Talk:Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on religion

WP:NOFULLTEXT

Anupam, please review WP:NOFULLTEXT. Thank you. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Dr. Ryan E., thank you for pointing me to WP:NOFULLTEXT; the quote you removed from the article with respect to Lutheran Disaster Response was not the full text present here. Rather, it only included one paragraph of the article. Nevertheless, I have let your edits stand and have instead summarized the quote you removed. I can see how the guildeline applies to the quote you removed with respect to the dispensation of Sunday church attendance though, and appreciate that you have omitted the full text. I myself was thinking about removing the quotes and summarizing them before you touched the article. I thank you for your interest in improving this article, which I just created yesterday. Might I ask how you found it so quickly? I hope this helps and look forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 11:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Anupam, thank you for responding. I found it linked on the main COVID-19 pandemic page. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Dr. Ryan E., you're welcome. By the way, I noticed the changes that you have introduced in the article, such as truncation of the paragraph about the indulgence decreed by the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Penitentiary, as well as your changing of Masses to services. I have let these edits stand; however, I restored the wikilink to the article covering the Lord's Day, because it provides context on why the suspension of in-person services has been distressing to various Christian denominations. Additionally, I have restored the wikilink to the article on the Body of Christ, because the author references it in the subsequent statement; without that clause, the sentence would otherwise not make sense. I trust that you will consider this as a WP:COMPROMISE. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Impact of religion on the pandemic

Does someone mind if we add that various religions "have gathered together to pray for an end to the COVID-19 pandemic" (already in the text), "despite governments advising people to avoid large gatherings"? Or is it out of scope of this article that some religious groups are spreading this virus even more? If it's out of scope, where does it fit better? --mfb (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Mfb, you could add this as a separate section at the bottom of the article. It could be called "Issues with public gatherings". However, if you include the claim that some religious groups met against government directives, you should counterbalance that point by explaining that most religious organizations did comply with rules issued by the state. Additionally, you could also mention that many churches were given a dispensation to continue to meet (see this article for example). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The whole article is about churches cancelling events. Currently only the Saint Patrick's Day paragraph has a brief mention of churches ignoring government-issued restrictions. I don't have a reliable source that counts churches following these orders vs. churches that do not, so I can't write anything about the relative frequency. I added one sentence to the lead. South Korea's church leading to South Korea's outbreak could get its own section, but 2020 coronavirus pandemic in South Korea discusses it at least. --mfb (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The scope of this article is about how the practice of religion has been impacted by the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, rather than on how religion has impacted the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. As such the addition you made to the lede with respect is WP:UNDUE. I have nevertheless moved it, along with the references you added, to the section on Legal Issues, where it has been balanced by the information I outlined above. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this really a pointless page, with a huge but vastly incomplete list of all the congregations cancelled or religious places shut down? Is the religion supposed to have been "impacted" due to these closures, while on the other hand, the congregations that went ahead and resulted in deaths are completely ignored? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree, the current scoping seems bizarre. There are at least two countries (South Korea and France) where the role of religious gatherings in spreading the virus is considered important enough to be in the lead. Yet this article ignores them completely. I also notice there's apparently no issue with including the donations religious organisations have made in the lead here, surely that is impact of religion on the pandemic rather than vice versa? the wub "?!" 23:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3, with all due respect, your comment doesn't really reflect any serious thought on the subject. It is an obvious fact that around the world, people by the billions gather together for worship, prayer, study, etc. The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has therefore impacted religious practice and this article documents how the religious organizations have responded and adjusted amidst the plague; for example, churches are now holding drive-in services, livestreaming Mass, engaging with their parishioners through apps, etc. As many religious organizations are known for charity, they have directed funds towards ameliorating the overall situation. These things have received widespread coverage (see Exhibit A). The vast majority of religious leaders have complied with lockdown measures and have suspended in-person worship (see Exhibit B). Why then should the lede include lengthy paragraphs describing fringe groups that have defied government orders and stayed open? Do you think it would be fair and representative to include several paragraphs on Millennials attending Spring Break parties in Florida in the lede of the article about the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States when most of the country is shut down (see Exhibit C and Exhibit D)? Do you think that would accurately represent what is going on in the United States? Why then should religion be painted in a negative light right in the lede when most religious groups are practicing social distancing and keeping their congregants safe? Of course, I do not object to including some examples where religious gatherings have perpetuated the spread of the virus, as long as reliable sources buttress those claims. Nevertheless to say that this is a "pointless page" is being discriminatory towards the religious sphere of the public square. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

