Requests for comment/Religion-focused CentralNotice banners

The following request for comments is closed. Withdrawing this RfC. Strong arguments against singling out religion have more than convinced me that this is not an issue to solve, and the community as a whole clearly opposes this proposal. This does not preclude a subsequent discussion about the wording or organization of CentralNotice banners in general. Chaotic Enby (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

---

Should CentralNotice banners focused on a specific religion be disallowed? Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

(French) Devrions-nous interdire les bannières CentralNotice axées sur une religion spécifique ?

(Arabic) هل ينبغي منع اللافتات على منصة الإشعار المركزي التي تركز على دين معين؟

Background

The recent Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026 banner has been the subject of controversy on the English Wikipedia, as it was interpreted by some users as showing favoritism to a religion over others. To avoid any further appearances of non-neutrality, it was suggested that CentralNotice banners focused on religious events should not be run on the English Wikipedia. In the spirit of making the CentralNotice organization consistent between projects, as the same arguments would likely apply elsewhere, a Meta RfC was suggested to discuss these specifics at a global level. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

How to disable banners

Many experienced editors don't want to see any banners. You can turn them all off at Special:GlobalPreferences#mw-prefsection-centralnotice-banners (affects all wikis) or by going to the equivalent page at your local wiki (e.g., here for the English Wikipedia) and unckecking all the boxes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Oppose atleast as written. Wrt to the specific discussion that spawned the RFC, I can see a scenario/rewording of the banner that was described on enwiki where most folks would be okay with us running it. Something like: "Ramadan-related articles improvement drive" or "Wiki documents Ramadan" or "Ramadan documentation initiative" would probably be fine across a majority of the community. More generally, I think such a mandate is at odds with the silent consensus in many smaller projects where such initiatives are encouraged rather than discouraged. It also opens up a huge can of worms about whether if somebody launches "Wiki loves Saudi Arabian mosques" whether that qualifies as religion adjacent enough to be discouraged/banned.

To be very honest, I think the correct/more pertinent question to ask is one surrounding the (ab)use of CentralNotices across overly long periods and across unrelated projects as a proxy for "on-the-ground" offwiki/onwiki advertising. If Wiki Loves Ramadan had been selected to only run on bn, ur, ar, fa Wikimedia projects (or to take a example, Onam in Kanada and Tulu Wikipedia), there might be a lot less friction and could have avoided this discussion entirely. -- Sohom (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

There are Muslims whose primary language is English, or in countries which primary language is English. Are we discounting these groups of readers/editors? Robertsky (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Support - as someone who has a political stance incompatible with religion, religious CentralNotice banners only cause ruckus among editors and readers. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
•  Support - Lets keep religion out of central notices that are more or less imposed on people. Don't agree that a little tweak and there'd be no problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
•  Oppose Let's not be biased against religious themes, or any other theme that seems important to the people doing the work. We need editors, and maybe a theme around a religious holiday will bring some of them in to write about the history of the foods and traditions associated with that holiday. Also, I doubt that we'd see a similar level of objections to a "Wiki Loves Christmas" campaign – and if you're going to argue "but Christmas is mostly cultural now instead of religious", then I suggest to you that Ramadan has a significant cultural aspect in many modern Muslim communities, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  I would be just as opposed to "Wiki Loves Christmas", for similar reasons. That they have cultural aspects doesn't remove the fact that they are religious holidays. Something smaller like a themed DYK set (for both Christmas and Eid al-Fitr) is okay, but a long campaign banner, with multiple impressions per viewer, crosses the line from documenting to actively pushing it onto the reader. Religions can and do have to be treated differently from other themes, as the long history of proselytism in many religions means that they are more likely to be seen negatively by our readers than, say, an initiative about a cultural celebration. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  Since most people in the world subscribe to some religion or another – I believe the estimates are around 80% – maybe seeing something about religion would be seen positively by many readers. At minimum, it should let them know that we have content that goes beyond sports, celebrities, and politicians, which I think would be a positive thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Oppose, largely per Sohom, and I do also think great care should be taken in the wording of such banners and for how long they run. I'm an atheist, happily, but the reality is that it's hard to impossible to separate religion and culture and art and architecture - the relationship between art and architecture, especially, could make it impossible for anybody to have a campaign on the art/architecture from a particular region without unduely focussing on a specific religion. Also, it could ban campaigns focussing on completely alternative sides of religious history - do we want to ban central notices about Ukrainian culture, if the campaign uses imagery that reflects the widespread adherence to the en:Eastern Orthodox Church, or, quite naturally, promotes improving articles related to that history? Do we want to ban central notices about improving our coverage of the Holocaust? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  That is a very good point, and one that is making me reconsider whether we can even distinguish the "religious" from the "non-religious" (especially thinking about ethnic religions like Judaism or Druze). Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think it would depend on whether religion is considered to be a central theme, which may require discussion and consensus on specific subjects before being approved. A good test might be if you hypothetically removed all religious references, would the remaining content still stand on its own? There's plenty you can say about Ukrainian culture without mentioning religion. Conversely, I don't think you can say the same about Judaism as the religion and ethnicity are so intertwined - unless the campaign was specifically "Secular Jewish Culture", and I doubt we'd see such a proposal.

