→Requested move 28 October 2021: re user |
110.226.28.89 (talk) No edit summary |
||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
::{{user|usernamekiran}}: This page is not analogous to the "Religion in..." articles, which are about ''institutional'' religions in either ''countries or historical civilizations''. This page is about the current folk beliefs of a region. [[WP:CONSISTENT]] (which are guidelines, not rules) is fully satisfied, keep in mind that consistency does not mean shoehorning the page title into conformity when the content differs in scope. As I've stated repeatedly, this page barely discusses formal religions like those pages do (and until the move and a small section being inserted in June, did not do so at all). |
::{{user|usernamekiran}}: This page is not analogous to the "Religion in..." articles, which are about ''institutional'' religions in either ''countries or historical civilizations''. This page is about the current folk beliefs of a region. [[WP:CONSISTENT]] (which are guidelines, not rules) is fully satisfied, keep in mind that consistency does not mean shoehorning the page title into conformity when the content differs in scope. As I've stated repeatedly, this page barely discusses formal religions like those pages do (and until the move and a small section being inserted in June, did not do so at all). |
||
::If you go through the article, "a lot of other social practices, like cults and other stuff" is exactly what over 90% of the page is about. The one divergent section added recently fits better at [[Punjab#Religions]] imo. And BarrelProof's comment was explaining why he favored the title "Folk religion in Punjab," which is the current favored version of the proposal. [[User:Sapedder|Sapedder]] ([[User talk:Sapedder|talk]]) 09:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC) |
::If you go through the article, "a lot of other social practices, like cults and other stuff" is exactly what over 90% of the page is about. The one divergent section added recently fits better at [[Punjab#Religions]] imo. And BarrelProof's comment was explaining why he favored the title "Folk religion in Punjab," which is the current favored version of the proposal. [[User:Sapedder|Sapedder]] ([[User talk:Sapedder|talk]]) 09:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' Per everyone above. Irrelevant 'folk practices' with ZERO followers deserve no parking on Wikipedia. Aside this, the article read like garbage. One should compare it with the earlier versions. I have added the Cleanup tag so that problem can be addressed. [[Special:Contributions/110.226.28.89|110.226.28.89]] ([[User talk:110.226.28.89|talk]]) 12:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:10, 19 November 2021
Religion Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Pakistan Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Redirect
This article was redirected to another page without consultation. If any editor feels the content needs improving, please do so and discuss concerns on this talk page in accordance with Wikipedia policies. (Malikhpur) 09:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Malikhpur, I would support moving the article back to "Folk practices in Punjab." This article served in a useful niche documenting practices which do not fall neatly into the three "main" religions. The recent additions we have seen (which only seem to serve towards some kind of chest-puffing contest and add a good bit of OR that none of the sources state, though this has been rectified) would have been just fine being added somewhere like the Religion section in the Punjab region article, and does not warrant entirely reorienting this article away from its unique niche and being made redundant, imo. Sapedder (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sapedder I have no object to your suggestion but the move was made by Learnindology. Please see discussion on my Talkpage Punjabi folk religion (Malikhpur) 16:29,16.30 2021 (UTC)
- Keep it a redirect instead of hijacking together with copyvio, misrepresentation of sources, cherrypicking and other policy violations. Sapedder is making up information about Jats not being Hindu and following their own religion when the source says that most scholars classified them as low caste Hindus. Sapedder also removed that Manusmriti shaped the Punjabi folk practices. List is long regarding the recent disruption here. Editorkamran (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, the list is long indeed. This is so laughably transparent that I can tell what happened: you saw info you didn't like, got triggered, and alleged it being "made up." Then you checked the sources and to your dismay found the info to reflect the source material, so you flipped and then cried about "copyvio," though the large edit only left a few phrases un-rewritten (and triggered no bot report), which you seized upon and now allege "cherrypicking," though the info spans multiple pages (I'm not sure you know what it means). If what was written did not reflect the source, you would cry foul about that too, even though the version you like has almost nothing to do with the sources attached and is filled with WP:OR.
- "keep as a redirect" Yes, "Religion in Punjab" will be redirected to Punjab#Religions (duh), and "Folk practices in Punjab" will be restored as it has been for the last eleven years prior to its actual hijacking in June (which you no doubt knew about having seen the edit history, but you like this version so you've tried to play ignorant.) In fact, the author of this long-established article before it got hijacked is Malikhpur here.
