User talk:Zaza8675
Welcome
[edit]Български | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Lietuvių | 한국어 | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Suomi | Svenska | Türkçe | 简体中文 | The main embassy page edit
 Getting Started Getting help
 The Commmunity |
 Policies and Guidelines
 Things to do | |
Maedin\talk 17:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Irreligion and ethnic groups
[edit]Please stop adding 'irreligion' to articles where it isn't appropriate. Those parameters are for religions with a large number of adherents. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do not add them to inappropriate places though. Can you name an example which was inappropriate? Zaza8675 (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have sources that say all those groups have significant populations of irreligious people? Specifically, do you know the percentage of irreligious people versus that of other religions, for each article you edited? If you don't, then I don't think you can make such additions. Of course, what counts for significant proportion is a matter of judgement. Inappropriate examples: British Pakistanis, British Bangladeshis, [1], [2], basically most of your additions. It would be good if you could go back and revert all your changes unless you can add a source showing those groups have a significant proportion of irreligious people. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I dont know if you're from Britain but here you have irreligious people from all walks of life. I have only edited instances where i personally know irreligious members of an ethnic group. I could easily find sources for each but unless other groups have citations i wont add them. Your examples are not inappropriate, which is why i wont revert my changes. Zaza8675 (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Of course there are people of all religions in every ethnic group, but the role of that parameter is to list significant populations. That you're editing based on your personal experiences is what is called "original research". You have to add citations, whether other parts of articles have them or not. Regarding say, British Pakistanis, the table lists 92% Islam, 1% Christianity, so that any other religion isn't appropriate in that box, as they're be a small minority. Yes, there are irreligious British Pakistanis, but the sources don't indicate that they account for a significant proportion of the total population. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you actually did a little analysing instead of needless chatter you would notice that the British Pakistanis article has a religion heading under demographics. The cited statistics say the third largest belief is agnostic. A larger group did not state any religious preference. Zaza8675 (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- They account for 0.5% of the population, which isn't significant enough to include in the box. You're adding irreligion to many ethnic group articles giving the reason as "i personally know irreligious members of an ethnic group", which isn't acceptable. If you were concerned about adding all the major religions you would see that for British Bangladeshi, Christians and Hindus account for a larger proportion than those with no religion, but you didn't add those. But these are only two articles: can you justify the additions for all the other articles you've edited? Christopher Connor (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the general point that only religions with significant numbers of adherents (say a couple of per cent) amongst the groups should be included. However, there is the wider problem that the relgions currently listed in many ethnic group articles are based on someone's "common sense" view (i.e. original research) rather being sourced content. There's also a problem of definition. Some people might define themselves as Christian, say, when they don't actually believe in God, but because they see themselves as Christian by heritage. This can make interpretation of statistics on the irreligious problematic. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- From what i've seen, both of you are basing significance on personal opinion. 6.26% of brit bengalis did not specify a religion, therefore i thought irreligion should be mentioned. Zaza8675 (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not specifying a religion does not mean that someone is not religious. It may simply be that some people did not want to state their religion. That's why the source has distinct "No religion" and "Religion not stated" categories. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- From what i've seen, both of you are basing significance on personal opinion. 6.26% of brit bengalis did not specify a religion, therefore i thought irreligion should be mentioned. Zaza8675 (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the general point that only religions with significant numbers of adherents (say a couple of per cent) amongst the groups should be included. However, there is the wider problem that the relgions currently listed in many ethnic group articles are based on someone's "common sense" view (i.e. original research) rather being sourced content. There's also a problem of definition. Some people might define themselves as Christian, say, when they don't actually believe in God, but because they see themselves as Christian by heritage. This can make interpretation of statistics on the irreligious problematic. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- They account for 0.5% of the population, which isn't significant enough to include in the box. You're adding irreligion to many ethnic group articles giving the reason as "i personally know irreligious members of an ethnic group", which isn't acceptable. If you were concerned about adding all the major religions you would see that for British Bangladeshi, Christians and Hindus account for a larger proportion than those with no religion, but you didn't add those. But these are only two articles: can you justify the additions for all the other articles you've edited? Christopher Connor (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you actually did a little analysing instead of needless chatter you would notice that the British Pakistanis article has a religion heading under demographics. The cited statistics say the third largest belief is agnostic. A larger group did not state any religious preference. Zaza8675 (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Of course there are people of all religions in every ethnic group, but the role of that parameter is to list significant populations. That you're editing based on your personal experiences is what is called "original research". You have to add citations, whether other parts of articles have them or not. Regarding say, British Pakistanis, the table lists 92% Islam, 1% Christianity, so that any other religion isn't appropriate in that box, as they're be a small minority. Yes, there are irreligious British Pakistanis, but the sources don't indicate that they account for a significant proportion of the total population. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I dont know if you're from Britain but here you have irreligious people from all walks of life. I have only edited instances where i personally know irreligious members of an ethnic group. I could easily find sources for each but unless other groups have citations i wont add them. Your examples are not inappropriate, which is why i wont revert my changes. Zaza8675 (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have sources that say all those groups have significant populations of irreligious people? Specifically, do you know the percentage of irreligious people versus that of other religions, for each article you edited? If you don't, then I don't think you can make such additions. Of course, what counts for significant proportion is a matter of judgement. Inappropriate examples: British Pakistanis, British Bangladeshis, [1], [2], basically most of your additions. It would be good if you could go back and revert all your changes unless you can add a source showing those groups have a significant proportion of irreligious people. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
November 2010
[edit]
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to List of American Muslims. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Your source does not meet our criteria at WP:RS or WP:BLP, please do not add this again or use this source for claims about living people. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Template removal
[edit]Please explain your recent template removals. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
For the templates, i removed them as its a chrsitian article. If islamic porphets articles i.e. [3] or [4] dont have Christian templates, why should christian prophet articles be any different?
Now can you explain why you insist the christian Joseph page has as islamic tempate, but dont show the same standard on islamic Yusuf page which doesn't have a christian template?
Also, can you explain why you said this is not a reliable source? [5]
You said something about using twinkle. what did you mean by that? Zaza8675 (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- The templates are appropriate. These are prophets in all the Abrahamic religions. You can't remove them just because you don't agree with a religion. They aren't specifically Christian prophets, pretty obviously. As for reliable sources, read WP:RS and WP:BLP, that's just someone's website and there is no reason to take their word for it. Take it to WP:RSN if you disagree. Twinkle's just a tool to do some automated stuff like leave templates. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- You didnt answer my 1st and 2nd question. Why the double standard? The christian version of the prophet Joseph (son of Jacob) DOES have a quranic template, but the islamic version of the Islamic view of Joseph does NOT have a biblical template. Why the double standard? Zaza8675 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- How could 'Islamic view' of anything have a biblical template, if you mean the Hebrew/Christian Bible. On the other hand, Joseph is a quaranic prophet as well as a Jewish/Christian one. There's a big difference between a 'view of' article and an article on a specific prophet. Thanks for finding a reliable source for the other article. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Signature
[edit]No problem. I didn't realise it was you. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Articles up for deletion
[edit]Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Buddhist and the related Buddhist Nation (which is proposed for speedy deletion). You contributed to one of the articles. I hope this doesn't hurt your feelings. Borock (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)