Property talk:P140

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search

Documentation

religion
religion of a person, organization or religious building, or associated with this subject
Description Religion of a person or organization
Represents religion (Q9174)
Data type Item
Template parameter en:Template:Infobox person, en:Template:Infobox religious biography, "Religion"
Domain persons and organizations
Allowed values Instances of religions : instance of (P31) = religion (Q9174) (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Usage notes use the most relevant/specific religious group or denomination
Example
According to this template: Judaism (Q9268), Islam (Q432), Catholicism (Q1841) ...
According to statements in the property:
Narendra Modi (Q1058)Hinduism (Q9089)
When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Tracking: usage Category:Pages using Wikidata property P140 (Q22913724)
Lists
Proposal discussion Property proposal/Archive/1#P140
Current uses 53,043
[create] Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here
Value type "religion (Q9174), Christian Church (Q34651), religious denomination (Q13414953)": This property should use items as value that contain property instance of (P31). On these, the value for instance of (P31) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value Q9174,Q34651,Q13414953 (or a subclass thereof).
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P140#Value type Q9174,Q34651,Q13414953
Type “human (Q5), fictional human (Q15632617), organization (Q43229): element must contain property instance of (P31) with classes Q5,Q15632617,Q43229 or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279))
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P140#Type Q5,Q15632617,Q43229
Contemporaries:
if [item A] has this property (P140) linked to [item B],
then [item A] and [item B] have to coincide or coexist at some point of history.
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P140#Contemporary, SPARQL
This property is being used by:

Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)

Archived creation discussion[edit]

Religion[edit]

Added --Napoleon.tan (talk) 15:31 February 17, 2013 (UTC)

  • Only if the person's religion is public information and important in his or her career. --Eric-92 (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia only requires that it be supported by reliable sources. It doesn't add the 2nd criterion of it being "important in his or her career." As Wikidata is intended to supply data to Wikipedia, I don't see how we can have more restrictive criteria than they do? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! "career" was not the most proper word - I thought of saints and bishops, for instance. --Eric-92 (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Ch1902 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Danrok (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done here P140. Danrok (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


Other domains than persons[edit]

Sorry, but I think adding "for monarchs, heads of state, etc" is too restrictive, giving a false impression that this is to be used for political figures, despite the "etc." Better to simply leave it at "relevant." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Geagea (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, should be used for anyone, so long as the information is reliably sourced (esp. for living people as per always). Danrok (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, sourced and relevant. I had at first objected to that 2nd criterion, but then saw that it was already in the guidelines for the EngWiki person infobox. I daresay that will be where arguments may occur. When is it "relevant"? But a label needs to be short and so cannot serve as an exhaustive list of "relevant" positions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I think relevancy is dependent on the final application. What may be considered irrelevant on WP, may be highly relevant to other parties who use the data via the API. As far as WP goes, anything considered irrelevant can just be ignored by scripts or whatever. But, these things will be worked out in the end. Danrok (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Infoboxes on Wikipedia do not limit us, either forcing us to have certain properties, or limiting us to having certain properties. I would support using this property whenever it is applicable (sourced, I mean), not limited to theologians and such. Espeso (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay with me. This is basically the criteria for inclusion in a People by foo religion wikipedia category. But then I wonder if we should then change the label? If I understand the consensus correctly, then should the label more accurately say something like religion of a person (use when there are reliable sources)? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I hate to add wording like that when I know it's not going to be followed until globally mandated by policy (for example), and technically we can't even add the source yet... but "agreed in principle". To me, at this time it is sufficient to say "Wikipedia has it sourced", which puts me in a minority I expect. Fellow country-person to you, BTW, assuming your handle is a statement of fact. :-) I think we're pretty rare here. Espeso (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
This property, like many others, will be one day massively filled by bot imports from Wikipedias (or shall remain used only on a few dozen items...). I am not sure to understand what "relevant" means there, good luck when you'll have to explain it to a bot :-). Sincerely, I think any restriction is illusory : either you don't create the property at all, or you should be ready to see it used very broadly. Touriste (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
"good luck when you'll have to explain it to a bot": but the bot owner must be careful to defined guidelines...
Are there many infoboxes with religion on the English WP ? In the French one, I don't think so (except bishops or similar). --Eric-92 (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • One question - what type of items should we be using here? Q106039 (Christian), or Q5043 (Christianity)? Andrew Gray (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be Q5043. Danrok (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Applicable pour l'athéisme ? / Applicable for atheism?[edit]