- As for Hinduism, Jats being low-caste, and the Manusmriti, they were all present in my edit. Do be advised that old reversions can easily be pulled up, lest you want to make yourself look stupid and lie so blatantly again. Besides these bits, the version you have restored has departed from the sources completely. The source states the the Manusmriti shaped "pan-Indian social-religious customs," not Punjabi folk traditions, do learn to read. "Jats not Hindu" was never stated, stop projecting your own anxieties. Jats came from somewhere and have their own customs as well, they did not fall out of the sky. Learn about how these "impure" low-castes were "shuddhi'ed" into the mainstream by the novel invention of Hindu proselytization in the 1800s, among other events. If Jat history bothers you, I can't help you.
- Quoting the sources too accurately in response to another's edit (which is easily remedied) certainly beats making up a timeline about Punjabi Hindu conversion which none of the sources do at all, that is OR. If you or any other editor wants to stroke themselves off with "we iz da oldest," go do it elsewhere. Changing the entire orientation of the page just to add 3-4 lines bigging yourselves up is not acceptable. After some quick tweaks (and some expansion), I will reinstate my edit, which will only illustrate how much unsupported POV infests this version. Sapedder (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Malikhpur, reading the discussion it looks like the title "Folk practices in Punjab" was already mutually agreed upon already between you and the other user, before they moved it again unilaterally. I would be the third to support restoring "Folk practices in Punjab" as agreed to prior, so I think that would settle it. I will instate my expanded edit shortly. Sapedder (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- It appears to have been moved after it was established that no such thing as "folk religion in Punjab" exist. Creating "folk practices in Punjab" over a "religion in Punjab" by intentionally ignoring the content in the sources is what article hijacking is. The title 'Religion in the Punjab' is more appropriate and encompasses traditional religious belief and folk practices. Historical facts such as the Punjab being historically Hindu, transitioning to Buddhism, and then back to Hinduism should not be diluted. Sappeder's edits introduced irrelevant content such as the Persian water wheel that have nothing to do with the topic of religion. Sapedder, your inclusion is indeed copyvio, made-up, WP:UNDUE and misinterpretation of sources. Your claim Jats were not Hindus is not supported by mainstream academia[1][2] and is a mere chest-thumping by Khalistani nationalists as pointed out by scholars.[3][4] Editorkamran (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Editorkamran: Just to point out, this is far from an established fact. Punjab has a limited connection to Buddhism in fact it’s impossible to name a single Buddhist figure born in Punjab. I doubt Buddhists ever had a significant presence in Punjab beyond foreign-origin Kushans, Indo-Greeks and Indian Mauryans.KashKarti (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- More hysterics. A serviceable "Punjab#Religions" section already exists, that will be the redirect. The mere existence of "folk practices" inspiring fear in you is no grounds to hijack an 11-year-old article without proper consensus, especially when it was just to add 4 lines of Hindu chest-thumping.
- The Bhatti, Bhatti+Michon, Nayar, and Snehi sources would all disagree with you that there are no such thing as independent folk practices in Punjab, not to mention myself and Malikhpur. The linked discussion established nothing of the sort, and both parties had agreed on "Folk practices in Punjab," so you are imagining things There is no such "timeline of Hindu conversion" in any of the sources, so this is WP:OR. It's beyond misinterpretation of sources, it departs from them entirely. "Jats were not Hindu" was never stated anywhere, all you can do is create strawmen. It already stated that they were low-caste in the Hindu society they interacted within, so there is nothing to complain about. Jat migration is fundamental to the establishment of jathera and other beliefs in the region.
- "you iz Khalistani" is pure projection and nonsense, but revealing. Being threatened by folk traditions that do not fall under any organized religions (whether Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jain, Christian or otherwise) is transparently ideological.
