User:ONUnicorn/thoughts on beliefs

Wikipedia has long struggled with how to write articles which discuss things that people believe, rather than things which are objectively real. Such articles include (but aren't limited to) articles about: Disputes about these sorts of issues have frequently gone to Arbcom, and there is a noticeboard dedicated to discussion of articles about fringe theories, which often sees disputes about all the broad topics mentioned above.
 * Paranormal topics
 * Fringe theories
 * Pseudoscience
 * Religion, especially religious topics where one topic (for example, Abraham) is relevant to multiple religions or sects that believe vastly different things about that topic.
 * Politics
 * Mythology
 * Alternative medicine
 * Conspiracy theories

Embrace the controversy
Embrace the controversy (in as much as there is one). If the prevailing mainstream opinion is that X is Y, but believers in Discoessentialism believe X is really Z, and believers in Statinjutics believe X is really Q; our article should not unequivocally state that X is Y and leave it at that, fighting tooth and nail to keep any mention of Z or Q out of the article.

That said, we need to make sure that our article about X does not assign undue weight to minority views. This can be extremely difficult, especially in the face of pro-Z and pro-Q editors who are trying to hijack an article.

Generally speaking, I think our policies as they are set up encourage this approach, but it sometimes fails in practice.

Surprisingly enough, I think we do a pretty decent job of this in articles about major topics shared between the big three monotheistic religions. Most topics like Abraham and Jesus devote sections to how the topic is approached in each of the three monotheistic faiths as well as some less prevalent religions that also incorporate that topic into their belief system, along with links to full articles where appropriate. The sections are typically of a length that is proportional to the topic's importance within each faith and the rough number of followers of each faith in the global population. The articles typically also provide significant discussion of the views of mainstream non-religious historians and scholars. They present information in a neutral point of view that explains without making judgements about believers. This falls apart however, when one starts getting into the weeds with beliefs on topics that are more minor, or limited to just one sect or denomination or small faith.

Explain the beliefs
Here is one area where I think we fall far short. If we are going to talk about a belief, we have to explain and define what the belief is, who it is that believes it, and why they believe it.

Skeptics, however, are often bent on making it so abundantly clear that the belief is fringe and that no rational person should share in the belief that the article becomes incoherent gibberish, and the reader cannot glean a coherent understanding of the topic for all the repeated disclaimers that the topic is bunk. This is especially prevalent in our articles on alternative medicine. The Lead section of Acupuncture is a decent example of this, although the body of the article does go into some relevant detail on the purported mechanism. If someone is reading an article about a belief they have only recently learned of, and all they can learn from the article is that the person who wrote the majority of the article thinks its a load of hogwash, they are going to turn elsewhere to try to get an understanding of what the topic is, and that elsewhere is likely to be a source that uncritically embraces the belief.

On the other side of the coin, if an article is entirely written by believers, it is usually excessively long, excessively detailed, and too esoteric for those uninitiated in the belief to parse. This is common on such niche topics as Financial astrology (see, for example this version of The Tunnel Thru the Air; Or, Looking Back from 1940 or this version of the article on its author). Such articles also do not make it clear that the vast majority of economists do not think the heliocentric longitude of Mars or Pluto has any effect on the stock market.

A big problem with explaining the belief involves sources. The best sources for what some group believes are usually not independant, as they are produced by believers, and are often primary sources to boot.

Explain why the beliefs are fringe or controversal (if they are)
First of all, not all beliefs are fringe. One has to recognize that near-universal beliefs (such as the belief that willfully killing another adult human being without cause is wrong) are still beliefs.

Simply saying something is pseudoscience is not explaining why it is pseudoscience. Simply saying that mainstream science disagrees with X, or that the vast majority of historians disagree with Y, or even that X belief is shared by only a tiny minority of believers in X religion, does not explain why this belief or topic is controversial. How does modern geology refute the key tenets of flood geology? (Please note, Flood geology actually does a pretty decent job of answering that question - I'm just using it as an example of the type of question that should be answered.)

On the other hand, you shouldn't let the article get too bogged down with debunking the belief and listing all the reasons why the belief is wrong and believers are idiots. Especially if that comes at the cost of ever explaining exactly what the belief entails.

Provide the necessary context
This goes back to explaining the beliefs - you cannot have, for example, an article debunking the existence of giants without first establishing the context in which there is a need for the existence of giants to be debunked. See my comment here.

Problems with sources
A big problem with explaining the belief involves sources. The best sources for what some group believes are usually not independant, as they are produced by believers, and are often primary sources to boot.

Arbcom cases

 * Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
 * Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
 * Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2
 * Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG
 * Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture
 * Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence
 * Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist