The Religion portal is biased, as it does not adequately represent or support all religions. Furthermore, it does not recognize other forms of spirituality, and mis-represents Budhism as a religion (it is not, it is a spirituality without a concept of Theo/Thea/Deity.) I would also suggest it would be impossible to create an NPOV news portal, and am personally opposed to WN even attempting to do so. - Amgine / talk 03:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- I suggest that a portal for Religion will remain biased until there are a significant number of contributors putting up articles that bring balance to it. Are you proposing that the Category be removed altogether to avoid the inevitable result of articles being tagged with it? That's something I would oppose, as filing away an article under a particular category need not be a POV action. Brianmc 08:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think this is biased any more then any other country portal. we don't have an equal spred of articles for each country simply due to lack of contribritures in those countries (although Country of the week is trying to address that.) We can't represent religions that no one writes for. However I still think that portals (including this one) serve a very useful purpose, and if people see their faith not listed here they're free to create it., Causing it to become more balanced. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm still concerned about the category, as it is one likely to develop intentional as well as inadvertent bias. However, I see good faith efforts to minimize bias, so I'm removing the NPOV dispute tag. I'm also working on an extension which would allow the use of "Religion OR Spirituality" for the DPL, which would work well here. - Amgine | talk 02:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I would be interested in starting a wikinews along the lines of the Quaker one to cover the Baha'i Faith. The kind of news items would be similar to my webgroup www.yahoogroups.com/BahaiMonitor/ but would also cover internal news, e.g. results of elections.
Is there anyone else who is interested in joining me on this?
Having a "Spirituality" portal without a "Religious" portal???
I am strongly against hiding stories on organized religion behind the word "Spirituality." All the religious people that I know do not use the word "spirituality" very often. They may refer to "spiritual" things but describe themselves as "religious" and their organizations as "religions." A "spirituality" portal may be fine for stories on Bhuddism and New Ageism and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism but "Spirituality" and "Religion" are two very different categories and there is news in both of them. --Nerd42 22:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Do you have a better suggestion for the name. The terms are too close (for the average person imo) to have both. It'd be like having a portal for Open source software and another one for free software (note, currently we use category:FLOSS. yes they are different, but they are too close to give them separate portals (again imo). Bawolff ☺☻ 23:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why not make it "Portal:Religion and Spirituality" That would cover everything? JoshuaZ 14:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This conversation did die three years ago, but I'd like to toss my two cents in and agree with Nerd42; "Portal:Religion and Spirituality" seems like a much better title. Cheers, C628 (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Last icon was removed for npov violations. Is this icon okay? If not, anyone want to pick one from commons:Religious_symbol#Mixed or commons:category:Religious symbols? Bawolff ☺☻ 23:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)