on the Notability page and didn't even realize this discussion was occurring. There is also some related discussion occurring on other pages, so let's give some time to hear people's ideas. Thx. --MPerel 05:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. IZAK 07:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There is nothing wrong with clarifying the notability criteria for religious figures, but the p[lace to do it is at WP:BIO. I suggest that the first step be to evaluate whether the existing criteria at BIO or Notability solve the concern, if not use the resources of the editors who have solved this type of situation for other types of biographies. Recent modifications to BIO make it much more adaptable to most situations. --Kevin Murray 16:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've proposed inclusion of the specifc text of this proposal at WP:BIO without prejudice, as I neither support or oppose the wording. --Kevin Murray 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate proposal

Can I suggest the following as a starting point for an alternative:

A religious figure is considered notable if he or she:

  • Is or was the head of a religious denomination that has persons who profess to be adherents of at least 10% of a nation’s population.
  • Where that religious denomination is organised into ecclesiastical provinces that represents multiple religious organisations, the person is or was the head of that province [1].
  • Where that religious denomination has an international structure, the person who is or was the head of that international structure. Assize 04:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ A province constituted by a single organsation eg a single church in a diocese is not considered notable

On the one hand, I think the proposal has merit. On the other, would Jesus Christ be notable if he had to meet this criteria? He was the head of his denomination but it did not have 10% of the population. It was not organized and did not have international structure. That is the view from my porch. (Seenitall 23:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

Bullet 3 above is problematic. I can today declare that I am the head of the International Church of Give-Me-All-Your-Money. I will nominate a few of you as my representatives in India and Japan and bingo. I have an "international structure", I am a "religious denomination" (self-proclaimed) and I am it's head. Wjhonson (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Alternate proposal

I certainly consider the above proposal worth considering. I have a few ideas of my own as well. If there are no objections, I would also like to add some specific examples of how the proposals would be applied in practice, to allow some idea of the potential scope of the proposal.

  • (1) The founder of any religious tradition which is significant enough to have its own article is notable enough for his/her own article.
    • This is pretty much a no-brainer, although there can in several cases be discussion as to who should be counted as the "founder". In such cases, where for instance people could argue that Saint Paul and Jesus could each be considered founders of Christianity, if there exists sufficient content to create a reasonable article on both "founders", that could reasonably be allowed.
  • (2) A leader of a religious group of such numbers and devoutness that the religious leader also functions, to a degree, as a civil leader.
    • This would include certainly all Christian archbishops before the Reformation, heads of established churches, and the like.
  • (3) Individuals who have been given the chief administrative post of an established religion and have in that post created or enacted policies or procedures.
    • Basically, every Catholic and Coptic Pope would fall in this grouping, as would almost all Archbishops of Canterbury, Dalai Lamas, and people in similar posts. Exceptions could perhaps be made for individuals with truly short terms in office, who by their length of term were unable to do much anything in office. I would not necessarily rule all such individuals out, but if the religious tradition were a short-lived, numerically small group of very limited intrinsic notability and the individual held its chief office for only a few months, doing nothing significant in that time, I could see how such a person might not qualify for a separate article. So, in this case, the "pope" of the American Catholic Church who held the office for less than a month before dying of natural causes and did nothing significant in his term might not qualify simply on the basis of being the leader of that church.
  • (4) Individuals involved in "corporate" leadership of a religious denomination or similar group, provided they are linked to a significant matter, event, or issue in the history of that movement. So, for instance, one of the Seventy (Latter Day Saints) might not qualify unless they were specifically involved in some matter of consequence. The same could be said for elected leaders of various smaller Roman Catholic religious orders. It also could potentially apply to the leaders of major religious orders if they performed no consequential activity while in office, potentially.
    • While I personally might think that the Superior General of the Jesuits, given that group's importance, might qualify as inherently notable, the equivalent leader of a small, local religious order might not. Founders of religious orders of major denominations I think should be given the same notability as founders of smaller churches, as they are often effectively the same thing.
  • (5) Any religious figure who played a significant role in a religious matter of sufficient importance to both merit and have sufficient content for a substantial (non-stub) article.
    • A member of the First Council of Nicaea about whom nothing but the name is known might not qualify on this basis. Someone who played a significant role in the deliberations, however, would.
  • I do think that we might be best served trying to think of specific, if atypical, examples while trying to construct this guideline, however, as that will possibly make it clearer to people what is being specifically discussed. Thanks for the attention. John Carter 15:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Lot of merit in the above. Hard for me to grasp all at once. Easy for me to vote for all Catholic (and other denominations that have hierarchy) bishops and up. Hard to see how this criteria applies to other religions. Sorry to limit this reply to so narrow a viewpoint. John Carter's suggestions covers a lot of ground and should get a lot of attention. Student7 17:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think we have reached the point where we have transcended the material presented in the project page. While that addresses historical figures, and "founders", it didn't address the lowerarchy at all.  :) I would like to see John Carter meld his proposals into another (slightly renamed?) proposal and critiqued as yet another "straw man." It helps focus the discussion. Right now we're all over the map, not even talking in the same subsection any more. Student7 11:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is the same. Disagreements aren't going to come based on the notability of the Catholic Archbishop of Lyons. They are going to come based on the notability of Joe Palunka, the Missouri head of the Knights of Belief in the Cadillac God. So again part of the bullets above just won't work. Wjhonson (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion has shifted to WP:BIO

Discussion of including these guidelines as part of WP:BIO is ongoing at that project. Please discuss this topic there. If it is too extensive for inclusion at BIO it would be proper to branch into a sub-guideline. --Kevin Murray 00:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)