Français : si c'est applicable à l'athéisme, il faudrait le préciser dans la description.
English: if it is applicable for atheism, it should be explained in the description.
--Gloumouth1 (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think atheism is a religion. Danrok (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you think that we should use 2 different properties to code that someone is catholic or atheistic? I do not think so, and as a consequence, we should rename the property; something like religion or irreligion --Gloumouth1 (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The label on the corresponding infobox is "religion", so for that reason I'd suggest that only religions should be included for now. Danrok (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
You mean the corresponding infobox on w:en, right? So, if a decision was taken on w:en, the same decision is taken automatically on wikidata? --Gloumouth1 (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not a decision, just a simple pairing of data between here and the infoboxes. It's also labeled "religion" on Modèle:Infobox Politicien. Danrok (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
This is shown as an objective on this page: Phase 2 "to map and harmonize Wikidata properties to common infobox parameters." Danrok (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
At least in Uk and Pl wikipedias similar property is used for atheism too. Because in most cases such property is same as "religion", other wikipedias just had to handle (ignore) value "Atheism" in their infoboxes --AS (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Being myself an atheist, I would be shocked to see this opinion classified as a "religion". But my opinion is of little importance (though I don't think it is so far from the usual classifications - I have more than once browsed through general surveys of world religions omitting atheism, marxism, vegeterianism and other unrelated ways of life). The real answer is to be found in external documents : if you have a document asserting that X's religion is "atheism" (or gaullism, or schizophrenia or anything) you can use this item as a value of P140, as odd as it sounds. If you don't you should not. Touriste (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course Wikipedia should not be a source for Wikidata : if an undeducated monkey working on Wikipedia made a random choice when filling an infobox, the opinion of this uneducated monkey should not be used as a basis for filling a distinct data bank. Touriste (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Life stance? --AS (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not bad, it would be ok for me. But actually, the debate is not only about the property's name. Should we have in wikidata:
  1. a specific property (for relegions only, this is the choice made on several wikipedia projects, and it seems to be the reason why some contributors think it is the best choice) and will force us to have one day another property for "irreligion".
  2. a generic property (that could include more than religions, this is my position, and if this option would be chosen, yes, we could name the property life stance for example)
This is not a philosophical point of view, this is only a pragmatic point of view: if there is a strong dependency between 2 properties, there should be only one property, otherwise you introduce a way to code some inconsistencies. Let’s suppose we have another property about "irreligion". You allow to code <John Doe> religion <Catholic> AND <John Doe> irreligion <Atheist> which is not consistent. To have a generic property is a simple way to avoid it.
--Gloumouth1 (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
But your example is not inconsistent : in some civilizations, a bit different from our good old individualist Western one, is catholic anybody who was bord a Catholic or even who was born from catholic parents. So you can be an atheist catholic, or an atheist muslim. Thinking religion as a personal experience is in some extent the result of a western cultural bias. Anyway, inconsistencies are not avoidable : a single source is sometimes inconsistent, the collection of all sources is very often inconsistent. Touriste (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I get your point:
  • Some of us (you) give two meanings to this property:
    1. religion you were given when you were born, in the cultural sense.
    2. religion in which you believe, that you practice, ...
  • Others (me), gave only the second meaning to the property.
But ok, let's assume the property have the 2 meanings, so in this case, you're right, no inconsistency, and my argument is not valid anymore. I try something else to show that we should accept atheist as object to this property. When we have the qualifiers, we should be able to code something like John Doe was born Christian, in 1970, he lost his faith and became atheistic, and finally in 1980 he became Muslim.
  • "Heterogeneous" coding:
    • <John Doe> religion <Christian> qualifier [date < 1970];
    • <John Doe> irreligion <atheist> qualifier [1970 < date < 1980];
    • <John Doe> religion <Muslim> qualifier [1980 < date];
  • "Homogeneous" coding:
    • <John Doe> religion or irreligion <Christian> qualifier [date < 1970];
    • <John Doe> religion or irreligion <atheist> qualifier [1970 < date < 1980];
    • <John Doe> religion or irreligion <Muslim> qualifier [1980 < date]
The second one looks more natural to me. And it will be easier to process in order to present data. Same kind of argument if we want to display a table with all Nobel Prizes and their religion (or "irreligion") for example.
--Gloumouth1 (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
For the sake of simplicity, there should be one property for religion faith and/or any philosophical stance towards religion in a broad sense. Atheism isn't a religion, but it should be mentioned as a lack of religion in the same way as a person with no nationality for whatever reason should have his/her nationality listed as "none". Same with agnosticism, ignosticism and so on. Seems more natural than having two separate entries: "existence or not of a religious belief" and "name of said religious belief". Sabbut (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The sake of simplicity should never prevail over the sake of accuracy. If X has no religion, you can of course insert "none" as the value of Religion (what is the item for "none" by the way ?). But having no religion is not the same as being an atheist, which is a philosophical stance (and not obviously a "philosophical stance towards religion"). Touriste (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

We distinguish religion from other views because it shows person's opinion on most fundamental (metaphysical) questions and this opinion decides many aspects of person's life. So this property ("theological position"?) should indicate metaphysical/theological views of person (some religion, atheism, agnosticism etc.) PS. is ietsism a religion? --AS (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Extension of the "atheism" problem : how do we source ?[edit]

This discussion is pleasant, but does not dig the real problem : how can we source a "religion" item ? Do we require a source that uses the word "religion" ? It probably sometimes exists though seldom - trying to find an example through a random search, I stumbled on this source (in French) which asserts that the publisher Michel Lévy considered himself as "Français de religion israélite". Of course we don't go far if we ask for so much. So we do admit the already more tricky sourcing by syllogism : "Catholicism is a religion" (can probably be considered as obvious but can be easily sourced), "X is a catholic" (very often written in such a non ambiguous form in sources), so we can conclude that "X's religion is catholicism". It seems easy, BUT... There are tricks in the first part of the syllogism. We are discussing above whether "Atheism is a religion" - it is obviously easy to find a source answering "yes" and a source answering "no". So ? Does the "yes" win and allow to use "Atheism" as religion for anybody who is known as an atheist ? Beware ! The problem does not arise only with "atheism". "Judaism" is a religion, and can also simply allude to belonging to the Jewish community : there are atheist Jews, in this meaning. Can we use the syllogism if a source asserts "Y is a Jew" (say "Dominique Strauss-Kahn" is a Jew, for an instance who cause a debate on Talk pages of fr Wikipedia) and use the item "Judaism" in Y's Religion property. And what about Juche ? What about Scientology ? Can we, should we use Juche and Scientology as a value of the "Religion" property ? Beware of all the traps behind this property ! Touriste (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is more general statements problem (eg. if X has a wife, is he a heterosexual?) which should be discused in some other place. --AS (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd imagine that this data may be imported from another source, at some point. Danrok (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Rename?[edit]

While en:Category:Religions is redirected to en:Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements I think we can also rename this property to a similar name, after that may atheistic also can be used as a value for it, though I am not sure about it...ebraminiotalk 10:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Catholic[edit]

