Wikidata talk:WikiProject Religions

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Start

[edit]
Nojhan Yair rand Runner1928 TomT0m Capankajsmilyo ArthurPSmith John Carter Tris T7 Epìdosis Peter17 Bargioni Geogast Clifford Anderson Bello Na'im Mathieu Kappler Maxime StarTrekker Amqui Loft-ind

Notified participants of WikiProject Religions,

Here is some queries and comments of the current states of Wikidata about religions :

I'm stopping here as clearly there is no strong coherent structure for the data on religion. Hopefully this project will sort that out.

There is a lot of work to do but plenty of low-hanging fruits too.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I rename the project in CamelCase to harmonise with other WikiProjects and so {{Ping project}} can work.

PPS: bonus, below is the {{Tree}} of subclass of (P279) of religion (Q9174) :

The subclass tree of religion (Q9174) needs some fixing. None of those classes apply to all religions (afaik). I'm also not sure about the ontology proposal given here. It doesn't seem correct that a religion would be both a subclass and instance of religion. It seems rather contradictory. --Yair rand (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the subclass tree, I think that religion (Q9174) should inherit directly from human social group (Q874405), the other seems correct for me.
I've proposed to use both instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) mainly because of the historical perspective; For instance (haha), the first buddhism (the one existing during Gautama's life) is a religion with the name buddhism. But very rapidly comes different movement, that refine the idea of what is a buddhism, all in different ways. They all claim to be (the true) buddhism. The original one is not practice anymore, and one can consider that it is thus no more a religion, but as it was practiced as one during a given time, I failed to see why it would not be a religion. But then, how to tag the movement that refined the original idea? They are obviously subclasses of the original one.
Should we have two elements for each religion? One for the class and one for the instance? How to call them? Should we have buddhism (the class) and historical buddhism (the instance)? I feel this would be difficult to maintain two elements for each ones, thus my proposal to have both within each element. — nojhan (✐) 09:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the subclass tree, I've got no idea. It seems pretty right to me.
For instance of (P31) & subclass of (P279), I'm confusing too by using the two on the same item. I'd rather prefer using only subclass of (P279) ; my understanding is that buddhism during Gautama's life or christianism during Jesus' life is not a religion, not fully, not yet, it's only afterward that people considered it as a religion (Gautama probably considered himself like a-sort of-kind of hindouist and Jesus as a jew). But this transition period are very akward and unclear.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point could be applied to any movement that have disappeared, not necessarily the "first" one. The difficulty is not to decide if it is a religion or not (albeit it is clearly one, IMHO), but rather to know: if Yungdrung Bön is only a sub-class of buddhism and bön (why not), then what is the (an?) instance of Yungdrung Bön? I failed to see how to rigorously decide what is an instance. — nojhan (✐) 17:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that maybe I think of the wrong problem: what if an idea have no instance? Could we use only subclasses and never have any instance of religions? — nojhan (✐) 18:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After some research, this seems to be ã similar problem than the Wikidata:Requests for comment/Are colors instance-of or subclass-of color. — nojhan (✐) 19:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem I'm thinking of is: how to differenciate influences from inheritance? Is Yezidism a sub-class of Islam influenced by Mazdeism? Of Mazdeism, influenced by Islam? A sub-class of both? Should Manicheism inherit from Buddhism, even if it's more a claimed syncretism, with very few philosophical influence? — nojhan (✐) 10:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notified participants of WikiProject Religions
I've finally opted for the inheritance only, used for general categories (i.e. the content of the ideology itself), and influence used for links at large (i.e the history of the religion, for example if a religon derivates from others). If somebody does not agree, please talk now  :-) — nojhan (✐) 17:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definition and social group

[edit]

A definition : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

 : the belief in a god or in a group of gods

 : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

 : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

From this I infer that a religion is definitely NOT a subclass of social group. Instead there is a social group which defines the religion and claims its belief to the set of beliefs and practices the practices. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TomT0m: The existence of formal religious conversion processes in many religions complicates this. The attributes described in Webster's are not comprehensive. I agree, however, that religion is not a subclass of social group. I'm thinking we should consider religion/religious affiliation to be some form of sui generis attribute, with regards to human beings. (Less specific than human behavior (Q3769299).) --Yair rand (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TomT0m: @Yair rand: I have added this link because of religions that are not clearly separated from a social group. This is a systematic case for ancient civilizations (for example "religion of Mittani"). In those cases, there is no practical separation between the two concepts. But I think I've understood your point and I now tend to agree, as no practical separation does not necessary have to be set in the theoretical description here. — nojhan (✐) 08:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommand to model stuffs by clearly separating the two class trees. Taking the example of christianism:

  • Christian (Q106039)  View with Reasonator View with SQID for frwiki : Un chrétien est une personne adhérant aux doctrines et pratiques du christianisme, qui croit en la divinité et suit l'enseignement de Jésus de Nazareth rapporté par les Évangiles. translation : a christian is a person who adheres to the beliefs and practices in christianism, belives in god [...] So fat so good, consistent with the premices of this comment
  • Christianity (Q5043)  View with Reasonator View with SQID

Other items what can be found digging with the "christian community" keyword:

Other relevant items :

  • cult (Q756820)  View with Reasonator View with SQID - we should be able to include the practices associated to the religion as it is a part of a religion definition.

Ignoring The specific "The Christian Community", I wonder if we would need a new item "Christian community" that all christian would be member of "by default". Let's take this option.