- No bot report, did not pass the threshold for copyvio lol (crying copyvio AND made-up? you are quite confused), especially now that the expanded, amended version is ready to go. Spare us these freak-outs if you have no real points beyond hurling panicked allegations to disguise hurt rashtarvadi feelings. Sapedder (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't feel threatened by a non-existing religion and I don't need a bot to verify copyright violation. Are you telling me that even though such article existed for 11 years it has failed to attract any significant coverage? You are playing a victim and it won't help you in disapproving the points I made above. Editorkamran (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nah you're threatened lol. Your copyvio gambit was a flop, and when all else fails, wildly cry "Khalistani" (even though folk practices are independent of Sikhism). Your points "disapprove" themselves, they are all undemonstrated strawmen, and I'm not convinced that you know what cherrypicking or reading comprehension even are. As for "attract significant coverage" (what is this, a news program?) the existing sources are extremely underutilized, and that will be fixed in the upcoming expansion when Malikhpur touches base. The point of an encyclopedia is not to "attract coverage," but to document all topics regardless of fame or obscurity (and this topic is adequately noted for a page of its own, regardless of whether or not it threatens your absorptionism). Sapedder (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't feel threatened by a non-existing religion and I don't need a bot to verify copyright violation. Are you telling me that even though such article existed for 11 years it has failed to attract any significant coverage? You are playing a victim and it won't help you in disapproving the points I made above. Editorkamran (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- It appears to have been moved after it was established that no such thing as "folk religion in Punjab" exist. Creating "folk practices in Punjab" over a "religion in Punjab" by intentionally ignoring the content in the sources is what article hijacking is. The title 'Religion in the Punjab' is more appropriate and encompasses traditional religious belief and folk practices. Historical facts such as the Punjab being historically Hindu, transitioning to Buddhism, and then back to Hinduism should not be diluted. Sappeder's edits introduced irrelevant content such as the Persian water wheel that have nothing to do with the topic of religion. Sapedder, your inclusion is indeed copyvio, made-up, WP:UNDUE and misinterpretation of sources. Your claim Jats were not Hindus is not supported by mainstream academia[1][2] and is a mere chest-thumping by Khalistani nationalists as pointed out by scholars.[3][4] Editorkamran (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep it a redirect instead of hijacking together with copyvio, misrepresentation of sources, cherrypicking and other policy violations. Sapedder is making up information about Jats not being Hindu and following their own religion when the source says that most scholars classified them as low caste Hindus. Sapedder also removed that Manusmriti shaped the Punjabi folk practices. List is long regarding the recent disruption here. Editorkamran (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sapedder I have no object to your suggestion but the move was made by Learnindology. Please see discussion on my Talkpage Punjabi folk religion (Malikhpur) 16:29,16.30 2021 (UTC)
- The page was moved and modified per my discussion with Malikhpur. That said, any page move must go through WP:RM now. LearnIndology (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- LearnIndology, I see in the discussion that Malikhpur proposed "Folk practices in Punjab," which you seemed to agree to and moved the article to. Great, but then I see a second move to the current title, for which I see neither consensus nor a need when Punjab#Religions already exists, and what was added can be added there (the relatively small net addition to the article, much of which doesn't jive with the sources they are attached to, do not warrant such a drastic change in scope imo). There is a lot of info on this topic in the existing sources, which as yet remain largely untapped (Bhatti & Michon alone is a treasure trove, among others), and the article has its place. WP:RM is on the table, but discussion is yet ongoing here. Sapedder (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Punjab#Religions cannot serve as a substitute for this article if you actually believe that "folk religion in Punjab" deserves a separate article. The topic is not notable nor significant enough to have a separate article. Even the present version provides it WP:UNDUE emphasis. LearnIndology (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- I proposed the subsection as a place to add the few lines that were added and seem to serve as the flimsy basis to reorient the article entirely. Those few lines can go there (provided they reflect what the sources say). As for notability, that is nothing but an assertion and obviously Malikhpur, myself, and quite a few authors disagree. Malikhpur's proposal was "Folk practices in Punjab," not "Folk religion in Punjab," I'm not sure why these keep getting conflated throughout this talk page or viewed so oppositionally, unless viewed as some kind of rival to existing belief systems and their cohesion, as opposed to complementing them. There is no shortage of folk belief and folklore articles and discussion of other subregions around the world on Wiki. This folk element is quite important to Punjabi heritage and if anything needs more exposure, not suppression.
- "Folk practices in Punjab" is still supported by Malikhpur, was supported by you, and is supported by me, so there's consensus. I see none for the latest move. I would have no problem with a separate "Religion in Punjab" article where you can add as much of those 3-4 lines that jive with sources, it is the loss of an existing topic that is being opposed. As for undue, that's just another unilateral subjective call that can be laid to rest just by putting existing sources to use and adding more sources (which certainly exist), though these alone are adequate for an article (I have an expanded version ready to go, and will continue expanding it as time goes). If anything, much of the recent additions are undue and not backed by sources. Sapedder (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Punjab#Religions cannot serve as a substitute for this article if you actually believe that "folk religion in Punjab" deserves a separate article. The topic is not notable nor significant enough to have a separate article. Even the present version provides it WP:UNDUE emphasis. LearnIndology (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- LearnIndology, I see in the discussion that Malikhpur proposed "Folk practices in Punjab," which you seemed to agree to and moved the article to. Great, but then I see a second move to the current title, for which I see neither consensus nor a need when Punjab#Religions already exists, and what was added can be added there (the relatively small net addition to the article, much of which doesn't jive with the sources they are attached to, do not warrant such a drastic change in scope imo). There is a lot of info on this topic in the existing sources, which as yet remain largely untapped (Bhatti & Michon alone is a treasure trove, among others), and the article has its place. WP:RM is on the table, but discussion is yet ongoing here. Sapedder (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Requested move 28 October 2021
Religion in the Punjab → Folk practices in Punjab – Besides being the long-standing topic of the article, and consensus for this proposed title already being established just a few months ago in June right before a unilateral move to the current title, I have expanded the article using a multitude of sources to solidly confirm the subject.
