This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Religion This page 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.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles

Some ideas for expanding this essay:

1. List of religions where bishops are notable positions
2. Expand list of "independent" religious news sources

--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The terms used are not right - there are relatively few "religions", and "all Christian faiths" is not idiomatic in the same way - all of Christianity (maybe except for LDS etc) is normally considered one "religion" and one "faith". Terms for groupings within a religion include denomination, church, tradition and several others. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points above, particularly regarding "religions". I seem to remember in India they do count the various denominations of what we in the west would call Dharmic religion and/or Hinduism as separate "religions," which does somewhat complicate matters. "Denominations" might work better, and/or maybe "faith traditions" in some cases like maybe the pentecostal/charismatic movements, which seem to have large numbers of comparatively independent local groupings which don't fall into any sort of broader "denomination" but could be broadly described as being the charismatic/pentecostal "tradition" or some such similar wording. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be very useful for the guideline to address the matter of clearly academic journals which are published by an institution which is itself clearly and obviously related to a given school of religious thought. I tend to think myself that they probably all qualify as "independent" to a degree (particularly if L'Osserveratore Romano and Our Sunday Visitor also qualify) but I do acknowledge the possibility that in at least a few cases they might not be. ALthough I myself don't know of such a possibility as this, would a journal published by a university or other institution which is itself a subordinate entity to a specific monastery, for instance, qualify as independent from the religion with which the monastery is affiliated or not? John Carter (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to propose that the section on bishops be amended to explicitly designate bishops of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Methodist Church as notable. Mccapra (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose that the special status of bishops be removed. We now have dozens and dozons of one-sentence articles for bishops that have done absolutely nothing of note.War (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just like most biographical categories then! In fact many of these are capable of great expansion, & would pass the GNG pretty easily. Why not try US state legislators? I will revert your change. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One can easily find many Bishops that have done nothing notable. Also, to your point, if US state legislator has also done nothing of note, other than to be elected, I see no reason for them to have their own article. What should be done in all these individuals be put in a 'list' article, with links to the ones that 'are' of note.War (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right, but that's not how we do things here, or not without a lot of discussion. See WP:POLITICIAN for them. Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you keep bringing up politicians, this discussion doesn't concern them. This is a discussion out bishops. Specifically, people that are not notable by GNG standards but still are awarded an article.War (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the Bishops SNG. Do we have any guidance regarding the notability of Auxilliary Bishops? Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think they'd need to pass GNG. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, for better or worse, your question opens a real can of worms.

Fundamentally, in religious bodies that have auxiliary bishops, they ARE ordained as bishops and thus hold that ecclesial rank and they have faculties beyond those of clergy of lesser rank even though they don't govern a diocese or equivalent jurisdiction. In the Catholic Church, for example, they are part of the magisterium (supreme doctrinal authority) and members of national or regional episcopal conferences. But beyond that, their influence can vary considerably. Many auxiliary bishops do little more than performing routine episcopal functions such as confirmations and ordinations for religious orders located within the diocese that they serve as a substitute for the diocesan bishops, perhaps along with some regional administration. But in other cases, auxiliary bishops have collateral assignments as members of various dicasteries of the Roman Curia or special responsibilities within the national or regional episcopal conference that give them much greater gravitas than even many diocesan bishops. And a related issue is that of bishops who don't govern dioceses, but who hold various positions within the Roman Curia and who serve as papal representatives within the Vatican's diplomatic corps. And, on the other side of the fence, there are individuals like Msgr. Keith Newton, Msgr. Carl Reid, Msgr. Harry Entwistle, and Msgr. Jeffrey Steenson who govern, or did govern, jurisdictions equivalent to dioceses, and thus were fully "equivalent to diocesan bishops" under canon law, but did not receive episcopal ordination. And here, I should also note that a "suffragan bishop" in the Anglican Communion is substantially equivalent ab "auxiliary bishop" in the Catholic Church so the practice of Wikipedia should be the same -- and I'm not sure what the analog of the Orthodox Communion and the ancient oriental churches would be. Norm1979 (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This essay has repeatedly and historically been cited as policy at WP:Articles for Deletion, but it is not actually an official policy endorsed as an WP:SNG. Likewise WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, has widely been cited at AFD without an underlying SNG supporting it as policy. It's my opinion that both this guide and WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES needs input from the wider community and not just editors who work frequently in this content area. I personally don't think religious leaders should be exempt from meeting the threshold of WP:SIGCOV, and that presumed notability as indicated here should be overturned. Likewise the pro-Catholic and anti other religious sects bias in the policy is problematic as written and I think needs some scrutiny. If the community disagrees, then this guide or something similar should become an officially endorsed SNG rather than being an essay that in all practical purposes has been acting like an official SNG. Rather than crafting a proposal for voting off the bat, I would like to hear other's opinions first in order to craft a proposal that is likely to pass. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. One more relevant essay to this RFC is Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide which is linked at WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES.4meter4 (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The two areas I see where Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide and WP:N diverge are The bishops of major denominations are notable by virtue of their status and the section on religious doctrine (which seems to say that all we need for religious doctrine to be notable is for the religious institution itself to write material about it). The rest basically just defers to SIGCOV. As for WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, I guess the question is about links to AfDs. i.e. are those or are those not the common outcomes? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide makes a couple of claims I think are very dubious:

