Category talk:Religious leaders

Change name
rename I propose we change this category to Category:Religious leaders

People who dedicate themselves so much to theology that they be deemed theologians are extremely rarely people who find themselves in the news. This is an academic pursuit.

The few people we already have in this category can all be described as religious leaders, a group of individuals who do find themselves in the news far more frequently. If we do not rename, I'd still be tempted to start Category:Religious leaders anyway because I am coming across a number of people who would fit. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've disliked "theologians" as a category for years, because it seems narrow and is hard to be quite sure who to put in. And I keep finding people I'd like to put in it, having no better "occupational" category available, but then struggle with whether or not they qualify, and find myself tempted to stretch the interpretation of "theologians".
 * I've wondered, for a similar time, about "religious leaders", but not everyone I want to classify seems to qualify as a "leader", necessarily. It's a kind of subjective question, anyway, who is and isn't a "leader".
 * I recall wondering about "clerics", but that doesn't cover everyone, either.
 * For a significant set of these sorts of people, I've sometimes mused on the merits of a category "religious nut-cases", but alas it wouldn't fly due to neutrality concerns.
 * Basically it seems we want an occupational category (or categories, I suppose) for people whom one would be tempted to list under Category:Religion.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * --Pi zero (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, per Clergy this would be a leadership role, anyway. I find that the etymology Clergy (and by extension Cleric), is so tied to Christianity, it would probably be offensive to some. A religious leader, in the sense as I would use it in this category, does not need to be the top leader or pinnacle of their religion. It could be any priest with a congregation or imam with a following. It would exclude individuals who are extremely religious even if they have a leadership role elsewhere in politics or business (e.g. Mike Pence) unless, of course, it is a theocratic state (e.g. Ali Khamenei). Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the terminology comes to me via , though that's neither here nor there. --Pi zero (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Should we let this sit for a few days to see if anyone else comments or do you think I should make the change? (I'd like to do it while I still can remember who I'd like to add to the category.) Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd like to think about it a bit.
 * You could list the people you have in mind here, and then you wouldn't forget.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * --Pi zero (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been discussing this with a third party, and it's clear they're discomforted by the word "leader". As I am. We may end up using it for lack of a better alternative, but I'd like to find one. --Pi zero (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "Religious figures"? --SVTCobra 13:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Avoids the specific awkwardness of "leader", but feels odd too, just in a different way. :S Some edge cases to think about:
 * A monk/nun is dedicated to religion but not necessarily a leader.
 * A jihadist might consider themselves dedicated to religion, but might not be perceived that way by people outside the movement they're fighting for.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It kind of seems as if we're looking for the religious equivalent of Category:Sportspeople. --Pi zero (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggestion just made to me, food for thought: "Religious personages"? --Pi zero (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I must admit, I still don't fully understand the objection to "leader". One can be a leader of a troop of cub scouts or a leader on a high school basketball team. It just doesn't seem that big a deal to me. Anyway, I don't like . It seems more evocative of a persona; something that's a bit tainted with celebrity or myth. Therefore, I would like to counter with, if I may. Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * On consideration, and reading your remarks, I agree with you about "personage" (and so does the person here who suggested it). I wanted to throw it out for discussion.  Indeed, "dignitary" has its own particular, but similar, difficulties.  Hmm.  Re what's bothersome about "leader", simply, not everyone involved is a leader; see the edge cases I mentioned earlier. --Pi zero (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * As for the edge cases, I can't think of many monks or nuns in the news. Mother Theresa is one (btw, she'd fit personage), but as "Mother" and not "Sister" she'd qualify as a leader. Tibetan monks sometimes make the news when they immolate in protest, but that's the first and last we hear of them. They wouldn't get a person category in the first place, and if one of them did linger in the news for so long, well, they'd just have to not be listed by occupation. As far as jihadists are concerned, if you are talking suicide bombers or foot-soldiers, no they don't belong in the category. But if you are talking a jihadist like ("The Blind Sheik") then, yes, he is a religious leader. I'd almost be tempted to say Osama bin Laden, too. Charles Manson also crossed my mind, but I'd nix him because the group was so small. What are the concerns with dignitaries? Wikt says it can be an influential person or of high office. Cheers, --SVTCobra 13:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that jihadists don't belong (that is, not by being jihadists); I'd mentioned it as an edge case because of their likely possible self-perception. The more relevant edge-case here is monks/nuns.  