Talk:Origins of religion

development of religon

Since editors have disputed the relevance of archeological information on the article Development of religion I have moved the content to this article where there should be no dispute on the relevance of the information. Muntuwandi 22:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page was deleted and reviewed, please do not recreate it

The entry formerly known as Origin of religion, was deleted here and the deletion was reviewed here upon the request of the entry's creator. When both results were the same the entry's creator tried the incident noticeboard here. Now he is attempting to recreate the entry by making the singular origin plural. This is entirely unacceptable and it needs to stop. Please keep the redirect as it is.PelleSmith 03:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreed that information from the article origin of religion be merged into development of religion. Now editors are removing the information that was merged from development of religion. Hence there is contradiction. We need to decide if we are not going to have an article origin or religion, then we should merge the content into development religion. Muntuwandi 17:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided that appropriate information should be merged into the Development of religion article. You are just pushing your POV into the articles, and trying to bypass undue weight and NPOV. Wikipedia is not a collection of essays. -- Jeff3000 18:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my POV, it is the results of scientists studies. If radio carbon dating or any other dating method is used and determines that a ritual burial took place 100000 years ago, how can that be a point of view. The dating is a scientific fact. Muntuwandi 18:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things which have been mentioned many times which you fail to comprehend.

Scientific statements by reliable sources do not make the content relevant in all pages.
Scientific statements may be excluded due to undue weight You're inserting a lot of content which is treated by most reliable sources in a small manner, and thus it is not NPOV.

Regards, -- Jeff3000 19:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you demonstrate that the content is treated as a small manner by scholars. On the topic of the origin of religion, this is the major information. This is why it deserves its own seperate article. It is not undue weight because it is the focus of the study into the origins of religion. Muntuwandi 22:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Muntuwandi has now recreated the original content yet again as Evolutionary theories on the origins of religion. When will this stop?PelleSmith 11:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedied. See also Talk:Development_of_religion#human_evolution_and_religion. This is becoming silly. If it doesn't stop soon, I'll ask an uninvolved admin to slap M with a warning block. --dab (𒁳) 13:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 9 February 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change #REDIRECT [[Evolutionary origin of religions]] to #REDIRECT [[Evolutionary origin of religion]] per page move. Treetoes023 (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done — xaosflux ^Talk 15:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]