• It says that bishops from several major Christian denominations are inherently notable and don't have to pass the GNG. This a much stronger claim than just saying that they are likely to pass the GNG, as WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES does. It's also a pretty major exemption: List of Catholic dioceses (alphabetical) says there are about 3,000 Catholic dioceses and List of Anglican Communion dioceses says they have 883. Throw in the Lutheran and Orthodox ones and I suspect this is at least 5,000 people at any one time. These kind of exemptions from having to meet the GNG are rare and not typically found in other SNGs, and I don't see a good reason to add one for bishops.
• The "Religious doctrine" section says that it's fine for an article about religious doctrine to be based on non-independent sources, which contradicts WP:V ("Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources", "If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"). Guidelines aren't supposed to contradict core policy.

Hut 8.5 17:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue of religious doctrines is easier to solve: Religious doctrines are themselves independent in that they're not 'owned' by anyone, such that if, say, the Roman Catholic Church writes about transsubstantiation, that is independent sourcing in that the Catholic Church and the doctrine of transsubstantiation are independent of each other. Maybe a better example would be Just war, elaborated by Augustine of Hippo but certainly not limited to Roman Catholicism in modern adherents. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that the Catholic Church is a reliable source for what it says about transsubstantiation, but the fact that it writes about transsubstantiation doesn't mean it's notable. Transsubstantiation is also written about by a wide range of other sources, many of which are independent of the church itself. An article on that subject without independent sources would just treat it as fact. Presumably if scientologists come up with a new doctrine extolling some device that cures all disease when used by certain level members, we could have an article citing only the church of scientology? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect an article about some aspect of Catholic doctrine to be based on sources which aren't written or published by the Catholic Church and if there aren't any then the subject isn't notable. Catholic doctrine is essentially part of Catholicism and isn't independent of the Catholic Church. I'm sure this wouldn't be hard given the number of theologians who have written about Christian doctrine over the centuries. This doesn't necessarily apply to something which is common to several Christian denominations, such as transubstantiation. Hut 8.5 20:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect an article about some aspect of Catholic doctrine to be based on sources which aren't written or published by the Catholic Church – but what counts as "published by the Catholic Church" for this purpose? The Catholic Church isn't really a single organisation, it is a vast network of affiliated organisations – dioceses, religious orders, seminaries, universities, untold sundry associations and societies, various affiliated publishing houses, media outlets and businesses, among very many others – all headed by the Vatican, which is in the absolutely unique position of being the only thing in the world which is simultaneously a major religious institution yet also a sovereign state. What does "published by the Catholic Church" mean in practice? If we limit it just to stuff published on the Vatican website, well then almost anything of significance published there is going to be covered by numerous other sources. At the other extreme, if you started arguing that a source is "published by the Catholic Church" because its author happens to be a Catholic priest, or works at a Catholic university, or the publishing house specifically identifies as Catholic, or so on, I think that is the wrong standard, because it is treating the Catholic Church as a monolithic entity, which it clearly isn't. Anyway, using self-published sources to establish notability is a big problem when dealing with some tiny religious sect someone is running out of their garage, not really a problem at all when the religion has over one billion members. That difference in scale has to count for something in the real world. Mr248 (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's some room for discernment. Some of our articles, and I'm thinking of Baptismal regeneration are largely based on what the opponents of such doctrines have to say about them, and cite the actual adherents (or alleged adherents) for NPOV balance. I am not thinking there's much of a high hurdle here, as I cannot think of a particular doctrine (that is, held by only one religious body) that will not have some outside criticism. Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to clergy offices, yes, I do think that Bishop-level religious officeholders are inherently/presumed notable, much like state legislators (per WP:NPOL), in terms that they serve large groups of constituents and hold an enduring seat that is geographically designated. The Roman Catholic Church and several other bodies do well at keeping titles appropriate, while others use the term in a way not consistent with the traditional usage and/or any other level of prominence that would presume notability, e.g., LDS uses the term essentially as Christianity commonly uses the term 'pastor'. To the extent that we're talking about substantially fixed religious offices, I think the bishop level accurately denotes where we ought to have an article on every officeholder, even if we've not much to say about each such officeholder. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem like it would need testing and/or existing evidence in order to change it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s a logical fallacy to make a comparison to politicians. For one, Bishops are appointed and not elected. Two, politicians serve the public at large and represent all people living in their jurisdiction whereas Bishops are serving a religious organization specifically. It’s not the same thing. A better comparison would be to the world of business, like the CEO of Walmart is the Pope and the Bishops are like a Walmart’s regional managers. Steady unelected positions in a private enterprise. 4meter4 (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not all politicians that meet WP:NPOL are elected. Some judges and national and state wide offices (e.g. cabinet members) are appointed. That said, trying to grant inherent notability for leaders of some churches and not others raises some WP:NPOV concerns in my opinion. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may disagree without it being a logical fallacy. You're taking a very disestablishmentarian view of church offices; for the vast majority of the non-U.S. Western world, state churches have bishops that ARE supposed to serve everyone within their designated geographical area. This is why I think Roman Catholicism is a reasonable, worldwide yardstick: not because they're special, but because their sees are organized such that a bishop is of necessity over a large amount of property, people, and territory. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL is very different to what this page says. The additional criteria of WP:BIO (including NPOL) only indicate that the subject is likely to be notable (or are presumed notable), and aren't a guarantee that the subject should be included. An article on someone who meets NPOL can still be deleted if they don't pass the GNG. By contrast this is saying that bishops of major denominations are inherently notable and don't have to pass the GNG at all. Hut 8.5 20:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Current catholic bishops will all pass WP:GNG with flying colours, so it doesn't really matter whether they are automatically notable or presumed notable (they are usually more widely known than the mayors). Historical bishops are a bit more questionable, especially from pre-1000. Is Gewilib notable? Most of the pre-400 ones listed at Elector of Mainz#Bishops_of_Moguntiacum,_80–745 are probably later falsifications to make the Diocese look older. For those old semi-legendary bishops, we shouldn't interpret a "bishops are notable" as a justification to have standalone articles about minor legends best treated in a list. —Kusma (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sort out sports first, then worry about bishops! Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'd welcome a discussion on sports, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has no significance here. Alsee (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There's one user who's created maybe tens of thousands of articles on clergy at all sorts of levels, above and below the bishop, almost always with very limited sourcing to non-significant sources, like chronologies of clergy at a church and routine listings of vital statistics and education. I consider this essentially spam of non-notable people who happen to have a mid-level, appointed local leadership position in a organization. There is not automatic notability for clergymembers without substantive coverage, and if you want to make this common outcome a guideline, there should be a very clear delineation of what positions do and do not qualify. There are far too many local dioceses with long histories of leaders who have made no outside impact or received much independent coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Essays do not override GNG. While WP:OUTCOMES such as WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES is supposed to contain useful info, it is not itself a guideline and it is a circular and poor argument in AFDs. I am particularly concerned that this is a recurring problem. The essay at WP:Notability_(media) just failed an RFC, and a small number of editors had been cluster-voting keep in AFDs based on circular assertion of the essay+WP:OUTCOMES. In fact someone unilaterally "upgraded" that essay to "information supplement". That essay was also shoved into the official Notability template - the template which displays the full list of genuine approved guidelines for various subject areas. Once some uninvolved editors became aware of the rouge AFD results, there was general assertion that GNG overrides the contrary-to-consensus essay. Subsequent AFDs on the topic came down as delete. It appears troublingly easy for a small group of topic-enthusiasts to write an official-looking essay, cluster-vote AFDs, and abuse the essay+WP:OUTCOMES to try and lock in a fringe presumption of unsourced Notability. Assuming this RFC turns out similar to the last one, I think we may need a generalized RFC to address this issue across all subject areas. I have some thoughts on drafting such an RFC, feel free to ping me to help on it. Alsee (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. Regarding the appropriate standard, high level leaders of large religions will generally pass GNG because they generally receive significant independent RS coverage. But fundamentally all religions should be held to the same standard, and that should be the same standard as any other private group. The Boy Scouts might have regional leaders serving large regions and many people, but those leaders are only Notable if they get significant independent RS coverage. Alsee (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Policy - CLERGYCOMES and the WikiprojectReligion Notability guide pretty clearly do not carry more than a parochial local consensus, and my own reading of the Notability guide tells me that it is not even very good as an essay, making confused references to existing policy and guidelines and containing serious NPOV issues.
• My suggestion would be to draft something for religious leaders, clergy, etc. that is compatible with the existing provisions at WP:NBIO, and RfC that at the NBIO Talk page, to widen the discussion so that the result would actually embody community consensus. This quite obviously doesn't. Newimpartial (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Newimpartial's comment just above is reasonable. Parts of this essay make no sense at all; for example, the "Religious doctrine" section doesn't even seem to be talking about notability, offers a non sequitur argument for waiving the requirement of independent sources, and seems to think that disputes over niche matters of doctrine do not exist. The "Bishops" subsection offers nothing to back up the distinction it tries to make, except for an unattributed quote. The WP:SOLDIER guideline was recently deprecated, suggesting that community sentiment might not be eager for a guideline saying things like, "Persons of rank X or higher in organization Y are presumed notable". XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Meta-Comment This RFC is raising at least a couple of essentially distinct objections to this essay – one about the notability of religious officeholders (and also objecting to WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES in the process); another about the notability of religious