Christian (Q106039)  View with Reasonator View with SQID is the class of all christian. Any Christian is an instance of this class. We could define this class as "person who believes in christianism and/or practices a christian related cult and member of the crhristian community (as a whole)". We can note that practicing or not practicing can be a fracture inside the community. Anyway, ignoring this difficulty at first. A few things we can model consistently at that point:

I'd add, still consistently:

It's pretty consistent with definitions in articles, a property that shows imho that this is the right path to take. Wikidata should be able to reflect common definitions, and there is no reason we could not if we do things right. What's a little bit disturbing here is that the "christian" item shares a lot with the "christian community" one. Actually the instances of the former are(?) the members of the latter, which make me believe if we need two items for each community with a parralel structure beetween themselves. author  TomT0m / talk page 19:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues with this:
  • member of (P463) specifically excludes social groups.
  • While it may be useful to have hypothetical ontological clarity regarding these items, actual redundancy in statements is something we probably want to avoid. We probably don't generally need to actually link each person to the religion-associated social group. Further, I think there's a general consensus that direct linking of humans to non-Q5 items via instance of (P31), if not completely prohibited, should at least be avoided somewhat.
  • I suspect that Christianity and the Christian community may be simpler to deal with than most religious groups. What may work there may not work for others.
  • I don't see how there would be a use for a split between the class "Christian" and the group "Christian community".
--Yair rand (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Yair rand: there's a general consensus that direct linking of humans to non-Q5 items via instance of (P31), if not completely prohibited, should at least be avoided somewhat. => I know that but we don't have to explicitely do that. First, it should not make us avoid reasoning, and second, the link has not to be make in the database. Let Christian be the result set of the query https://query.wikidata.org/#select%20%3Fperson%20%3FpersonLabel%20%3FchristianismLabel%20where%20{%0A%20%20%3Fperson%20wdt%3AP279*%2Fwdt%3AP31%20wd%3AQ5%20.%0A%20%20%3Fperson%20wdt%3AP140%20%3Fchristianism%20.%0A%20%20%3Fchristianism%20wdt%3AP279*%20wd%3AQ5043%20.%20%23%C2%A0christianity%20and%20subclasses%20%0A%20%20SERVICE%20wikibase%3Alabel%20{%0A%20bd%3AserviceParam%20wikibase%3Alanguage%20%22fr%2C%20en%22%20.%0A%20}%0A} then we get all "instances of" christian as defined in my definition. Please that "ontological purity", as you name this, I'd just say work with established definitions and a moderate bit or rigor, allows this query to work. This help us spot bad modelling. Some reasoning engines and languages, will automatically infer the class membership without the explicit triples, so it's actually not really important if we or not actually make the statement in Wikidata.
Lastly the community might just have an item because it's important for social sciences. author  TomT0m / talk page 09:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TomT0m: @Yair rand: I get the social group/religion separation, but I still don't get why we should use instance of (P31) instead of subclass of (P279) (or along with?) for religions. — nojhan (✐) 08:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nojhan: Imho it's a similar problem that this one : the classification of territorial entities. Some people in this project did not understand why we should not use statements like
⟨ french commune ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ type of administrative division ⟩
. But if you consider that Paris is an instance of french commune and that any instance of a subclass is an instance of the superclass, then it entails that Paris is a type of administrative division, which is wrong. Here I think our main objects are beliefs. Beliefs are somehow instanciated in the head the believers. Then if a religion is a set of belief, we can't say that Christianity is a subclass of religion because that would break the boundaries of class of ideas like Christian ideas and the set of religions which Christian ideas is an instance of. For example the frwiki article w:fr:Religion says Une religion se conçoit le plus souvent comme un système de pratiques et de croyances : "An instance of religion is a system of belief and practice" (commented by myself). A particular religion is a system of belief and practices, not the religion concept itself. author  TomT0m / talk page 09:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TomT0m: So you mean that « Buddhism » is an instance of « Religion » but that « Mahayana » is a subclass of « Buddhism »? — nojhan (✐) 17:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nojhan: Yep, après avoir lu en diagonale l'article frwiki sur Mahayana il apparaît que c'est une forme spécifique de boudhisme avec des spécificités, donc un cas particulier. Après le qualifier de religion ou de secte boudhiste, ça dépasse mes compétences :) Mais clairement secte boudhiste est au "même niveau" de classification que religion (probablement second-order class (Q24017414)  View with Reasonator View with SQID). author  TomT0m / talk page 17:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A usecase : Evangelical Free Church of America (Q5415680)

[edit]

Just ran other this item : Evangelical Free Church of America (Q5415680) used in a "religion" statement. Might be worth keeping as an example to discuss. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

communities

[edit]

Follow up to the discussion in the initial thread, another relevant item : religious community (Q2742167)  View with Reasonator View with SQID. Not very expanded on frwiki and enwiki. Might deserve digging for members of this project. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

on gods and temples

[edit]

I don't know if this WP is active at all but I'd like to raise worshipped by (P1049). There are several problems with this. What is a deity? The example given is "God (Q190) is the deity of Christianity (Q5043)"!! God (Q190) is a generic God, should it be the Christian God? Claiming that generic God is the Christian God, and presumably the Muslim God, and the Jewish God, seems to be POV. I would presume they are all different cultural entities, although that's my sociologist POV I guess.

Other religious properties are religious order (P611) and diocese (P708), which both seem pretty Christian.

I've been wondering how to handle the gods of Hindu temples, and how to link depictions of Hindu gods to the God themselves:

Nataraja (Q23641297) is the depiction of Shiva as Lord of the Dance. This obviously needs some property linking it to Shiva (Q11378). What should it be?