Even before my expansion, the article still predominantly discussed folk traditions, with the exception of a paltry 4-sentence section added the same month called "Historical religious background of Punjabis" which did not adhere to sources and contained significant WP:OR, seemingly to try to justify this current title (though I have edited that section to reflect the sources, I am still leaning towards moving it to Punjab#Religions. If a new distinct page for Religion in Punjab is desired with actual sincerity, where this stub of a section can be placed, I have no objection, but to use it as a pretext to erase "Folk practices in Punjab" is now out of the question).
My expansion, using several scholarly sources which discuss Punjabi folk traditions both specifically and in depth, should firmly establish its notability to the relevant user. Concerns over notability, while being purely unsubstantiated, were the only point raised in the above discussion that was not just an ideological tantrum based only on WP:IDL by another user. Even if concerns over notability had any merit whatsoever, it is not a basis to do away with an article topic on a whim, especially without any real justification beyond flatly proclaiming so.
Frankly I think that reinstating the original title "Punjabi folk religion" is now justified based on the sources and the predominance of content both added and already present, but to avoid potential quibbling over semantics I will support "Folk practices in Punjab", as it already has prior consensus, to conclude things quicker. @Malikhpur:, feel free to add further content that you may have access to. Sapedder (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. VR talk 11:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Oppose[strike-through per commentary of 6 November 2021 below]: The article is about religion, not "practices", whatever that might mean (which is very unclear and seems to imply something very different from religion). The proposer doesn't even seem to like the title they are proposing, and is suggesting something different in their last paragraph. — BarrelProof (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Your takeaway that I don't "like" my own proposal is a misunderstanding, suffice it to say. "Folk religion in Punjab" is simply the original title of the page before June of this year, and remains my maximal position so to speak; my current proposal is in the interest of civility and compromise in regards to the above discussion and changes here in the last few months. And outside of one small section the article specifically discusses folk beliefs, not religion at large, so it is not "about religion." The proposed title had consensus prior to my involvement here (I am the third to agree with it), while the current title has none. "Folk practices in Punjab," "Folk beliefs in Punjab," "Folk religion in Punjab," I'm not a stickler in this aspect and as such I am open to tweaks to the title, but it is the "folk" element that is being actively minimized here which I am attempting to reverse, which is the focus of like 90%+ of the article. Sapedder (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- My understanding is that you said that you would prefer "Punjabi folk religion" over the title that you have proposed in this RM. I would prefer that title too, so I suggest a move to Punjabi folk religion or Folk religion in the Punjab or Punjabi folk religious practices. That seems like a much more clear identification of what the article is about. "Folk practices" is rather unclear, but we have an article about Folk religion, and it seems like Punjabi folk religion is what this article is about. — BarrelProof (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well as I said I have no problem with tweaks to my proposition, or with any of these titles you have proposed, if you feel that they are more precise. I simply proposed "practices" to accommodate the users above. You would be another user besides me and Malikhpur who would be good with "Punjabi folk religion," or a variation thereof. Sapedder (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof: As per our discussion so far, would you be willing to change your vote officially here? It seems we have agreement with your suggestion "Folk religion in Punjab" Sapedder (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- OK – please see the strike-through of my "oppose" above. My "oppose" was only about the exact proposed title. As I later described, I do not oppose renaming the article. I only oppose having a name that does not include the word religion or religious at all. Regarding the "not notable" commentary described below for "the redirect question", I disagree with that view. Folk religious practices seem obviously notable, and Punjab#Religions seems necessarily too brief to cover that subject adequately. (Adequate sourcing, of course, is necessary, and I have not studied the details of the subject.) No one in this discussion is currently arguing that folk religious practices in the Punjab are not notable or that this article should just be a redirect. Regarding Andrewa's commentary and that of LearnIndology, I do not have a strong opinion about the desirable scope of the article. I also do not have an informed opinion about the prior accusation