doctrines. I really think mixing up multiple distinct issues in a single RFC isn't good for keeping the discussion focused and deciding whether any kind of consensus has been reached as a result. I think it would have been much better if this RFC had just stuck to one of those issues – say the clergy notability one – and saved any others for a separate RFC. Mr248 (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think having a rule like "all Catholic bishops are presumed notable" actually helps in countering systemic bias. Probably for every single recent Catholic bishop in major English-speaking countries, you are going to easily find ample media coverage of them. But, for some Catholic bishop in some African country, you may find very little media coverage – they probably are extensively covered in that country's media, but that country's media might not be readily available online, or even if it is few editors may have any idea how to search it, it might not be in English, etc. Dropping the assumption may make no difference to inclusion of (e.g) US Catholic bishops, but have a much bigger impact on (e.g) African ones, worsening Wikipedia's systemic bias. Now, some suggest having such a rule for the Catholic Church, and a few other denominations, expresses some kind of religious bias – I don't agree. Christianity historically developed an organisational structure which was much more hierarchical than most other major religions, and the senior leaders in the hierarchy ended up exercising great power in both religious and secular matters. The office of bishop has some inherent notability because of its historical significance – a person can acknowledge that historical fact no matter what their religious beliefs are, or even if they have none. Certain Christian churches have retained the office of bishop in essentially its original form and with essentially its original significance – Catholic, Orthodox, Anglicans, (some) Lutherans. Many other Christian denominations have dispensed with bishops, or weakened the power of the office to the point that its holders become unlikely to be notable. The note about LDS bishops is relevant here – LDS bishops are generally non-notable, not because of some religious bias against LDS, but simply because an LDS bishop has far less power than a Catholic or Anglican or Orthodox bishop does. Also, this principle – that certain religious offices are inherently notable – is not uniquely applying to Christianity – WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES says "Chief Rabbis of nation states with large Jewish communities are notable by virtue of their status". I would personally extend that to certain Islamic clergy as well – such as anyone ranked Ayatollah or Grand Ayatollah in Twelver Usuli Shi'a Islam; anyone who is formally appointed or recognised as a country's Grand Mufti by a government (I'm not so sure about the notability of "Grand Muftis" which are granted that title by a country's Muslim community, or some segment thereof, but don't receive any formal government recognition); the Grand Imam of al-Azhar. And I don't mean to limit this to just Judaism, Christianity and Islam either – I think if anyone has any suggestions of offices in other major religions which are inherently notable, I think those suggestions should be seriously considered. Mr248 (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the trouble (on this particular point) is that maybe the distinction between bishops of different denominations is justifiable, but this essay doesn't do any work to justify it. There's no way to read the "Bishops" subsection and figure out what is going on. At best, this page reads like a draft for a future guideline, an outline with some "oh, yes, we'll need to mention that" items blocked in. XOR'easter (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Have advertised this RFC on the talkpages of the christianity project and the catholicism project as the nominator had overlooked. Personally I am in favour of the status quo as to demand instant online Google notability or face deletion would mark a significant dumbing down. For example using online recentism would result in articles mainly about the most notorious bishops in the manner of a tabloid editorial policy. That offline sources exist for catholic bishops has been proved time again so the current assumption of notability is a fair one in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Status quo Your complaint is folly, 4meter4. This encyclopedia is written by the volunteers and driven by their interests. Logically, a WikiProject of like-minded fans will write an essay declaring that some aspects of their field are presumed notable to stop deletionists from torching their hobby. If we want an encyclopedia we need to coddle editors like these because if we chase them off, you'll have far fewer dedicated contributors. Your query is the same sort of nonsense that killed WP:MILPEOPLE, the favorite crutch of the most active WikiProject of all time. I would posit that you should first consider how much source coverage talks about the average episcopate before you ask to demolish Chesterton's fence. There isn't a future for Wikipedia if we allow the destruction of SNGs. The fact that you seem so put off by a WikiProject essay evinces bias on your part. Go ask our horse friends about WP:NRODEO and then get back to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t an SNG (which are official policies). That’s the point of this conversation if you read my opening statement carefully. My issue is that it’s functioning like an SNG without actually going through the vetting process of wide community input and consensus to reach the status of an SNG. Yes, I have issues with this essay, but really my personal opinions matter little here. What’s more important is what does the wider community think. If we’re going to treat an essay as policy it needs to be vetted through the policy making process.4meter4 (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. I don't think there's anything wrong in principle with having an SNG on this topic; the question is whether the current text is anywhere close to suitable for being one. (Avoiding recentism is a legitimate concern, for example, but is this helpful in that regard? Could anyone new to editing in the area read it and get an informed sense of what topics should have articles? I doubt it.) XOR'easter (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And it's probably time to close this as going nowhere. It was cited by 4meter4, the RfC initiator in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert-Joseph Coffy, but more on that below.