  
  

  I am still open to the possibility of a banner or other notice that is limited to articles that are explicitly related that subject. If someone intentionally navigates to the article for Ramadan or Islam, I don't think it's inappropriate to display the campaign to that user in case they want to learn more, but it shouldn't be done when they're reading about deep sea anaerobic bacteria or the industrial revolution. I don't know how feasible something like that is however. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  The fact that this impacts certain religions more than others is something I'm also worried about.

  ...though I am curious as to how much you think there would be left to talk about if you removed all religious references from Ukrainian culture. Just going for the obvious ones, pysanky is very much connected with religion, and it's impossible to talk about weaving or Nyzynka without talking about religious/spiritual motifs and gatherings. Architecture - you can't talk about architecture without talking about communal spaces - which are going to have some church/spiritual connection, throughout much of history.

  Just tying back to Islam - I think this is too niche, but this proposal would ban me from running a campaign about the history of handknit socks in Eastern Europe, because religion (Islam) is so important and all-encompassing that it controls how people make their socks! And before you say that's a ridiculous interpretation, nobody's going to ban talking about socks on central notices, let me just say this: one of my favourite books on the subject is softly banned by the Turkish government, because it documents (and therefore promotes) the religious and cultural history of the Kurdish people! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not saying you can't include anything religious within the campaign - I just proposed it as a thought experiment to help determine whether religion is the central subject of a campaign or not. Things like food, clothing, and communal spaces aren't inherently religious, and would still be included under "Ukrainian culture" even if you removed their religious context - possible a truncated version, but relevant nonetheless. Therefore religion is only one of many notable aspects of Ukrainian culture and not the primary subject. Conversely, you can't take Islam out of Ramadan and be left with anything meaningful.

  I know there's a lot of nuance involved, which is why such discussion would probably be necessary on topics that touch on religion to some extent to determine whether or not this applies to them. And I still believe we should workshop a wider guideline regarding all contentious topics, not just religion. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Sohom and WhatamIdoing. I can't exactly say I'm a fan of the banners (though this is less to do with the content of banners themselves and more because they feel annoyingly spammy), but these are significant events for a sizable portion of the world, and banning is not the solution to that. //shb (t • c) 21:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
•  Support Andre (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Support per my comments on the original discussion: [1], [2], [3], [4]. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
•  Oppose per several comments that changed my mind after starting the RfC, notably that of User:GreenLipstickLesbian. While some religious traditions like Ramadan or Christmas certainly go beyond purely secular cultural events, we can't draw a neat line between religion and culture, and, even if we could draw one, it would be unfair as all religions/cultures wouldn't be equally impacted by such a divide. I still believe that we should be careful to avoid the appearance of proselytism, but that can be done by clarifying the purpose of such events through the banners themselves, rather than banning them entirely.
  Cultures integrate religious traditions, but also shape them in unique ways. How do Muslims in northern latitudes adapt their fast to the midnight sun? Why do Armenian Christians celebrate Christmas on the day Jesus was baptized? Wikipedia's role is to document knowledge, and the more I think about it, the more I believe that we can't exclude religion from this. Wiki doesn't "love" Ramadan, or other religious traditions, in the sense that it wants people to practice them. Wiki loves Ramadan because, at its core, Wiki loves knowledge. Chaotic Enby (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  I still contest that in order to avoid an appearance of favouritism any promotion needs to have the ability to feature any and all subjects of that type that editors are willing to sponsor a campaign for, or none of them, and I just don't think that's technically feasible with banners. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• comment At the very least, central banners should engage our audiences and seek to educate them about the Wikimedia movement and projects as they're supposed to, titles along the lines of "Wiki loves X" are very unintuitive and are useless at a glance Kowal2701 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  Imagine "Wiki Loves New Year" every January 1st and Chinese and related Lunar New Years. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  So what? It's not like they require your participation.--A09|(pogovor) 22:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose Better governance and management of campaign durations and their proportions is needed, which is a much broader issue than the fact that WikiLoves Ramadan is connected to a religious practice. The community cannot reasonably reach a clear consensus on what counts as a religious practice versus what should be considered purely cultural, especially since religion is an integral part of many cultures.