How do we connect Nataraja Temple (Q1966341) to its resident deity Nataraja (Q23641297)? How do we connect it to Shaivism (Q234953)? Come to that, how do we connect Shiva (Q11378) to Shaivism (Q234953)? I'm not sure we have the properties to do this! Help! Secretlondon (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This WP is active (there is a least one people working on it) and we're still discussing the ontology.
religious order (P611) and diocese (P708) are christian concepts, indeed, but it's not a problem, as far as the parent classes are consistent (I did'nt looked).
Your question "what is a deity" is related to the ontology of gods, which is a different question than "when and how to use worshipped by (P1049)". The second question is actually easier to answer: you muse use worshipped by (P1049) when a source says that this deity is venerated by this religion. My advice is to stay as close as possible to sources: you will have sources saying yes, other ones saying no. Keep both, be careful with ranks, use statement disputed by (P1310) (if necessary), remove unsourced items.
The question to know whether two gods with the same name are the same within each religion is a very difficult one. For religions, we propose to add a "religion" element each time a different "movement" is described (even if it's described with another name, like sect, school, church, etc.). THe problem is that it's difficult to keep the transitivity of subclassing, given that all those set of ideas are very inconsistent. Thus, the current proposal is to use a very "light" hierarchy, based on sources rather than on a complete and static description. Maybe this can be used for gods, too: Nataraja (Q23641297) being a subclass of Shiva (Q11378) (because "source"), avoiding "nature of".
For describing the religion(s) associated with a temple, use religion or worldview (P140) (see the discussion page).
For the temple/god relationships, I just don't know. But you're welcome to add the corresponding section(s) to the ontology (once you've found the best option), or to propose properties here. I think it's a good idea to indicate what properties not to use, in the ontology, when there is ambiguity. — nojhan (✐) 13:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need another property, the opposite of deity of. I can say Kartikeya (Q380817) is the deity of Kaumaram (Q6378777), but I cannot make a statement on Kaumaram (Q6378777) linking Kartikeya (Q380817). Other religions seem to use named after (Christianity is named after Jesus Christ), or founded by (Islam is founded by Mohammed), neither work with this where we want a concept like 'worships' or 'has deity'. We could use this for temples as well as religious sects. What do people think? Secretlondon (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We also need the property to link Islam (Q432) to Allah (Q234801) as the latter is a key component of the former, and yet we have no way of making the association. Secretlondon (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/18#P1049. The number of deities is presumably much larger than the number of religions, so "deity of" instead of "deity" makes sense. The items are already linked, an inverse is unnecessary. --Yair rand (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophico-religious concepts

[edit]
Nojhan Yair rand Runner1928 TomT0m Capankajsmilyo ArthurPSmith John Carter Tris T7 Epìdosis Peter17 Bargioni Geogast Clifford Anderson Bello Na'im Mathieu Kappler Maxime StarTrekker Amqui Loft-ind

Notified participants of WikiProject Religions

I feel there is something to discuss about Philosophico-religious concepts (those that the current ontology suggest to use with has characteristic (P1552)). Is there a common nature for those concepts? Should we restrict this huge set? Inverse the links? — nojhan (✐) 09:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a religion is a set of ideas shared amongst the believers, then a philosophical theory is of the same nature. A philosophico-religious concept is then at the intersection of both, such as some philosophy entailed by a religion, or a philosophical theory interpreted in the context of some religion. author  TomT0m / talk page 09:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes feed for religious groups

[edit]

Here's a link to a recent changes feed of edits to items for religions/religious groups: Recent changes. Might be useful. --Yair rand (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia articles lists

[edit]

Over at wikipedia:Category:WikiProject prospectuses I've started a few pages on content in some reference sources which might be useful here. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replace foundational text (P457) by main regulatory text (P92)?

[edit]
Nojhan Yair rand Runner1928 TomT0m Capankajsmilyo ArthurPSmith John Carter Tris T7 Epìdosis Peter17 Bargioni Geogast Clifford Anderson Bello Na'im Mathieu Kappler Maxime StarTrekker Amqui Loft-ind

Notified participants of WikiProject Religions

I envisaged to replace the current use of foundational text (P457) in the ontology by the more generic main regulatory text (P92). The need is obvious if you think of religions re-using texts made by an older ancestor religion (like the Old Testament in christian religions). Is there any opposition or thoughts? — nojhan (✐) 14:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not obvious to me that a foundation can not itself be derived from older text, nor that all religious texts can be assimilated to laws. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it bothers me, I can't find a good property to link a religion to its sacred/important texts. — nojhan (✐) 13:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A religion can have both a foundational text (P457) and a main regulatory text (P92), and they don't necessarily need to be the same text. I'm not sure how to link to sacred texts generally, but I don't think either of these properties would work well for that (as general properties). --Yair rand (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree a faith can have both. I think the Book of Common Prayer probably qualifies as the main regulatory text in Anglicanism, but not necessarily as a sacred text. And, I suppose, particularly regarding the New Testament, it might make sense to indicate which version of the New Testament is being considered. Various forms of Buddhism may have similar issues. Christian Science might be seen as having similar distinction between Science and Health and it's organizational rules. As someone who has not edited anything other than the project page to list myself as a member, maybe creating a separate property for "sacred texts" or "inspired texts" or something along those lines might work best. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about keeping both foundational text (P457) and a main regulatory text (P92), but removing the constraint that a main regulatory text (P92) should be a statute (Q820655)? It would avoid having to deal with the sacred notion, which could be a little bit tricky in some case.
Or should we want to embrace it and create additional properties in order to differentiate things like Qur’an (Q428), hadith (Q234343) and sharia (Q482752)?
I think I would prefer to keep only one property, because I know we will face weird corner cases. In that case, I would keep an unconstrained main regulatory text (P92), without even foundational text (P457)), because I realize that it does not really fit (what religion have a clearly identified text that have been created at some point it time and started it?). — nojhan (✐) 08:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we actually need a property specific to national/international law and not to church and faith jurisdiction. God can’t put you in jail, and this is a big difference (men law versus god’s law) author  TomT0m / talk page 11:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's a kind of fuzzy distinction. International law can't (usually) directly result in people being put in jail either, but in certain jurisdictions and areas, religious law can have immediate consequences implemented by courts, either government-affiliated or not. Centralized legislatures and justice systems acting as the agent of the governmental authority are not exactly universal ideas. I think we would need to look at a broader overview of legal systems and religious regulatory frameworks before we draw the line like that. --Yair rand (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yair rand: That’s when the state, or the human jurisdiction when there is no state, choose religious laws. But it’s not always the case and if someone decides to eat pork when he’s a muslim, it’s mainly a matter of personal choice if you are in France, for example. Although it’s seriously prohibited in Islam. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although there have been prominent cases of individuals like priests monks and nuns who had to be tried by a religious court and (I think anyway) had to have that body turn them over to a secular court before they could be tried there. Gilles de Rais comes to mind. And I guess I should note that neither Christianity nor Judaism can be said to have foundational texts, because in at least both those cases the religion seems to have come before the books. John Carter (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
for the latter, I guess we can change the label and the definition of the property to include oral traditions, or accept « text » in a broader sense than « scripture ». Actually the frwiki fr:texte_article defines « texte » as « 
Un texte est une série orale ou écrite de mots perçus comme constituant un ensemble cohérent »
(in english : « a text is an oral or written sequence of words perceived as a coherent body »), so not much of a problem.
For the former, I guess you may be right for the « organisation » part of the religion, any organization can have a regulation. And members can be excluded if they don’t follow the rules. This highlight the fact that there is a difference between the belief one can have about a religion and the « membership » of the religion, and so that there is an « idea » part and an « organisation » part in most religions. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, should we add a new property, like "sacred text", for the religious part and keep the other(s) for organisations? — nojhan (✐) 12:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modeling martyrdom