• This has never been a validly-worded RfC, violating WP:RFCNEUTRAL from the outset in that it is not phrased neutrally, but advocates the initiator's position.
• As noted by Atlantic306 above, specific relevant groups (who might have had a particular view on the outcome different from the initiators) were missed by the initiator, against the advice at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC.
• The RfC tag itself expired more than two weeks ago.
• Subsequent to this RfC's initiation the initiator opened an AfD on a 20th century French Roman Catholic Archbishop Cardinal Robert-Joseph Coffy, which has to this date drawn substantial rebuke (including from me) and no traction from other editors. This editor has declined to answer questions on the likely sourcing, declined to withdraw the unsupported and meritless AfD, and refused my attempts to provide him a way out, deleting the discussion without archiving: a permitted option, but unusual when most of who work in Wikipedia content policies archive even our unpleasant conversations.

For all these reasons, in addition to the lack of community support for any changes despite these irregularities, I think it's time to formally reject the possibility of any changes based on this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens it’s really hard to take your comments in good faith when you take conflicts with me into multiple pages and spaces and bring in outside discussions into public spaces. I have refused to engage with you because your comments become personal attacks and are overly hostile, and you cannot simply allow differences of opinion to sit and be what they are. This will be my only comment here on the matter. If this persists I will be taking it to ANI. Lastly, I have never kept a talk page archive. It’s not my practice, and frankly how I choose to use my user space is not your affair. Stop being the thought police. Regardless, I agree I could have phrased the opening of th RFC more neutrally, although I saw it as being honest at the time by disclosing my personal bias. I did say that the community may feel differently with me and provide a path forward in my suggestion if that was the case. I think this RFC has the benefit of highlighting that an SNG for religious figures or employees of religious institutions is needed, and that this current essay may need some modifications in order to reach that goal. Hopefully some editors will get inspired to take that on, but that won’t be me. I am disengaging from this topic and moving on to less controversial work for my own mental health. And for the love of God please allow me to actually disengage by not dragging me into a discussion on yet another page. Every time I stop talking and engaging in one space you start attacking me in a new thread somewhere else. Please stop. At this point it’s harassment. 4meter4 (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, I really think it is time to close this RFC. It has gone on too long and hasn't reached any clear consensus. As I mentioned above, I think its scope was overly broad – raising at least two separate issues (notability of clergy and notability of religious doctrines) rather than narrowly focusing on one issue in particular. If we close this RFC, and you still think this topic needs further discussion, you could always open a fresh one with a more narrowly defined scope. If you wanted to focus on the notability of clergy in particular, WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES might be a better place to do it than here. Mr248 (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with that. I don’t think I am supposed to close it though. All of the RFC’s I’ve seen have been closed and summarized by someone other than the person who started it. You are welcome to close it. I’m not sure my original post was target towards the theology component of the essay; which I should have clarified in my opening statement. Other editors went in that direction, which was partly my fault for not delimiting the scope more carefully. I have participated in relatively few RFCs or policy discussions, so I’ll know better for next time to be more targeted in my statement (however, given my very negative experience with Jclemens I doubt I will be starting one and commenting in one any time soon.) 4meter4 (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anywhere on Wikipedia:Notability (people) that describes major leadership roles as inherently notable. It's been my experience that there are many significant leadership roles that recovered minimal or no source coverage to justify a biography article. Under "Invalid criteria" it explicitly says relationships with notable people do not convey notability of a subject but that such people "may be included in the related article". This quote is specific talking about human to human relationships, however, I read that as covering non-notable leadership relationships within an notable body as well. I'm of course open to a different perspective here. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Welcome to the topic. Feel free to read past discussions, although a lot of things have been hashed out in specific AfDs (such as this), rather than the talk page here. If you look carefully, there are a very small subset of people who are presumed notable, and a lot of other positions that are likely to be notable. This is a subtle but important difference. No, "relationships with notable people" do not drive these criteria, but rather the fact that we have plenty of coverage of Western, modern clergy and don't want to introduce more systemic bias into Wikipedia by expecting the same of non-English, non-Internet-era religious figures. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens I started this topic guide, but thank you for the greeting. Your linked AfD for the biography of a prominent member of one of the largest religious groups in the world, were only six editors voted, does not appear to me to suport the claim that significant roles of leadership within a major religion ...often meet notability guidelines (emphasis mine).