Do we really want to move toward restricting people from organizing around topics simply because they have a religious aspect? That would conflict with widely accepted ethical standards and policies, including the UCoC. I see no rational justification for disqualifying events from promotion solely due to their religious background.--A09|(pogovor) 22:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Oppose I oppose. Wikimedia projects aim to document and support all aspects of human culture and society, including religious traditions that are important to many communities. If campaigns about religious events help bring contributors to write about history, culture, and traditions, they should be welcomed as long as the same opportunity exists for other religions and cultural events as well. Banning them entirely would be unnecessary.--Faisal ^talk 00:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
•  Comment I'd prefer to see this addressed at a more core level, which is the entire Wiki Loves X format. Whoever came up with that format seemingly did not have a very good understanding of NPOV, nor did they bother to consult with anyone who did, since the neutrality issue with it is immediately obvious: The difference between the intended we love documenting information about X and the non-neutral we love the entity X is nuanced and likely to be missed by the majority of banner readers. It's not just religious institutions — consider how something like a hypothetical "Wiki Loves Russia" campaign would go over at the moment. I'd like to see some brainstorming of alternative phrasing to "Wiki loves", after which we could more formally propose a change to the standard wording. Sdkb ^talk 04:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  We've had a few suggestions back on enwiki ("Explores", "Studies", "Documents"), and these could be interesting to consider at a broader scale, especially to make sure no unforeseen issues arise with translations. Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  It is not necessary to change or defend our event naming based on the possibility that someone might take it out of context. The “Wiki Loves … ” format is already well established and has long been used for many campaigns, even very successful ones. While some people may still view "Wiki Loves Ramadan" critically, the broader context following same naming pattern provides a reasonable explanation. Sadly, even such explanation will not overturn some blinded opposers. A09|(pogovor) 11:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  This to me seems like a non-issue: NPOV is not a global policy, it's a cross-project content policy, which does not include CentralNotice banners. //shb (t • c) 09:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  Readers are unlikely to make the distinction between the standard of neutrality expected in articles and the standard expected in banners — both are coming "from Wikipedia", so both will be seen as representing Wikipedia's view. Consider how many newspapers have trouble getting readers to make a distinction between their news and opinion desks; this is similar. So even if NPOV doesn't technically apply to "bannerspace," it's still a principle we should follow. Sdkb ^talk 14:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Oppose The project Wiki Love Ramadan is more about culture than religion. It include documentation of rites and ritual of some specific group of people including the type of food they eat, the dresses and places of worship. For Wiki Love Africa that also document the traditional worship of certain groups. Are they necessary calling to affiliation with these groups? Let's maintain a neutral view towards a project such as these so far the aim is not to attack or victimize anyone. Also, it's important to note the core team members are made up of people with different religion right from technical teams to ambassadors as well as local organizers across each country. The Central banner should stand as this is just another project upholding the cultural diversity in the wiki ecosystem. Tesleemah (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
•  Oppose I personally see this an opportunity to document cultural practices worldwide. Ramadan is a convenient medium to document what may be the same rituals/rites/practices at the surface level (one who think that religions are monolithic, but they aren't usually the case), but intrinsically different from region to region due to local cultures and customs. As what A09 points out, a restriction on this may end up restricting on other Wiki Loves X projects, i.e. Wiki Loves Folklore, which had clearly religious entries and winners in the 2025 edition. Robertsky (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Oppose This proposal is a massive slippery slope that would eventually paralyze our ability to run almost any outreach campaign. If we decide religious topics are "non-neutral" just because they're sensitive, that same logic will eventually be turned against any other human construct people feel strongly about.

If we ban "Wiki Loves Ramadan" because it’s religious, then how do we justify for example a "Wiki Loves Ukraine" or "Wiki Loves Armenia" banner? Those are inherently political and could easily be framed as "nationalist propaganda" by someone with a different stance. If we start purging banners based on what might ruffle a few feathers, we’ll eventually be left with nothing but banners for "Wiki Loves Deep Sea Bacteria." We are a global project; we should be documenting the world as it is, not a sanitized version of it.

Religion is Culture As others have pointed out, you cannot neatly decouple religion from architecture, art, or history. Banning "religious" banners effectively bans campaigns on Ukrainian churches, Islamic art, or even folklore. It creates a massive systemic bias against cultures where faith and daily life are integrated, while favoring Western "secular" traditions that we’ve arbitrarily decided are "safe."

Documentation is not Proselytism These banners are calls to action for editors, not advertisements for a faith. The goal is to improve the encyclopedia's coverage.

We shouldn't set a precedent where any topic deemed "controversial" by a vocal minority is scrubbed from CentralNotice. That's the opposite of what a global, inclusive movement should look like. عبد الإلاه جلال (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Oppose Although it may appear to be purely a religious matter, Ramadan has become a social and cultural phenomenon that lasts an entire month, with the religious aspect now representing only a small part of it. Even countries and communities that do not follow Islam have come to view it as part of the broader collective identity. Therefore, removing it from Wikimedia events under the pretext of neutrality is misguided, because Ramadan has become an integral element of the culture and traditions of hundreds of millions of people. Nehaoua (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don’t support banning CentralNotice banners focused on a specific religion. These banners are not promoting religious belief; they simply inform people about initiatives to improve and create knowledge on related topics. As long as the goal is educational and aligned with Wikimedia’s mission to expand free knowledge, such banners should remain allowed. --MarianaSenkiv (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)