[edit]
Nojhan Yair rand Runner1928 TomT0m Capankajsmilyo ArthurPSmith John Carter Tris T7 Epìdosis Peter17 Bargioni Geogast Clifford Anderson Bello Na'im Mathieu Kappler Maxime StarTrekker Amqui Loft-ind

Notified participants of WikiProject Religions

There doesn't seem to be a consensus about how to flag someone as a martyr (Q6498826). This query shows that there's a lot of variation. The most common method, by a small margin, is occupation (P106). instance of (P31) makes the most sense, but that goes against the general policy of having only instance of (P31) human (Q5) for people. I suppose I'd support occupation (P106). Thoughts? Vahurzpu (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martyrdom is clearly not an occupation. Who is or isn't a martyr is incredibly subjective, so I'm not sure we should have data on it at all. If we're talking about social classification within a particular group, maybe social classification (P3716) could be used, if we're to include it. For particular notable sets of people considered to be groups of martyrs, perhaps part of (P361) pointing to the relevant particular group. For those with a martyr role in a narrative, perhaps narrative role (P5800). --Yair rand (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all Notified participants of WikiProject Religions! As of now, Special:Search/haswbstatement:P106=Q6498826 has 369 results (+ Special:Search/haswbstatement:P106=Q107013 has 84 results). I agree about occupation (P106) being clearly inadequate for martyrdom. My suggestion is using subject has role (P2868), already widely used for victims (e.g. Special:Search/haswbstatement:P2868=Q5883980). Would you agree about this standard? Thanks, --Epìdosis 08:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support using subject has role (P2868); it's a bit generic, but fits the semantics. Was wondering who in the world thought using occupation (P106) was a good idea until I read the signature. Vahurzpu (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Epìdosis, Vahurzpu: To clarify: subject has role (P2868) as a qualifier of what type of statement? --Yair rand (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yair rand: I was thinking of putting it straight on the item. It's atypical, but seems semantically correct, and the property examples show it being used as a general "subject item has this trait" sense at least in some places. The property scope constraint (Q53869507) explitly allows it as a main value. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as Vahurzpu said, I meant subject has role (P2868) as main value. --Epìdosis 20:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done added to Wikidata:WikiProject Religions/Ontology; autofix set. --Epìdosis 11:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Religion properties

[edit]
Nojhan Yair rand Runner1928 TomT0m Capankajsmilyo ArthurPSmith John Carter Tris T7 Epìdosis Peter17 Bargioni Geogast Clifford Anderson Bello Na'im Mathieu Kappler Maxime StarTrekker Amqui Loft-ind

Notified participants of WikiProject Religions

Hello,

It would be interesting to have Template:Religion properties. —Eihel (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bishops without an occupation

[edit]
Nojhan Yair rand Runner1928 TomT0m Capankajsmilyo ArthurPSmith John Carter Tris T7 Epìdosis Peter17 Bargioni Geogast Clifford Anderson Bello Na'im Mathieu Kappler Maxime StarTrekker Amqui Loft-ind

Notified participants of WikiProject Religions,

given that currently we have 17,887 items about bishop (Q29182) without an occupation (P106), my proposal is to automatically add

What do you think about this? --Horcrux (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Support, it seems correct. I also ping @Looperz: who probably created most of them to hear his opinion. --Epìdosis 11:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Support --Looperz (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Horcrux (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Members of Catholic religious orders

[edit]
Nojhan Yair rand Runner1928 TomT0m Capankajsmilyo ArthurPSmith John Carter Tris T7 Epìdosis Peter17 Bargioni Geogast Clifford Anderson Bello Na'im Mathieu Kappler Maxime StarTrekker Amqui Loft-ind

Notified participants of WikiProject Religions Hi all! As of now, 141 items have instance of (P31)Catholic vocation (Q63188808) (see Special:Search/haswbstatement:P31=Q63188808). Some tens of these items are occupations based on the membership of a religious order; some examples:

A problem arouses when we store the information about a person being a member of a certain order, since there are three possibilities:

  1. occupation (P106)Trappist Cistercian monk (Q99521081)
  2. religious order (P611)Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance (Q276223)
  3. occupation (P106)Trappist Cistercian monk (Q99521081) + religious order (P611)Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance (Q276223)

Surely this abundance of possibilities is a problem because data is stored in different ways and this makes very difficult the construction of effective queries finding all the members of a religious order. In order to solve this problem, I think that we should adopt in our data model (Wikidata:WikiProject Religions/Ontology) only one of these possibilities and we should apply it systematically (through {{Autofix}}).