First, the your linked AFD easily resulted in producing numerous citations to prove major contribution by Robert-Joseph Coffy in both written works and references by others (which is covered by #5 in this list). Despite initial protest by editors that title alone should indicate notability. So, why would we here suggest it's okay to assume "likely" notability at a layer removed from such easy to produce wp:reliable sources?

Second, Major Religion is not defined here. Lots of editors have agreed that the term Major religious groups is wp:notable. In contrast, I don't see any topic page or Wiktionary definition for "Major Religions". Referencing major religious groups works for list item 1 about heads of major religions but, as worded, this suggest list item about multiple offices or significant roles could easily cause conflation between the notability of a Catholic bishop and a Mormon bishop. Which doesn't need to happen if the guide simply sticks to relevant advice about specific MoS criteria.

So, for example, as currently stated, this claim would suport the statement: "Individuals holding multiple roles of leadership across atheist organizations will often meet notability guidelines" (Given that irreligion is one of the Major religious groups). But I don't see any evidence for such a broad guidance. I view this guild as being a lot more useful if we just stick with MoS and Notability guidelines as they curranty stand instead of trying to offer our own tangential proxies for them. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens I'm again engaging you here, on the talk page. When content is in dispute, the status quo stands. In this case, new content is not added. Please engage me here and help me understand how this content adds anything other than confusion, as it conflicts with WP:Notability, which I've detailed above. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, reading back through things, it appears that I mistook how long the text had been around. My apologies for that; I had thought that it had genuinely been there longer than that, and my actions had been predicated on its presence as the status quo. Having said that, the opinions for inclusion are still 2:1, assuming the editor adding them was not simply a drive-by, which I doubt because the addition is per se reasonable, if not entirely uncontroversial. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we now agree on where the status quo is. Let's move forward. Please engage with my critique of the addition instead of counting votes. Wikipedia:IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. I perceive the addition as controversial given it would create confusion and contradicts WP:Notability guidelines. In my above comments, I provided an example where an appointment of a leader to a prominent atheist organization likely does not meet notability. Let's now examine Russ Barksdale, member of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. I don't see enough coverage of Bill in a Google News search to qualify for WP:Notablity. Even though he is clearly a prominent leader of a WP:Notable Christian organization, and is discussed in length by their own, non-independent press. I do empathize with your comment about prominent religious leaders of non-English speaking countries being biased against given the limited English language coverage of their faith, let alone their leadership. But, this is an English Wikipedia-wide problem. I don't think we address this by suggesting something about religious leadership imbuing the leader with assumed media coverage. I am, however, open to alternative phrasing, if you have some ideas that better reflect WP:Notablity criterion. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]