of "hijacking together with copyvio, misrepresentation of sources, cherrypicking and other policy violations". — BarrelProof (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Including "religion" was my ideal preference anyway and "practices" was a compromise. As for claims of "violations" by that user, that is just WP:IDL based on their personal politics. Apparently thinking that folk religion is a thing made me a political subversive in their eyes. The thought process that led to that conclusion is wildly off base to say the least. Sapedder (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- OK – please see the strike-through of my "oppose" above. My "oppose" was only about the exact proposed title. As I later described, I do not oppose renaming the article. I only oppose having a name that does not include the word religion or religious at all. Regarding the "not notable" commentary described below for "the redirect question", I disagree with that view. Folk religious practices seem obviously notable, and Punjab#Religions seems necessarily too brief to cover that subject adequately. (Adequate sourcing, of course, is necessary, and I have not studied the details of the subject.) No one in this discussion is currently arguing that folk religious practices in the Punjab are not notable or that this article should just be a redirect. Regarding Andrewa's commentary and that of LearnIndology, I do not have a strong opinion about the desirable scope of the article. I also do not have an informed opinion about the prior accusation of "hijacking together with copyvio, misrepresentation of sources, cherrypicking and other policy violations". — BarrelProof (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- My understanding is that you said that you would prefer "Punjabi folk religion" over the title that you have proposed in this RM. I would prefer that title too, so I suggest a move to Punjabi folk religion or Folk religion in the Punjab or Punjabi folk religious practices. That seems like a much more clear identification of what the article is about. "Folk practices" is rather unclear, but we have an article about Folk religion, and it seems like Punjabi folk religion is what this article is about. — BarrelProof (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Your takeaway that I don't "like" my own proposal is a misunderstanding, suffice it to say. "Folk religion in Punjab" is simply the original title of the page before June of this year, and remains my maximal position so to speak; my current proposal is in the interest of civility and compromise in regards to the above discussion and changes here in the last few months. And outside of one small section the article specifically discusses folk beliefs, not religion at large, so it is not "about religion." The proposed title had consensus prior to my involvement here (I am the third to agree with it), while the current title has none. "Folk practices in Punjab," "Folk beliefs in Punjab," "Folk religion in Punjab," I'm not a stickler in this aspect and as such I am open to tweaks to the title, but it is the "folk" element that is being actively minimized here which I am attempting to reverse, which is the focus of like 90%+ of the article. Sapedder (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is a proposal to reverse 15:31, 24 June 2021 LearnIndology talk contribs block 83 bytes +83 LearnIndology moved page Folk practices in Punjab to Religion in the Punjab: Wider scope of the article beyond folk practices. However no argument has been given to dispute this rationale, which seems valid. Many have a POV that all religion is folk practice but this is not the normal meaning of the terms. Religion in the Punjab may well meet the definition of folk religion but the place to make that point is in the article, not in the article title. Andrewa (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: Well yes, this is a result of the preceding *Redirect* discussion, and a proposal to do just that. The myriad arguments against that unilateral, no-consensus move are all present there. No argument has been given? I've reproduced them here a few times now.
- I am not trying to make "Religion in the Punjab" meet the definition of "folk religion," I am trying to do the very opposite. The current title was arguably part of an attempt to make folk religion conform to and be subsumed by a (now-politicized) religious identity. It's really this new title that ought to be going through RM with its murky motives, not the original title.
- In a nutshell (again): This "widening of the scope" was just the insertion of a short (old revision) section which I had to rewrite anyway as it was largely tasteless "my ingroup was here first" chauvinism and OR. It seemed intended to serve as a flimsy pretext to remove "folk religion" from the title (which the rest of the long-standing article was still about) than to provide anything of value. Even now, this one section is still out of step with the rest of the page and is a better fit elsewhere, as all other sections in the article (>90% of the page) discusses folk religion specifically. The other user in the *Redirect* discussion was more plainly personally offended by the very existence of independent folk beliefs on ideological grounds, which is WP:IDL and nothing more.
- Conversely, I could say that no real explanation for the prior move has been presented, just flat declarations of folk religion to be "not notable." The sources in the article supports the long-established notability of the region's folk religion, specifically distinct from its elite religions (Sikhism/Hinduism/Islam etc., which are hardly discussed). The article makes that point at length, the title should reflect that. Sapedder (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Since significant discussion is about the previous move, I am pinging @LearnIndology:, the user who performed it.VR talk 11:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The article should be called "Religion in the Punjab", where it is now. Folk beliefs can be included in the article but there is no common "folk religion in the Punjab". The desire to move the article seems to be driven by wanting to censor historical religious beliefs.LearnIndology (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- You were the one who originally moved the page to the current title without consensus in June, so this vote is unsurprising. You should have gone through RM, as currently you are the only one to believe that folk religion is "not notable" or doesn't exist. But you have never substantiated this claim, and Malikhpur, Barrelproof, myself, and a slew of sources (which discuss the topic specifically and in-depth) disagree with you. This desire to invalidate or subsume folk religion is the actual censorship, adding 4 sentences of OR as a ruse to move the page when 90% of the article is still about folk religion.
- If you sincerely want new page called "Religion in the Punjab," no one is stopping or "censoring" you to do that separately, provided that you actually stick to sources and not crassly big up your own in-group. But you cannot obscure folk religion by having <10% of the article (which had to be rewritten anyway) dictate the title. Sapedder (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Something to consider: I went through this 30k-byte article, it has ~96 sentences currently. Of these, 2 mention Hinduism, 2 Islam, 2 Sikhism, and 1 Buddhism and Jainism, using 3 citations out of 37. This one section is out of step with the rest of the article, and the original version of it (added as pretext for the move in June to the current title) only had 5 sentences, much of it OR. The remaining 89 sentences (some of them dividable) specifically discuss *folk* beliefs/religion/practices etc., using 35 citations (one is shared). My point is that the tail is wagging the dog when it comes to the current page title in relation to its composition, hence my proposal to move it back. (Again, there was consensus to move it from Punjabi folk religion to Folk practices in Punjab, but none for the current Religion in Punjab.)
There seems to have been a sudden spate of unilateralism against the "folk" element of this long-standing article going on that month, using "notability" (really WP:IDL) as an excuse instead of making a case. In any case, three users so far consider it obviously notable and perfectly in line with other articles, and my expansion bolsters that case. Sapedder (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- support I created this article to write about Punjabi folk religion which is practiced by members of all organised religions. Punjabi folk religion is an anthropological concept which has been researched by people such as Ian Talbot, H S Bhatti, Dr Darya and Mr Bedi to name but a few. I have previously said, if the name Punjabi folk religion is an issue, then I am open to rename the article. I believe as a compromise, Folk religion in Punjab is a suitable name but we cannot merely say there is no such thing as folk religion: see Ron Geave- Saivism in the Diaspora Contemporary Forms of Skanda Worship. (Malikhpur) 10:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. The move to the current title "Religion in Punjab" was never about "expanding the scope" imo but a strategy concealing the main animus: to deny the "folk" element as a fully attested framework unto itself, introducing a few new sentences as a ploy. I think you had already proven the notability of the topic with the quality sources you used, even before I expanded the page.
- So far this makes 3 users who agree on the obvious notability of folk religion, and explicitly support a rename to "Folk religion in Punjab." Sapedder (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- oppose per WP:CONSISTENT. We do not have any other article by the title "folk practices in XYZ". Also per BarrelProof's this comment. Also, "religion in Punjab" is a point on/unambiguous, "folk practices in Punjab" gives you impression of LOT of other social practices, like cults and other stuff, making it an ambiguous title. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- usernamekiran (talk · contribs): This page is not analogous to the "Religion in..." articles, which are about institutional religions in either countries or historical civilizations. This page is about the current folk beliefs of a region. WP:CONSISTENT (which are guidelines, not rules) is fully satisfied, keep in mind that consistency does not mean shoehorning the page title into conformity when the content differs in scope. As I've stated repeatedly, this page barely discusses formal religions like those pages do (and until the move and a small section being inserted in June, did not do so at all).
- If you go through the article, "a lot of other social practices, like cults and other stuff" is exactly what over 90% of the page is about. The one divergent section added recently fits better at Punjab#Religions imo. And BarrelProof's comment was explaining why he favored the title "Folk religion in Punjab," which is the current favored version of the proposal. Sapedder (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Per everyone above. Irrelevant 'folk practices' with ZERO followers deserve no parking on Wikipedia. Aside this, the article read like garbage. One should compare it with the earlier versions. I have added the Cleanup tag so that problem can be addressed. 110.226.28.89 (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)