User talk:Stevenwmccrary58/ReligiousNPOV

The following discussion started on Talk:Noah's Ark. I moved it here to respect issues specific to the main topic of Noah's Ark

"Steve, you say the POV is subtle, but it seems that it is so subtle that you cannot tell me what it is. I am asking as simple question. What POV does the term 'religious text' promote? It is not meant to be a trick question just a genuine inquiry. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)"

First, let me say that there is no WP policy, guideline, or standard that specifically addresses this issue, that I can find, so the following is my opinion and viewpoint on this topic.

To me the use of such terms as "religious" and "scripture" are normally NPOV, but can be charged, and therefore, prejudicial, in certain contexts. For example, when discussing the views and beliefs of Muslims, it would be NPOV to refer to the Qu'ran, and similarly for the views of Christians. A couple of years ago, I assisted an Ayyavazhi believer in building some WP pages about that religion (see my User Page), and in that case, it was appropriately NPOV for the author to refer to the scripture of the Ayyavazhi.

So, when are such word as "religious" prejudicial? When, in my opinion, it implies a veracity that an encyclopedia should not, i.e. a type of truth (or non-truth, depending on your perspective) inappropriately associated with scripture or religious writing. Specifically, I am referring to truth as may be associated with being from the mouth of God, or to non-truth as may be associated with being a myth or legend (see WTA). In other words, some readers would see the word "religious" and think the WP article is true simply because it refers to the word of God. Other readers would see the word "religious" in the WP article and think it non-sense because it is alleged to be the word of a nonexistent and mythical god.

Now, let's consider the reference article, Noah's Ark, and the use of "religious text" there. The following "possibles" are to become the introductory sentence for the entire Noah's Ark WP article. Consider the possible versions below:

Current (as of 01-03-2009): Noah's Ark, according to the Book of Genesis, was a large vessel ...
 * This is the text as it stands in the article as of January 3, 2009.

Possible 1: In Judeo-Christian and Islamic  mythology , Noah's Ark was a large vessel ...
 * This statement is prejudicial to me because the word "mythology" can imply the account to be false. There exist, even today, a substantial number of scholars who believe in a literal account of NA.  And although there is also a substantial number of scholars who believe otherwise, has a majority of the scholarly community resolved this issue?  How do we know that?  How can we determine that?  Do we discount miraculous occurences in history?  Not being able to resolve these issues, I refer to the NPoV FAQ for some resolution.

Possible 2: In Jewish, Christianity, and Islamic  scriptures  such as the Book of Genesis and the Qu'ran, Noah's Ark was a large vessel ... Possible 3: In Jewish, Christianity, and Islamic  religious text  such as the Book of Genesis and the Qu'ran, Noah's Ark was a large vessel ...
 * These statements (#2 & #3) are prejudicial to me because the words "scriptures" and "religious" imply that the text are the word of God, and therefore are true and factual. Some may argue that the words "scripture" and "religious" do not imply true and factual, which may be.  However, I can only say that some will interpret those words as the word of God, thereby adding additional, unintended meaning to those words.  In my opinion, we do not want WP to be misread, so choose other words; words that will appropriately convey the intended meaning.  The NA account is one of those instance where "religious text" could imply a type of veracity attributable to the word of God that may be confusing to casual WP readers, therefore making the term non-NPOV.
 * I remind the reader, as I did many times on the Noah's Ark Talk Page, that these possibles are for the introduction of the NA article. It would be important for the body of the article, but not the introduction, to reflect that the NA account is found in ancient texts considered to be sacred to various religious groups.  Just as it would be appropriate for the body of the NA article to discuss the mythology of NA as well.  My suggestion does not apply to the body, where it would be an NPOV use of "scripture," "religious," and "mythology."

Possible 4: In  ancient texts , such as the Book of Genesis and the Qu'ran, Noah's Ark was a large vessel ...
 * I recommend "Possible 4" because it is NPOV to me. To me, all of the other Possibles imply that the text is either true (religious text) or not true (myth).

I hope this helps. Please provide any comments deemed appropriate. I do have a life, so I cannot promise timely responses. But I will get back here eventually. I can promise this, if the discussion get ugly, I will desist.

Best regards and Happy New Year,

SteveMc (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all let me just confirm what we agree on; the opening sentence should be as neutral in content and tone as possible. Secondly, I agree that, in the body, we should have more freedom to use a wider variety of descriptive terms since we have the chance there to put them properly into context and thus avoid misunderstandings.

I agree with you that use of the word 'mythology' in the opening sentence is open to misinterpretation as it can suggest to some that WP asserts the story to be false.

I would also say that mentioning any specific religious text, as you have done above, is POV. To me it carries the implication, 'this is something very important you should know about' but I would add that if you are going to mention the Book of Genesis and the Qu'ran there really is no point is not using the word 'religious', it is well know to most that these are religious texts.

My proposed opening was 'Noah's ark is a vessel from Abrahamic religious texts ...'.

In the above context, 'religious' is strictly factual and does not, in my opinion, give any weight to the religious POV. To say just 'texts' or 'ancient texts' would be positively misleading as the story does have a religious origin, that is not disputed. I would accept that no wording can be positively without any kind of nuance but the wording that I suggest is only likely to slightly reinforce the reader's original view. In other words on reading the word 'religious' a believer might tend to think 'this is important because it is religious' whilst a non-believer might tend to think, 'obviously a load of nonsense'.

I therefore put it to you that my proposed wording is the most neutral possible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin,

The points of your position are well stated, and thought provoking.

I understand that the accounts of Noah are part of religious text, and that text is the original source of those accounts.

I agree that it is very difficult to eliminate nuance in text.

From my standpoint, "positively misleading" is overstated, even "misleading" may be overstated. To me, the fact that the ancient text is sacred is not so important for an introduction. Honestly, in an introduction and for the sake of consensus, I am willing to lose the "nuance" proposed (above in your position) with "religious" for the less nuanced "ancient." So I must say that I see nothing misleading or deceptive about that. Am I missing something?

I also question the point, "to slightly reinforce the reader's original view." Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to reinforce the views of others? I submit not. Rather, an encyclopedia's purpose is to accurately communicate meaning, as devoid of nuance as possible.

With regards,

SteveMc (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason I consider 'ancient' to be POV is that it may give the impression that there are some historical, that is to say regarded as strictly factual then and now, texts which talk of NA. For example non-religious reports of a great flood or the building of a large vessel. Were such texts to exist they would completely alter many people's view on the subject. It is therefore quite wrong to include something that implies that such texts might exist. The origin is religion and we should state that.

Regarding "to slightly reinforce the reader's original view" I was not suggesting that this was in any way desirable, but of three undesirable options: suggest that the story is false, suggest that the story is true, let them assume that that stage what they would have done anyway, the third option is the least bad. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My views on the word 'mythology' are already well stated on the NA page. However, I will say here that I originally had no problem with 'scriptures' or 'religious texts' until I saw Steve's explanation. The nuance is very, very subtle, but I do see it and must agree with him. However, I also understand Martin's point that to say they come from religious texts is also accurate. I offer here an alternative wording - not as a suggestion for the NA page, but as an attempt to illustrate the nuance - "...in the texts of Abrahamic religions..." This removes 'texts' from 'religions', associating the latter more strongly with 'Abrahamic' and thereby reducing the impression of veracity. --FimusTauri (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding any POV nuance of 'religious texts' it is obviously so subtle that I genuinely cannot see what it is. Please can somebody explain to me what it is. On the other hand, I have absolutely no objection to, "...in the texts of Abrahamic religions..." if others consider it mere neutral.

Just 'texts' or 'ancient texts', however, really could be seriously misleading. We have texts describing events such as the eruption of Vesuvius and the destruction of Pompeii and no doubt there are ancient texts referring to earlier cataclysmic events. Many of these are taken as accurate eye witness accounts of historical events, not influenced in any way by religious beliefs. To suggest in any way that the NA story might belong to this category is seriously misleading. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall try to explain - at least as far as I see it. The problem with phrases such as "religious texts" is almost identical to the use of "mythology", but with the opposite effect. In both instances they carry a nuance that subtly pushes the reader towards a specific POV (I do not imply POV-pushing on the part of the editor - this sort of nuance is so subtle as to occur quite unconsciously, and very often to the detriment of the POV of the editor himself!) In the case of "mythology", the reader is subtly pushed into thinking the story to be false (for the purposes of this discussion, by 'reader' I mean the 'ordinary' man, as opposed to an academic who would clearly know better.) In the case of "religious texts", the reader is subtly being pushed towards "sacred texts" and thence to "Word of God". This makes the text (in the mind of the religious) authoritatative; equally, in the atheist mind, it provokes the thought that it must be pure nonsense. These are the extremes, which I provide only for illustration. Clearly, the majority of people lie somewhere between, but the general direction of their feelings to the subject will dictate which way they may be influenced by the wording. Again, I must stress that this effect is very subtle. I am not saying that anyone would read it and instantly think "Wikipedia says its the Word of God!" or "Wikipedia says its rubbish!"; I am saying that they would be subtly influenced in that direction.

The subtle power of words is exploited by the media, governments and marketing. When a particular shampoo claims that xx% of people polled thought it was the best, it is because the polling agency know full well the subtle power of words and have used that knowledge to frame their questions to get the best response. The same is used by governments to push contentious bills through. I have seen many, many examples in Wikipedia of this subtle use of words to push an agenda, by both sides of the arguments, often unconsciously, but clearly in some cases quite deliberately. This was one of the reasons I got involved in editing.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Fimus, I full understand the subtleties of meaning embodied in the choice of word that we use. I can explain why 'mythology' is unsuitable, and we both agree on that but I cannot see in what way the words 'religious text' are. As you have said there is only a tiny tendency to reinforce the reader's original opinion, that can hardly be called POV. When a word very subtly supports two opposing POVs I guess we could call it as neutral as possible. On the other hand you must agree that 'ancient texts' could be positively misleading. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My problem with 'texts' and 'ancient texts' is that they are simply too ambiguous. Whichever phrase we use should inform the reader of the origin of the story; these phrases simply do not do that. As you said earlier, there are plenty of 'ancient texts' describing everything from how to pay your taxes to how to conduct human sacrifice. Whichever term is used must narrow down this broad spectrum to the specifically Abrahamic texts hat describe Noah's Ark.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's good to see discussion about this. I've been playing around with various draught wordings in my user subpage sandbox, too. (at User:Til Eulenspiegel/NA). I'm aiming for the best possible phrasing / framing that hopefully satisfies everything just said above, and other things.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Til, I have looked at your page and think that the opening sentence gives too much weight to the religious POV. Do you object to starting, 'In Abrahamic religious texts...'?  If so why? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I forgot your objection to using the word "scriptures" but have now replaced it with "texts" which is pretty bland, but at least perhaps still more neutral. Other than that, it's just framing as specifically as possible where the main texts are. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to 'scriptures' but some others do, see above. I think just 'texts' is too vague and potentially seriously misleading.  I prefer 'scriptures' or 'religious texts'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My views: in the course of discussion a number of dictionary definitions were put up by myself and others: none of them equate solely to "purely false" they all seem appropriate. As far as science is concerned this story is fiction (there was no global flood. Full stop.) This story should be clearly labelled as mythology to prevent the mistake of regarding this as historical fact (which it is not, as per science, biblical scholars, head of catholic church etc). There is a style guideline which tells us how the term is to be used (and has been used all over wikipedia). For some reason this is not acceptable for Noah's ark to some people. Reasons have ranged from "offensive" (which is not policy and see Mohammed's page for the images of mohammed) which has not been shown with any sort of reference to "atheist communist propaganda". The pope and at least one other religious leader (I gave links to these references in the talk page) have said that genesis is not to be taken literally. There are pages on Christian mythology, Islamic mythology, Jewish mythology, Deluge (mythology) etc which are perfectly valid and of which this page belongs to. This story is "a religious story of ancient origins which may hold special significance to some people" (which is basically what all the dictionary definitions show). it would be good to have links to those pages where people can read what mythology means to various people. We've got the myth box to clarify and re-iterate what the style guide says the term is to be used to mean (which is the academic sense). In short: some people want this to appear as historical fact because of their beliefs, that's not what wikipedia is for, we should be using terms correctly as per policy/guidelines and academic correctness. NathanLee (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)