I would discard the combination of P106 + P611 because of its redundancy, which burdens unnecessarily the items. Between P106 and P611, I would surely choose P611 since it is more specific (and P106 often has a lot of values, among which the religious order is less evident than in P611; moving all religious orders out of P106 would also lighten its presence in the items). Autofix can easily move periodically P106 values to P611 (I have experimented with one case and it seems there haven't been critics so far). Would you agree with this solution? Thanks, --Epìdosis 14:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do! Thank you for raising this concern. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]
✓ Done 29 in total. Of course it is easily reversible, both passing to solution 1 and 3. --Epìdosis 14:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second part: @Palotabarát: noted correctly that moving religious orders to religious order (P611) can leave items without occupation (P106). We can easily remedy, similarly through {{Autofix}}, adding occupation (P106)Christian monk (Q2109894) or occupation (P106)friar (Q548320) (or similar) to all items where this can be deduced from the value of religious order (P611). Do we judge this addition useful (it may fall into option 3 above) or redundant? As of now I am hesitant, I would like to hear more opinions. --Epìdosis 22:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query: as of now, 1898 items of humans have P611 but no P106: https://w.wiki/56kJ. --Epìdosis 22:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Now this query has 2365 results. --Epìdosis 21:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundance between P611 and P106

[edit]

Widening a bit the second part of the discussion above (which got no answers for more than two years), I would pose the issue in the following terms: if an item has religious order (P611), certain values of occupation (P106) can be redundant with respect to it: e.g. if an item X has religious order (P611)Dominican Order (Q131479), having also occupation (P106)friar (Q548320) is redundant (because the fact that X is a friar can be inferred by the fact that he is a member of the Dominican order). For this reason, we should decide if, given the presence of P611, we want a redundant value of P106 on the item

  1. always (so e.g. always religious order (P611)Dominican Order (Q131479) + occupation (P106)friar (Q548320))
  2. only if otherwise there is no other value of P106; if another non-redundant value of P106 is added, the redundant value of P106 can be removed (so e.g. if there is religious order (P611)Dominican Order (Q131479) + occupation (P106)friar (Q548320), the latter can removed if I add e.g. occupation (P106)Catholic priest (Q250867))
  3. never (so e.g. never add occupation (P106)friar (Q548320) if there is religious order (P611)Dominican Order (Q131479))

I personally have a slight preference for solution 2, but 1 would also be fine for me.

Nojhan Yair rand Runner1928 TomT0m Capankajsmilyo ArthurPSmith John Carter Tris T7 Epìdosis Peter17 Bargioni Geogast Clifford Anderson Bello Na'im Mathieu Kappler Maxime StarTrekker Amqui Loft-ind

Notified participants of WikiProject Religions I wait for opinions. --Epìdosis 21:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally I think including both is helpful, lots of people who are not so familiar with the religion might not know that being part of the order means someone is a friar.StarTrekker (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think it is important to keep the relevant information in occupation (P106), no matter if this information can be deduced from other properties. I don't agree it's a redundance per se. It is also very helpful for many different types of queries. Amqui (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also don't think it is appropriate to remove "friar" from occupation (P106) if the individual is also a "priest" (which is solution 2 proposed above). Some people may be more known for being a friar although they are ordained, and some may be more known as parish priest, even though they joined a religious order. So for me it is relevant to keep both in occupation (P106), and we can put the most relevant one with a "higher rank". So I strongly support solution 1 proposed above. Amqui (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religious institutions and cloning of people

[edit]

Dear All - sorry if I ask the question that is not core for this project, but I would love to know if and how different Wikipedias cover positions of Religious institutions and...cloning of people. Yes there is article about this in Croatian Wikipedia Q12634321, as it was created long ago and I wanted not to fully delete it but suggest for reformulation and inclusion into Bioethics article this was reverted by local admin User:Fraxinus and it is now standing again as a 'valid' article.

Any opinions about this based on previous experience or other criteria...common sense? --Zblace (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on what you already have. English wikipedia has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_cloning but nothing specifically Catholic. However I can imagine that the Catholic church's view on things is more important to Croatian readers. Nothing to do with Wikidata though. Secretlondon (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I presume the admin gave you a reason for reverting your changes and this needs handling within the Croatian Wikipedia's processes. Secretlondon (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical characters

[edit]

One issue that pops up over and over again are humans that are also biblical characters (or other religious characters). Take Herod the Great (Q51672) as an example. With being an instance of biblical character he is also an indirect instance of hypothetical entity (Q18706315) (entity whose existence is possible, but not proven). Now he certainly existed.

One approach to prevent this kind of contradiction is to clearly separate the historical person from the religious character (as described by the bible, for instance). All statements about their representation in religious works should go to the bible (religious) character item, the item about the historical character should only contain statements from reliable, non-religious sources. So there would be two Herodes: (historical) Herodes with instance of (P31)human (Q5) and (biblical) Herodes with instance of (P31)human biblical figure (Q20643955), linked via fictional or mythical analog of (P1074)

As another possibility one could just remove instance of (P31)human biblical figure (Q20643955) from all persons known to have existed: We also don't add instance of (P31)literary character (Q3658341) / instance of (P31)theatrical character (Q3375722) / instance of (P31)film character (Q15773347) to Marie Antoinette (Q47365) just because she is fictionalized in these kinds of works. That Herodes appears in the Bible is expressed via present in work (P1441)Bible (Q1845)

--cstrickler (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC) --User:imandag 10:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Wikidata Religion & Theology Community of Practice Maybe you can help (please feel free to ping other people / projects) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nojhan Yair rand Runner1928 TomT0m Capankajsmilyo ArthurPSmith John Carter Tris T7 Epìdosis Peter17 Bargioni Geogast Clifford Anderson Bello Na'im Mathieu Kappler Maxime StarTrekker Amqui Loft-ind

Notified participants of WikiProject Religions - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valentina.Anitnelav: thanks for raising the problem. I very much appreciate the second option, removing instance of (P31)human biblical figure (Q20643955) from surely historical persons; the argument about Marie Antoinette (Q47365) is perfectly agreeable IMHO. --Epìdosis 14:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the second suggestion, just remove instance of (P31)human biblical figure (Q20643955), should be done on all persons mentioned in the bible who are known to have been real. The first suggestion, creating a separate item for the mythical analog of the real person, should be taken case by case, depending on need (i.e. incoming links for the analog, and statements that are unique to the analog; seems like Herod would qualify). In any case, the descriptions of human biblical figure (Q20643955) should be adjusted, and a constraint added to instance of (P31), to enforce that only purely mythical people or mythical analogs of real people are to be instances of human biblical figure (Q20643955), so this ambiguity doesn't crop up again. Swpb (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "instance of (P31)human biblical figure (Q20643955)" should be redefined to "fictional human biblical figure"? Or "not confirmed human biblical figure"? Because current definition, "human (as opposed to supernatural) character in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible or New Testament" definitely includes Herod, Jesus and some other figures which definitely existed (obviously, that does not mean that all or any claims in a Bible are true). Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question, no doubt! I am against the idea to "remove instance of (P31)human biblical figure (Q20643955) from all persons known to have existed" (citing Valentina.Anitnelav). Because, in the Bible the question if a character really existed can be very, very ambiguos. The lists at list of biblical characters (Q28020925) don't make this distinction either, but just name the character and tell what the Bible tells about them. As well: human biblical figure (Q20643955) is subclass of human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568) – which does not state definitely whether that person existed or not.
This ambiguity IMHO should not be resolved by putting or not instance of (P31)human biblical figure (Q20643955) but by, for example, qualifiers to that statement. Let's take Adam (Q70899) and give him the instance of (P31)human biblical figure (Q20643955) together with has characteristic (P1552): "probably ficticious character"/"not historically confirmed human biblical figure". --Geogast 🤲 (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe just make such object instance of "not historically confirmed human biblical figure"? Rather than making web of qualifiers? Basically move "is it historically confirmed" from "human biblical figure" where not much can be said. Some definitely existed, some are fictional literary characters according to bible itself and vast array of not historically confirmed human biblical figures. So we need to specify it for individual figures and there is no nice to shortcut of declaring all humans from bible as fictional, Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with instance of (P31)human biblical figure (Q20643955) only appears if there is also the statement instance of (P31)human (Q5) present. human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568) states that it is not known that a certain character existed - but there are some figures, like Herodes, that are known to have existed. Basically there should exist no item with both instance of (P31)human biblical figure (Q20643955) and instance of (P31)human (Q5). They may be simply split - Herodes (biblical character) and Herodes (human).
All persons where it is dubious if they existed should not carry instance of (P31)human (Q5). instance of (P31)human (Q5) should only be used for figures that are historically confirmed. All biblical characters that are not historically confirmed (e.g. Adam) should only have instance of (P31)human biblical figure (Q20643955). We need no further qualifiers.
On the other hand, instance of (P31)human biblical figure (Q20643955) should be only used if this character is not historically confirmed or if this item represents an account of a person from the bible. So Herodes (human) should carry only historically confirmed statements, Herodes (bible) may carry statements from the biblical account of Herodes.
To decide if a person is historically confirmed we should not turn to the Bible, of course, but to other sources. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"instance of (P31)human biblical figure (Q20643955) should be only used if this character is not historically confirmed" if we go such way, then its name and definition must be changed. "human (as opposed to supernatural) character in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible or New Testament" does not exclude actually existing humans. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you (to change the description), if we should decide that human biblical figure (Q20643955) should only be used for persons not historically confirmed / items about persons as biblical characters. this should also apply to its superclasses (religious character (Q18563354) and legendary figure (Q13002315)).
As another approach one could delete mythical character (Q4271324) as a superclass of human biblical figure (Q20643955), character that may or may not be fictional (Q21070598) as a superclass of legendary figure (Q13002315) and human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568) as a superclass of human biblical figure (Q20643955) (I think this is basically your proposal above). But I'm not sure which superclass to set, then. There is agent (Q24229398) as an option. It seems that this item does not imply that its instances (don't) exist or that we (don't) know if they exist.
I prefer the first option (don't mix human (Q5) and human biblical figure (Q20643955)), but the second option could work, too. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In either case it would be nice to keep "list all characters appearing in bible and having wikidata entries" as possible in reasonable way. What other reasonable queries would be ideally supported? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For this specific question (removing "biblical character" statements from wikidata items about humans / splitting items about humans appearing in the bible in an item for the biblical representation and an item for the human) this is the most important query that could be effected. I can't think of other queries for which the removal/split could be an issue. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start with the removal of "biblical character" statements from humans (2nd approach) / splitting items about humans appearing in the bible (1st approach) in a week or so (unless someone objects). I will do it manually, following this list: humans who are also biblical characters.