One could imagine such a person getting into the news repeatedly over, e.g., a sexual-abuse case.  But, in any case, I'm bothered by "leader" on conceptual grounds, regardless of whether we have an actual problem-case in our cat hierarchy.  "Dignitary" suggests to me possessing or deserving to be treated with dignity, seemingly a subjective judgment.  Well, we can give this puzzle some more time for mulling over. --Pi zero (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Certainly, take your time. A couple of thoughts for you to consider while you mull it over. If a person far enough down on the totem pole of a a religious hierarchy, such as a nun or a monk, becomes newsworthy, they simply don't qualify for this category, just like the jihadist foot-soldier. You used sexual crimes as an example. Well, if a sexual predator was a registered Democrat and had voted Dem all their life, would we put them in Category:Democratic Party (United States)? Of course, no! Well, what if the person had volunteered for Hillary's campaign and distributed flyers and lawn signs? Still no. What if the predator played in competitive softball leagues every summer and was a baseball star in high school? Do they go in Category:Sportspeople? No.
 * I feel as if you are trying to cast a net so wide that it'll even catch the church secretary. In my opinion, that is simply not necessary. We are very far from eliminating Category:People not categorized by occupation, but every time enough people crop up there with similar characteristics, we can then create a category for them. We cannot future-proof the occupational categories. If we run into a situation where we have 3-4 or more nuns and monks sitting there, then we can debate a category just for them ... "People of the cloth" or whatever it may be. I think there should be a distinction between leaders and non-leaders, just as we have elevated presidents and prime ministers above the run-of-the-mill politicians. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Though I wouldn't categorize someone as a dem just because they register that way, I might a party operative... it'd depend on their level of activism, I s'pose. I agree part of the question here is what we want the category to contain; as I remarked somewhere above, I'm envisioning something comparable to Category:Sportspeople.  I'm not enthused by the prospect of making the call as to who is and isn't a leader; that unenthusiasm is at the heart of my dislike for "leader" in this. --Pi zero (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But not all people who do sports are sportspeople, right? --SVTCobra 15:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems likely. Some decisions always need to be made; I'm looking to avoid a decision that doesn't. --Pi zero (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed Commons uses religious figures for whatever that's worth. --SVTCobra 20:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See Commons:Category talk:Religious figures. --Pi zero (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, that was a comment fourteen years ago by a non-native English speaker who didn't understand the use of "figure". Perhaps they were associating it with "figurine" which is the meaning of "figur" in one non-English language I know. The concern seems to have been addressed in the answer with no further debate in all these years. Nonetheless, "People in religion" could be the solution we are seeking. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Having sifted through this, I'm now favoring religious leaders because, despite its flaws, it seems to be clearer in its inclusion implications than its competitors. I'd hope to further shore it up with a helpful usage note. --Pi zero (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm about to implement. We can change it again if we don't like the result; it's not like Category:Religion with its seven-hundred-or-so pages to recat. --Pi zero (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. --Pi zero (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Candidates for Category:Religious leaders

 * David Miscavige
 * Fred Phelps
 * Ali Khamenei
 * Anwar al-Awlaki
 * Tenzin Gyatso
 * Jerry Falwell
 * Sathya Sai Baba
 * Kent Hovind
 * Hashemi Rafsanjani
 * Why do you figure Rafsanjani goes in this set? Looking over his career, he looks like a politician to me.  Am I missing something (or simply interpreting something differently)?  --Pi zero (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Both Wikipedia (Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani) and our article, Former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani leads Friday prayers, list him as a cleric. He was, per List of Tehran's Friday Prayer Imams, a "temporary" imam of Friday prayers for 28 years. He started studying theology at age 14. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Civilian" politicians, such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mohammad-Ali Rajai do not get such religious leadership roles nor do they wear the religious garb of the clerics. --SVTCobra 18:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. --Pi zero (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Category:Pat Robertson
 * Category:Mohammad Khatami


 * Done. --Pi zero (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)