Talk:Religion and children

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: , But, it is not yet neutral. It either talks about Chriatianity or Muslims. It doesn't address other religions. So, I'm re-adding it. I came here to edit to the lead. But, when the article is not itself okay, what should the lead summarize about? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs)  12:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: The association alluded to in the Health Effects section is supported by one source, a paper by Chiswick and Mirtcheva, which certainly meets any standards of reliability and certainly goes to show that there is a positive correlation between health and religiosity.
But, as is said in the final paragraph of the article, such data cannot possibly establish causality but rather only that there is something about religious groups that makes their members tend to have better health than non-religious people. Nevertheless, in other parts of the paper, the association is sloppily called an effect without anything (as far as I could tell, at any rate) being provided to show that the association indicates a cause/effect relationship in that direction (religion to health, that is). Perhaps there is one, but this article's last paragraph makes it clear that it shouldn't actually be used to demonstrate such a causal relationship.
Perhaps the relationship actually goes in the other direction: rather than non-religious people tending to be less healthy, perhaps it is that less healthy people tend to think of the world as a rotten place that probably isn't run by anything omnibenevolent, whereas energetic, healthy, exuberant people see the world as a wonderful place which certainly could all have been created by a god. Thus people might be religious because they're healthy rather than healthy because they're religious. By analogy, consider the positive association probably existing between frequent roller coaster-ing and general health. This would exist because sickly people are probably not going to want to go out to an amusement park and throw their bodies left and right for two hours. Yet there are no known positive health effects of going to an amusement park, at least not to me, at any rate. Similarly, it is entirely possible that sickly people tend not to want to go to church and be religious because they don't have the energy and time to do so, while healthy people tend to be more so inclined.
Thus, without any actual evidence as to which way the correlation goes, or to whether there's some lurking variable, I move to strike any reference to cause/effect from that section as purely speculative (your honor :)), unless simply to state that no causal relationship can be inferred from these data alone. David815 (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study Interpretation Involves Tacit Assumptions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Religion and children. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091007235352/http://www.seyaj.org:80/en/ to http://seyaj.org/en/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080924175937/http://www.goarch.org:80/en/ourfaith/articles/article7079.asp to http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7079.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Much of the article focuses on authors like Dawkins (who would be more adequately used for topics like biology and atheism) rather than on the work of psychologists.  His views may by due, but some psychologists have written on the topic.  —PaleoNeonate – 11:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture vs experts 

message: I saw the POV tag was added in 2009, but removed in 2013 without addressing the issue. Even now it either talks about Christianity or Muslims, but not other religions. It has the tag to improve lead, but when the article is not complete, what should the lead summarize about? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs)  12:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-adding the POV tag and removing the tag to improve lead