I will split the item if the person plays an important role in the Bible (as is the case with Herodes). I won't touch the main item about Jesus (Jesus (Q302)) (in this case I'd tend to remove the "human" statement as this is already covered by historical Jesus (Q51666)). I'd be glad if somebody else takes care of it (also considering related items historical Jesus (Q51666), Jesus in the Talmud (Q1561637), Jesus in Christianity (Q51663), Jesus in Islam (Q51664), Yuz Asaf (Q4534201), Jesus in the Bahá'í Faith (Q10424800), Jesus in Manichaeism (Q60635878)) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop as position held

[edit]

I have just undone these edits by @Elizium23: requiring to use Catholic bishop (Q611644), Latin Catholic bishop (Q102039658), Oriental Orthodox bishop (Q102385896) and Greek Orthodox bishop (Q105630354) always with occupation (P106) and never with position held (P39); as of now, 43425 statements use P39 and 38 statements use P106, so it seems a relevant change that needs to be discussed first.

Nojhan Yair rand Runner1928 TomT0m Capankajsmilyo ArthurPSmith John Carter Tris T7 Epìdosis Peter17 Bargioni Geogast Clifford Anderson Bello Na'im Mathieu Kappler Maxime StarTrekker Amqui Loft-ind

Notified participants of WikiProject Religions and @Looperz:, who has probably added most of this P39 values. --Epìdosis 18:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Support, Maxime 19:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxime Ravel, it is wholly unclear what you support.
"Bishop" must be orthogonal to "priest" and "deacon" as it a permanent, sacramenal vocation; it is irrevocable, and it is not a "position" as an office that is held for some term.
Note that this contrasts with "diocesan" and "auxiliary" bishops, etc, which are offices held, and clearly distinct concepts from the sacramental, vocational occupation of bishop.
Note also that non-apostolic churches have been omitted from concern, so if you are not Catholic/Orthodox and you don't share this concept of permanent, sacramental occupation, then your opinion is perhaps invalid.
Truthfully, given the nature of this vocation, "occupation" is actually a very weak description of such clergy, and I consider "position held" to be a bigoted insult upon the lives of these men, and that's why I seek to change it. Since Wikidata is so concerned with "ontology" of items, it's interesting to note that sacramental ordination confers an ontological change in the man, and therefore the most appropriate classification would, in fact, be instance of (P31), but I doubt that I could achieve consensus for this radical stance.
If you demand to have bishops as position held, then you must also likewise change all other priests, deacons, and clergy to be orthogonal. Elizium23 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, I assumed that Epìdosis disagreed Elizium's changes; and I wanted to support him. But apparently I read too fast, sorry! Maxime 20:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm doubly confused: you mean to support whom? You're sorry for supporting... Epìdosis? Could you also explain your policy-based reasoning for your support? It is customary here for editors to express their reasoning rather than just blindly supporting one side or the other. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epìdosis, are you taking a position in this dispute, other than procedurally reverting due to constraints? Elizium23 (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use prelate (Q725440) instead of bishops items as occupation (P106)? Maxime 05:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is hilarious! "prelate" is already prescribed as a P106 rather than a P39, which is also backwards!
@Maxime Ravel, "prelate" is a wider, umbrella term than the types of bishop under discussion; every bishop is a prelate, and also abbots, major superiors, monsignors, and other types of clergy may be prelates. In some cases (monsignor) the prelacy is conferred by a title of honor, which is revocable in theory. In other cases (abbots, major superior) the prelacy is conferred ex officio and is very much due to the position which they hold, not their occupation, per se, since they are monks/religious by occupation regardless of their office.
Therefore, we also need to fix up all the items that have falsely registered "prelate" as P106, which again, violates the orthogonality and ontology of these items. Thank you for raising this related issue for discussion! Elizium23 (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure... Maxime 06:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that @Veverve, @Pbritti, and @Dcheney are not usually on this project, but perhaps they may deign to comment on this issue in some form. Elizium23 (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: Your argument about aligning "bishop" with "prelate", "priest" and "deacon" under occupation (as permanent), keeping "diocesan" and "auxiliary" bishops under position held (as temporary) seems convincing to me. --Epìdosis 07:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC) P.S. add ping to @Ayack: (who added the constraint under P106 last March)[reply]
OK, except my argument for prelate (Q725440) is to move it to position held (P39) as I explained above. And of course the generic bishop (Q29182) would be up for a separate decision; as I say, "bishop/priest/deacon" as a permanent sacramental ontology only applies to apostolic true churches, and not to every cleric in existence, so I just wanted to constrain the criteria enough so that they are accurate. I could go either way on that. Elizium23 (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it is irrevocable, and it is not a "position" as an office that is held for some term, "bishop/priest/deacon" as a permanent sacramental ontology: this is the case only in Catholic denominations (Catholic Church, Sedevacantists, Old Catholics). Eastern Orthodox do not accept the idea of a permanent sacramental character, see w:en:Sacramental character#Eastern Orthodoxy. Some Protestant denominations do not have a sacrament to become a bishop. I cannot speak of the Oriental Orthodox position, as I found nothing on their opinion. Thus, I think considering bishop as a position is the best solution to include all Christian denominations. Maybe another parameter can be used to represent the highest clerical sacrament a member of the clergy has received. Veverve (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me lay it out this way:
  • occupation (P106) is like your college degree and/or licensure. If you have a degree in engineering then your occupation is "engineer"; if you have a medical degree/license then your occupation is "doctor" or similar. A secular occupation can be permanent, but it often is not, since folks have career changes and other life events. Bob Marley (Q409) is labeled with assembly line worker (Q11010088), of all things! That was nowhere near permanent, was it?
    • If you're an ordained cleric, then that's your "license" to practice religion, and your occupation is bishop/priest/deacon.
  • position held (P39) is your job, a role that goes on your résumé. You're an engineer so you might be hired as "software developer" or "chief systems architect" or "CAD designer" or who knows what. That's your current role at a company, so you put it on your résumé. Your medical license gets you hired as "chief surgeon" or "attending physician".
I believe that this outline shall apply whether or not any given Church regards the episcopate as permanent and irrevocable. For those without sacramental ordination, well, if this is a lifetime or enduring sort of appointment, then I would still say it should qualify as occupation, whereas the offices held would go in P39. Elizium23 (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve, as @Epìdosis has explained at the top, there are subclasses of bishop for each church type, so if you want to exclude the Orthodox from that I'm OK with it, but what do you think of making only Catholic Church bishops as occupation (P106) and the rest in position held (P39)? Although, at this point it's frankly sounding silly to treat them like distinct and different things, and it's only going to confuse future editors.
Actually, I really do not see any issue with "occupation" applying to Protestants and the Orthodox, because it is an occupation by any definition of this term, even if it's not a permanent or irrevocable one. And I'd like to query those in the know: What's more important to Wikidata, accurate ontology or uniformity of structure?
Elizium23 (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! In my sense, the change from @Elizium23 makes sense, I always wondered why Catholic bishop (Q611644) was in position held (P39) and not in occupation (P106) - but I agree that it is a big change as pointed out by @Epìdosis in the usage numbers. Kailingkaz (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epìdosis, it appears that a rough consensus has emerged. Shall we enact it at this point? Is there an automated process that can make the shift of thousands of items without me manually trying it? Elizium23 (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: sure; I added 4 autofixes, which should make the substitutions in a few days, and edited the constraints. Please keep an eye on the bot operations in the next days; there may be bots still adding some of these 4 values under P39, it will be necessary to inform their operators. --Epìdosis 17:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, shouldn't Catholic archbishop (Q48629921) also be moved to occupation (P106)? Kailingkaz (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no. Archbishop is a title or office which is held, and goes away when that office ceases. There is no sacramental status of archbishop. Nobody could be said to be archbishop by occupation, because they would certainly pass through lower clerical ranks. They may retire as "archbishop emeritus" and die that way, but not necessarily so. Elizium23 (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I totally agree - I can't find any example of an archbishop becoming a bishop again - more specifiall,y archbishops that are sent to a diocese that is not an archdiocese are considered archbishops as a personal title (see https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bballot.html for example). Some other cases exists of bishops being bestowed the title of archbishop ad personam (see https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bvivsic.html). Kailingkaz (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There, you yourself say that it is a title. A title is not an occupation, no matter how long it is held. Elizium23 (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite convinced, but I like your way of thinking :) Kailingkaz (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you can comprehend that including "archbishop" would open a significant can of worms. What about cardinal? What about pope? What about chorbishop? How about mitred archpriest? Archdeacon? Monsignor (there have been about a dozen grades of those)? Abbot, abbess? There are so many titles and offices that could be held in the Catholic Church, I hope that we could agree to establish clear criteria which would correctly classify all of them according to their nature. Elizium23 (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this discussion when it happened. I was used to see "Catholic bishop" under position held, and was now surprised to see it under occupation, so I looked for the source of this change. After reading the above discussion, I agree with the change. That being said, now I am questioning the last part of the discussion. I have been adding "archpriest" and "canon" and similar titles under "position held" because it made sense to me if "Catholic bishop" was also a "position held". Now that "Catholic bishop" is not a position held, would it also make sense to not add those other titles (archpriest, canon) under "position held" and only under "honorific title" or a similar property? Also on that topic, for canons, I am never sure which one to use between canon (Q1104153) and canon (Q1237385). Also on that topic, I have been adding holy orders in the Catholic Church (Q3500812) under the property "significant event" with subject has role (P2868) as a qualifier to indicate if it is the order to become a priest or a bishop (or a deacon). Thank you, Amqui (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diocesan bishops or "episcopal function"

