Talk:Religious views on masturbation

Edit war
@IP: whatever you write here, you have to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES. Your own opinion is banned according to website policy, see WP:OR.

The WP:BURDEN is upon you to produce WP:RS which WP:V your claims. Don't expect me to find sources for views that I have never heard of.

You want to be believed upon your word of honor. But principally we don't believe anyone on their word of honor. So, you will always have to cite sources for your edits.

Just in case I wasn't clear: if it is your own research, drop it. We are not a substitute for academic publishing, nor are we a vanity press. Combining two or more WP:RS to mean something new is not allowed, see WP:SYNTH. Each and every of your claims has to be explicitly WP:V in 1 (one) WP:RS. You are allowed to paraphrase that WP:RS in your own words, you are not allowed to change its meaning.

E.g. source #1 makes claim A, source #2 makes claim B. You think that A and B imply C. You are allowed to state A and then state B. You are not allowed to state C. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Shortened footnote style?
I was thinking about the current "excessive citations" tags. There is a recommendation at WP:BUNDLING to bundle them into a single footnote. But it is a bit difficult to do that nicely when the references are also used in other places. So I was thinking to use the shortened footnotes style for the article. This also makes it a bit easier to include quotes. Example for the first tag in "Biblical scholarship": "Most scholars have held that there are no explicit prescriptions in the Bible about masturbation.

Sources Also in general, for this article where we have a lot of scholars, sources, and quotes, shortened footnotes seem like a good fit. But there is the warning in WP:CITEVAR to seek consensus first - does anyone have objections? Mathnerd314159 (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No, go ahead. I think that the form of the citations only matters to computer nerds. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggesting a separate article for the Christian section
Using https://wordcounter.net/ and copying and pasting the entirety of the section on Christianity into the website, the total word count from "early church" to the citation 210, is a staggering 11,787 words. The page is section is far to long to read even a quarter of it comfortably (WP:CANYOUREADTHIS) as it's the length of an entire article on its own while Judaism and Taoism has 2 paragraphs, Buddhism 8, and Islam, Wicca and Hinduism have 1 about them each, and Islam and Judaism both link to their own articles. I suggest drastically shortening and deleting numerous paragraphs of the section and after giving this section its own its own page, it seems reliable to me but I have little knowledge of Christianity and have heavily skimmed it too. 92.236.211.53 (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)