Which item should we use for people who are catholic? Catholicism (Q1841) or Catholic Church (Q9592)? — Ayack (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Constraint requires instance/subclass of religion (Q9174), thus Catholicism (Q1841) is ok because it contains Christianity (Q5043). Michiel1972 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Atheists[edit]

Why can't we use the special "novalue" for atheists? --Wylve (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. Infovarius (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
GA candidate.svg Weak support for using novalue for atheists. Might make more sense to have a property "world view (Weltbild)" that could take values like "atheism", "theism" (only then set religion), but also more exotic things like "belief in social Darwinism", "Apocalypticism (Q618859)". Setting "religion = atheist" should be deprecated because that is a notion that atheists strongly reject. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


@Wylve, Infovarius: We have 534 statements that link to atheism (http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/autolist2.php?language=en&project=wikipedia&category=&depth=12&wdq=claim[140%3A7066]&mode=undefined&statementlist=&run=Run&label_contains=&label_contains_not=&chunk_size=10000). I am in favour of deleting these statements and setting either nothing or novalue. @Emw: What do you think about this? --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing religion:atheist statements and replacing it with novalue. —Wylve (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Nothing (i.e. no statement) is bad - it is unknowledge. About "novalue": how many items have this "value" now? And how to count them? --Infovarius (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of setting a novalue... though I understand we want to have something specified whenever possible, it just seems messy in this instance. How can you really say someone's religion is "null"? While some people might argue that atheism is the "absence of religion", according to the Wikipedia article, that's not always true: People who self-identify as atheists are often assumed to be irreligious, but some sects within major religions reject the existence of a personal, creator deity. So, I'd object to your belief that "[all] atheists strong reject" the characterization that their religion is atheism. I think atheism is in a similar situation to Confucianism -- some people consider it a religion, some don't, and it's technically more of a world view. Can we just add world view as an alias here? Cbrown1023 talk 02:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The classification of "atheism" has interesting ontological facets. Defining atheism as "absence of belief in a deity" seems like a reasonable starting point. So atheism is the lack of something. In this regard the ontology of atheism is similar to a classic problem in philosophy: the ontology of holes. There are other worthy subjects of discussion here, like whether atheism entails irreligion, but the classification of things defined by their absence is a more general (and perhaps more productive) thing to consider here. Emw (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose novalue, because the definition of atheism as being a lack of religion is just one of its definitions, not the only one (as well explained on Wikipédia:Atheism). The only interesting question is whether the source say someone has no religion (religion = novalue) or is atheist (religion = atheism). Let the description of atheism (Q7066) handle all the (complicated) debate about its religious nature. — nojhan () 13:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Instead of having the property (only) regard religions it could (also) incorporate "religious attitude". — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Use for churches as well?[edit]

Should this property also be used for buildings like churches if they are used by members of a certain religion? Random example: Annunciation Church New York (Q4769767) --Bthfan (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I like to know this as well, I think we can use it for that purpose. Maybe description of property can be changed to include churches : property for persons, organisations and religious buildings. Michiel1972 (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I second that. Any other comment on that? — Fabimaru (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
This is OK. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

2014 review[edit]

The current type statistics show that we are throwing to many things into this property. How about this:

  • Create property "world view / conception of the world" (Weltbild) including Menschenbild (conception of humans):

If any of the above fit with being religious religion (P140) should be set additionally to define the religion. Some previous discussion also hint that church membership might be notable. Other question might be, how to deal with denominations (Konfessionen). Statements like Flying Spaghetti Monster (Q12044) should rather use part of (P361) = Pastafarianism (Q14397660) rather than religion (P140). Maybe confine the usage to only humans? -Tobias1984 (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

People are still adding wrong statements to "atheist" (which is not a system of belief, but something you identify yourself (note that there are 2 item with that label)) and "atheism". 548 links to these 3 items: http://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/autolist1.html?q=CLAIM[31%3A14827288]%20AND%20CLAIM[31%3A593744] --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Yair rand: A comment would be for this issue would be appreciated. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Value for "Catholic"[edit]