[edit]

@Cruzate1492 has been replacing many instance of (P31) with episcopal title (Q21114371), and I disagree with these. The original values seem to be disparate, but for example, Roman Catholic Bishop of Cornwall would be more suited as an instance of diocesan bishop (Q1144278). "episcopal function" is itself poorly defined, and does not link to any Wikipedia article, and so I am unable to endorse its direct use for such a core property. Elizium23 (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC) @Cruzate1492 ha estado reemplazando muchas instancias de instance of (P31) con episcopal title (Q21114371), y no estoy de acuerdo con ellas. Los valores originales parecen ser dispares, pero, por ejemplo, el obispo católico romano de Cornualles sería más adecuado como ejemplo de diocesan bishop (Q1144278). La "función episcopal" en sí misma está mal definida y no enlaza con ningún artículo de Wikipedia, por lo que no puedo respaldar su uso directo para una propiedad tan central. Elizium23 (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "Bishop of Cornwall" is instance of (P31) diocesan bishop (Q1144278). diocesan bishop (Q1144278) refers to the actual human beings occupying the position while "Bishop of Cornwall" is a position. In my opinion, "Bishop of Cornwall" is a subclass of (P279) of diocesan bishop (Q1144278) (because it includes many human beings being bishops through time) but not a instance of (P31) of diocesan bishop (Q1144278). Amqui (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TNHR&CE Temple ID

[edit]

I have made a property proposal for the TNHR&CE Temple ID, The Goverment of Tamil Nadu (Q1445) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department supervising Temples and other Hindu and Jain religious buildings in Tamil Nadu. Kindly share your comments on Wikidata:Property proposal/TNHR&CE Temple ID Sriveenkat|talk/{PING ME} 22:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Religions&oldid=2236698235"