Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-04/Serenity Prayer

Where is the dispute?
Serenity_Prayer - Secular and Atheist Versions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:Hgilbert
 * User:Kenyonsf

What is the dispute?
The dispute involves the removal of the "Secular and Atheist versions" section. It is claimed that, although these are words of wisdom/opinions, that they be removed because they "should have appeared in print and achieved some formal recognition." It is my understanding from reading the wikipedia policies that this is not the standard for inclusion. For the many people struggling with recovery and other issues, these words are very useful. Rather than engaging in a constant edit/revert process, I am turning to the Meditation Cabal for assistance in resolving this issue.

What would you like to change about this?
Some guidance/outside opinion on whether this section is appropriate and should remain.

How do you think we can help?
Providing guidance on whether a section requires having "appeared in print and achieved some formal recognition." when it is not pointing to facts but words of wisdom

Mediator notes

 * The key question here seems to be: "Under Wikipedia's guidelines, are "words of wisdom" not facts that are subject to the same rules as other factual statements?
 * Supposing for a moment that one considers these words of wisdom to be a fact—that is, "it is a fact that these are the words to the secular version of the Serenity Prayer," then it seems to me the rules would have to apply.
 * I think almost any quotation is "likely to be challenged", and therefore under WP:PROVEIT almost any quotation needs to be sourced.
 * It's a well-established principle of Wikipedia that you can't use your personal knowledge alone as a basis for including information. You have to show references for the knowledge; otherwise, it's original research, and that would violate WP:OR.
 * If the quotation is unpublished, that means that no one can verify it. If no one can verify it, it fails WP:VERIFY.  If it has been published somewhere, even if it's non-trivial or expensive to verify it, that's okay.
 * Jimmy Wales has backed this up, and the quotation seems on point: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong.  It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."
 * So, if "words of wisdom" in this case are facts, then it seems clear to me that yes, they need to be properly cited.
 * Suppose that these words of wisdom are not facts.
 * If they are instead opinions, then they do not have a place in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a forum for publishing original thought, like opinions.
 * If they are neither facts nor opinions, it seems to me that leaves fiction. Given that this article is about factual information, there should not be any fiction in it; the typical exception would be notable works about the topic, duly cited and vetted for relevance.  I don't think that's applicable here.
 * It looks like the section on the secular and atheist versions has been around for a while, and has grown over time.
 * At one time, it included several versions with citations. Those were removed by editor Macrakis with a cliam that they were not notable and were from blogs.
 * In general, blogs are not WP:RS because they are self-published and have no editorial oversight, so anybody can post anything they want.
 * One exception noted in WP:RS would be blogs "by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I note that, at one time, a version of the prayer was cited to Richard Dawkins' blog.  Dawkins is famous for being an atheist, and has multiple widely-published books on the topic that gave him that fame.
 * I would disagree with Macrakis' assertion that Dawkins' blog is not a reliable source for the quotation given. I would accept Dawkins as an expert in atheism, and so I would give the benefit of the doubt to his version of the prayer, especially if it is cited in the article as "a secular version of the prayer."  It would be even better if framed with "Richard Dawkins, a notable atheist, posited this version of the prayer:"
 * The other, random versions of the prayer from random blogs, were not in and of themselves sufficiently well cited to meet the guidelines. If the pointed to a list of such sources, showing that the version cited is presented identically across a wide range of unrelated websites and blogs, I think one might be able to argue it shows a pattern of proof for widespread acceptance of the version.
 * Most recently, user KenyonSF restored a version of the section that does not include any citations.
 * Aside from one edit in 2007 and one edit in 2009, all of KenyonSF's edits have been to this article over the last two weeks.
 * Users hgilbert and Macrakis reverted those edits, claiming they violate WP:N and WP:RS.
 * Macrakis left a note in the edit summary, but did not open discussion on the Talk page, nor did they leave a note for KenyonSF on that user's Talk page.
 * hgilbert left a note in the edit summary directing KenyonSF to the talk page, where hgilbert started a discussion stating that they are open to the idea of re-adding the section, but only if it is properly cited. hgilbert did not leave a note on KenyonSF's talk page.

On the balance, I think that the way that these prayers are mentioned in the article presents them as factual quotations, not opinions or fiction. The terms used in the disputed section do not attribute them as opinions; indeed, I have difficulty seeing how these quotations could be framed as opinions, given the surrounding article.

As such, if these are indeed versions in widespread use, then it should be possible to find some citation for them, even if it's a relatively weak one. Surely some support group has printed up a flyer with them? It'd be preferable to find a book, or a magazine article, or a research journal, or even a broadcast interview that includes the text of the prayer; those would be more likely to be reliable sources.

I understand that some people may find the non-secular version of the prayer distasteful, but would find a secular or atheist version useful. However, the utility of the prayer for the reader of the article is a non-issue here. Wikipedia is not a self-help manual. The text in question is written in a way that makes it a self-help guide, and so—regardless of how it's cited—it's not appropriate the way it's written for this site. As WP:NOTMANUAL notes, there are sister sites to Wikipedia that are appropriate places for self-help guides.

So: Having been asked to provide a third opinion on whether or not words of wisdom require citations, I have to say:


 * 1) In the context of this information in this article, it seems clear to me that they do require citations.  As per Wikipedia policy, any citations must be from reliable sources and be verifiable.
 * 2) The version of the section as most recently added does not meet the guidelines of the WP:MOS, and would need revision even if it were properly cited.
 * 3) Previous versions of this article had quoted versions of the prayer with sources that were rejected. I think at least one of those sources is acceptable, if the appropriate framing text were added to the article.
 * 4) If the article claims, directly or by omitting any qualifications, that a version of the prayer is in widespread use, it must cite sources to prove widespread use.
 * 5) If the article claims that a particular version is in use by certain people, it must cite sources to prove that those people use that version.  Depending on how it's phrased, this may require less stringent sources than a claim of widespread use, but it still must meet the WP:RS criteria.

I think that KenyonSF means well, but is a relatively new editor, and would benefit from reviewing the Wikipedia Help, particularly the Policies and Guidelines section. It might have helped if one of the other editors involved had remembered not to bite, and had instead left a welcome message on KenyonSF's talk page.

However, hgilbert did the right thing in opening the discussion on the talk page, and I think it was a bit premature to turn to Medcab with no additional comment from other editors on the talk page. There's no deadlines on Wikipedia; I understand it's often difficult to be patient. This is still something that can be discussed civilly on the talk page.

Administrative notes
No further feedback from either user on the talk page in response to the provided opinion; no further edits noted. Presuming the issue is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)