See Wikidata:Project_chat#Catholic_bishop_.28Q611644.29. --- Jura 11:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No, churches cannot be value of that property according to its constraint which limits the value to items labeled as instance of: religion. Catholic church is not a religion but an organization. Snipre (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
If the constraint is incorrect or ill-defined, we can fix it. Just wondering, is the religion of Catholics Christianity or Buddhism? --- Jura 08:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done --- Jura 07:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Catholicism (Q1841) or Catholic Church (Q9592)[edit]

Hello. I would like to change everything from Catholic Church (Q9592) to Catholicism (Q1841), Catholic Church (Q9592) being an organisation, not a religion (Q9174). Would that be a problem? Thierry Caro (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The changes in question seem to be used as the value for religion (P140) in entries about people. I think it is more important to use the most specific value for this property that the references support, and the grammatical form of the entity title (Roman Catholic church vs Roman Catholicism) is less important. Catholicism (Q1841) bears the description "broad term for beliefs associated with several Christian churches". One or more churches that have recently split off from the Roman Catholic church because they want to keep the Latin mass would also fall under Catholicism. Probably having two entities that seem to be grammatical variants (one referring to the belief and worship system, the other referring to the institution) but are actually different because, according to Wikidata descriptions, followers of Catholicism are a proper subset of members of the Catholic Church. Maybe our descriptions need revision. But if we change the description, we would need to create new entities for those who call themselves Catholics but are members of churches that do not acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope. Then, if any people to which the new entities apply are in WikiData, we would have to change their entries. Finding them would be a difficult task. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
My point of view is that if the property is named 'religion', it should deal with faith, not institutions. But then we can change the name of the property to allow the use of Catholic Church (Q9592) as a value. It could be renamed to 'Church'. But then Catholicism (Q1841) would become a strange value. So maybe we could use 'religion or Church' as the name of the property. But then everything is less specific and different things get mixed. Whatever we decide, something must be changed. Thierry Caro (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe the value here should be as specific as possible (similar to located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) approach). Not only generic Judaism (Q9268) or Christianity (Q5043), but arianism (Q83922) or Pentecostalism (Q483978) (if this information is available). If any local wiki community prefer to see only values on religion (Q9174) level (not specific religious denomination (Q13414953)), it can be achieved via lua API if correct hierarchy is presented here. Once we agree on semantics, we can come up with proper naming.
But I do agree that showing Catholicism (Q1841) or Catholic Church (Q9592) for people who lived before East-West Schism (Q51648) has no point --Ghuron (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
What would Ghuron use for those who lived between the w:Council of Chalcedon (451) and the East-West Schism (Q51648), since some Christians did not accept the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
If we know for sure they belongs to Armenian Apostolic Church (Q683724), Church of Caucasian Albania (Q2415313) or any other "local" churches we can specify them. If we are unsure, we can always specify Christianity (Q5043). Does this answer you question or did I get it wrong? --Ghuron (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
If we know for sure they belonged to a part of Christianity (Q5043) that accepted the Council of Chalcedon, we should have an entity we can specify that covers only that part of Christianity. But I don't know what the name or number is for that entity, if it exists. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the current name of the property does not imply that we should use the most specific information. When I see 'religion' I have the feeling that they just wait for the broad religion, not specific subgroups. So maybe should we change this name to 'religious faith' or something? Thierry Caro (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Nojhan (talkcontribslogs) Yair rand Runner1928 (talkcontribslogs) TomT0m (talkcontribslogs) Capankajsmilyo (talkcontribslogs)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Religions