User:the wub, I just had a look at the South Korea and France articles with respect to the coronavirus pandemic. Would you propose that sections be created on the Christian Open Door Church and Shincheonji within the Christianity section? Another idea is to have a separate section in this article called "spread of the virus" although I fear it might become a coatrack of random examples of religious gatherings; in my humble opinion, it might be best to retain the information in the South Korea and France articles where it is relevant and perhaps mention in the lede these two events that perpetuated the virus. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 01:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the scope of the article is pretty clear in that it is about how the pandemic has affected religion primarily. It has resulted in shut downs, accommodations (e.g. drive in church services), cooperation, and charity for the most part. The question about religions spreading the virus (as if it was intentional) is pretty dubious because even in the Korean case, it just happened that some patients congregated there, not that they went out of their way to infect as many people as possible. In other words, religion itself played no real role in the infection aside from just gathering together - which is extremely common in secular and mundane endeavors and not unique to religion at all. Schools, work, parties, neighborhoods, etc all do social gatherings and they all have been involved in spreading the virus. Any other gatherings (political, concert, movie watching, etc) can result in the same coincidence of infecting others. It occurs at the crammed hospitals too and also results in medical personnel getting infected by other doctors and non-symtomatic patients and vice versa. However, it probably makes no sense to mention healthcare also spreads the virus. One should just use wisdom when interpreting these sources.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The scope has been self-selected to make the religions look good, to advertise how they are making 'sacrifices' for the sake of humanity. Where they have defied humanity and exacerbated the problems are all out of scope. Very convenient! That is what is called propaganda in my book. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm...the title of the article is "Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on religion", not "religion spreads virus intentionally". There are already some sections on some small groups ignoring the stay at home orders, but it looks like there are very few sources that even place blame on religion - probably because religions do not promote malicious behaviors concerning illnesses. If you find a reliable source stating otherwise then maybe there would be something to discuss here.

If one is going to play the "religion does harm" card, then at least acknowledge how much more "the secular does harm" too. Clearly non-religious activities like disobediently going to work, shopping at a market regularly, crowds protesting to the government, etc at this time have been among the most important contributors to the spreading of the virus. The postal service of course is in a position to spread the virus on a daily basis to millions of people. why not blame them?Ramos1990 (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There are 2 logical fallacies, for other secular reasons too people & communities are failing in social distancing, but that can not be excuse to not cover failures on account of religious gatherings, two wrongs do not make one right.

Another argument I see why cover fringe groups who are not following social distancing ? But those are kind of important reasons of continued spread of disease for more than 3 months Wikipedians are avoiding / denying to cover the issue ? How responsible this is ?

Bookku (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I strongly support Bookku and the original poster mfb also here. We may split this article though with a prominent See Also in the lead. Zezen (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't recommend spinning off a separate article, as it will turn into an WP:ATTACK page. WP:NPOV requires that we cover both the positive and negative information here. Ruling out all negative information as out of scope is POV. The scope should be fixed so that it covers both the positive and negative information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think User:Bookku understood what I was saying. But pretty much I was not against mentioning negative information on religion, but merely pointing out the fact that when religion is mentioned or blamed for anything, the secular is always ignored as if it does nothing. Like focusing on male problems and ignoring female problems when blaming gender for anything. The fact that secular activities outnumber religious activities on any topic means that one should have some balance. Also religious people are also secular people and engage in mostly secular activities for most of the time (which is why it is hard to isolate religion from the secular in any event, behavior, or action). In any case, there are some sections dealing with defiance in the article. It seems most here are just talking about correlations in the sense of 'religious people do an negative action therefore that can be blamed on religion'. One has to look at the sources claims, not our own ideologies or our choppy way of interpreting information.Ramos1990 (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The scope of the article seems clear. We have an event that has impacted the practice of religion in many parts of the globe. The article discuses how churches, synagogues, and temples have responded to it in terms of altering their normal worship, etc. It IS NOT an attack page to blame religion for the spread of the virus. People are also gathering at Walmarts, gas stations, etc. and yet they are not being cited for spreading the coronavirus. Please be responsible. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I have already expressed my concerns over not covering social distancing failures in secular activities at least on two other article talk pages. Since actually these were not my present focus areas I avoided to take lead and copy edit my self earlier. Personally I have no issues if some one wants to add whataboutery against secular for the failures of religious ones. IMHO articles need to be balanced without window dressing curtailing and back hand censors.

Although personally I am from liberal side but usually I do make a point to include conservative critiques, same consideration we do expect from other side.

and I restate

There are 2 logical fallacies, for other secular reasons too people & communities are failing in social distancing, but that can not be excuse to not cover failures on account of religious gatherings, two wrongs do not make one right.

Another argument I see why cover fringe groups who are not following social distancing ? But those are kind of important reasons of continued spread of disease for more than 3 months Wikipedians are avoiding / denying to cover the issue ? How responsible this is ?

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Its not about liberal or conservative beliefs. It is about reliable sources and their claims. Also there is already a section covering disobedience under the "Legal issues" section in this article. There isn't much to say on that aside from what is already said. From what I have seen, no reliable source has been stupid enough to say that religion specifically spreads the virus or tends to spread the virus nor do any claim that religious people are going to churches in order to spread the virus. None of the sources specifically blame religion or make a moral judgment on these groups, they merely observe their reasoning and behaviors which are usually complicated but not malicious in intent. You cannot read a source and extract your own moral judgement and use your moralistic interpretations on wikipedia. You can only mention what the sources says including the context of the situation from the source as it states it.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Smaller christian groups, or "sects", have been accused to contribute more than bigger ones to the spread of the virus in Germany. Highly sceptical against state and media, contact intensive services in small rooms, a lot of singing and having lunch with all worshippers on sundays have been listed as reasons.[1] Alexpl (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hajj

Talk:Hajj#Cancellation?. You heard it here!!Bokoharamwatch (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Additional resource for LDS COVID-19 response

I think the section on the LDS response to COVID-19 is lacking. Here's another resource that provides more info on how the Mormon Church has responded: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/coronavirus-update Greatawakening2020 (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Done--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

List of useful refs

• Tweaking the Azaan and other measures Muslim countries have taken to combat the virus Dawn.com

Bookku (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Is coverage really 'neutral' enough? specially in article leads & 'impact' articles & sections

As a reader, each of my subsequent visits to various COVID-19 pandemic related articles bemuse me more.

If there were no human individual & group failures, then how did the decease spread ? If failures at multiple levels contributed spread of decease where is adequate Wikipedia coverage?

People and groups not following expected precautions on various pretexts- whether for secular or non secular reasons does not seem to to be adequately covered. Whether it is half-heartedness of W.H.O. in issuing timely advisories; to governments, to groups, to individuals; not following advisories. Failures are at multiple level and media seems to have if not enough minimal coverage of the criticism of human failures in giving pandemic proportions to the decease .

My contention is Wikipedians do not seem to cover criticism, as I said each of my visit I find refrain, avoidance, curtailment, window dressing and at places undeclared censorship that criticism does not get wider attention. On side note many times I find Wikipedia consensus more of a democratic process than logical process which tends to indirectly compromise on neutrality.

Most of 'impact' articles & sections are unidirectional, how the COVID-19 pandemic affected 'So and so' but hardly any mention of the 'so and so' were likely contributors to spread of pandemic and many not taking seriously and flouting public health wise very important advisories.

Is not main article COVID-19 pandemic indirectly connected to sub topic article? and talk page of main article does not want to entertain failure of neutrality in subtopic article than how does main article remains neutral?

As a Wikipedia editor my present focus is some other topics, still I attempted to give minor coverage to criticism part, but as a reader and frank reviewer I find information gaps on above mentioned topics.

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: You've posted the exact same text to four different pages. That is somewhat counter-productive, see WP:TALKFORK. I suggest you close some of those discussions and choose to keep one either at the Wikiproject page or at the main COVID-19 pandemic article. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, centralized discussion is @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Is_coverage_really_'neutral'_enough?_specially_in_article_leads_&_'impact'_articles_&_sections thanks.

Bookku (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Good Friday in St. Peter’s Square, Rome.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kaabah (March 2020).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Needs updating

This page needs updating, as it only contains information about the initial impact of the pandemic in 2020. The pandemic lasted well into 2021, and for that matter, not everyone would agree that it is over currently in 2022.Greatawakening2020 (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

New religious movements

Has anyone seen anything about the impact on new religious movements such as Scientology? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 22:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)