It would be better to use the most specific element, because it will inherit from the generic one, which is easy to find. The converse reasoning would be impossible. In the case there is several specific religions attached, just list them. — nojhan () 13:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. We should not confuse religion and their associated institutions. The Church is an organisation, and its actual members are the clergymen. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It is important to note that the term "Catholicism" is broader than just the Roman Catholic Church. There are some splinter churches of the Roman Catholic Church which are closer in belief and practice to the Roman Catholic Church than to Protestantism or Orthodoxy, which is why these (far smaller) churches often get stuck under the label "Catholicism" as well – for example, Old Catholic Church (Q5169816), Polish National Catholic Church (Q32731), etc. However, it is wrong to say this is purely an "organizational" difference, because in religion differences of organisation are inevitably associated with differences in belief – e.g. the Roman Catholic Church insists on the dogma of papal infallibility but the Old Catholic Church rejects it. This is why I disagree with this proposal, because "Roman Catholic Church" is the more specific term. Much of this discussion seems to presume a distinction between religions as belief systems and religions as organisations, but that distinction doesn't really work, because differences of organisations in most cases involve differences of belief. To be a member of religious denomination X instead of religious denomination Y normally involves believing different things. That isn't universally true; there are probably some Protestant denominations with near identical beliefs which are distinct for purely historical reasons–that is likely true of African Methodist Episcopal Church (Q384121) vs African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church (Q384125), for example – but, even with Protestants, the Lutheran and Presbyterian churches take quite contrary stances on important questions of doctrine, and even within say Lutheranism, there are significant doctrinal differences between Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (Q730726) and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (Q693844) and Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (Q1379931). Also, with respect to the question about what to call the main body of Christianity between the Council of Chalcedon and the East-West Schism, the answer is Chalcedonian Christianity (Q2711500). SJK (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

opposite of (P461)[edit]

Is there P for scientist (Q901) (has nothing to do with religion)? --Fractaler (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Being a scientist and being a religious believer are not mutually exclusive. Many scientists believe in some religion or another. SJK (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Events?[edit]

Is this property intended to use for events like Pentecost (Q39864). If not, which property should I use? Thanks! Paucabot (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't see why not. I think this property should be used for anything which is in some sense particular to some religion or denomination – events, doctrines, scriptures, institutions, offices, buildings, etc, etc, etc. SJK (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Using most specific information and proposed label change[edit]

I'd like to propose that we change the label on this property from "religion" to "religious affiliation", and that it be filled by the most specific information available, for example Satmar (Q3490215).--Pharos (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. "Religion" suggests to many people it should be a broad descriptor (such as Judaism or Christianity) as opposed to a more specific one. "Religious affiliation" means any religious group or belief an individual affiliates with, whether it be a major world religion (some people identify as just "Jewish" or just "Christian" without choosing a more specific denominational identity) or some small and very specific sect within such a religion. So that proposed term is better. SJK (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree too. Either "religion affiliation", "believes in" or "have religion" would be better. — nojhan () 11:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a whole lot of fussing, or modernisation of a sort of political correctness, or spin, put them as aliases if you want them.

If you look at English-language public records in history, the column will simply say "Religion" be it shipping records, birth/death/marriage records, section of cemetery buried, never seen a public record that says "Christianity" though have seen "Jew", and we record what the source says. In many countries/communities there were no public options, you were of a religion as the law said, no matter your (suspected) beliefs.

Affiliation? OMG! What does that mean? The people in history were "affiliated" with a religion? They were "of" their religion, have we got source material to say that people were affiliated?. "Believes in" we/you don't necessarily know what they believe, we deal with facts as recorded sources, and what they believe would be God, the wholy Trinity, etc. and believe that the religion that they followed best represented their belief set. The guidance here is specific about strong attribution and pertinence, we have clergy where we expect to reflect the record of their religion. Keep it simple, record facts, don't try to put your interpretations into this.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean at all about a political implication. The proposal is just to clarify that we should use the more specific value, for example Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (Q693844) rather than Christianity (Q5043).--Pharos (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)