Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ/Archive 1

Pseudoscience
I've restored a comment that was in the faq from at least 2004 to about late 2007, when it got removed in a text cleanup. I think it clarifies the scope of the Pseudoscience section in a way that the revised, 2008 wording does not. To whit, "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science." Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

FAQ pseudoscience discussion reopened

 * Moved from Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view

For reference, the current intro wording is this:

The question and answer simply don't fit together. In fact, the question the answer appears to answer is this one: What does NPOV mean in the context of pseudoscientific theories? Then our answer would make sense.

But the question asked is something else. It is "how to write an article on a pseudoscientific topic" (e.g. astrology). In this context, the sentence "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate" simply does not compute. I said at the time that the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on astrology devotes 4 large, densely printed, double-column pages to describing the history of astrological thought, its cultural standing over the centuries, etc., and that it ends with the words "In short, modern Western astrology, though of great interest sociologically and popularly, generally is regarded as devoid of intellectual value." In other words, the EB thought it "proportionate" to devote most of its article on astrology to the description of pseudoscientific thought, and surely that is appropriate in the article devoted to such a topic.

I also thought that when it comes to Ancient astronaut theories and the like, our articles on these theories should not contain lengthy quotes from primary sources such as Erich von Däniken & Co. Instead editors should be encouraged to search out mainstream scientific analyses of these pseudosciences as sociological or religious phenomena, like this source here: Where such a scientist quotes Däniken, we can of course quote what he quotes (E. v. Däniken, quoted by X in Y). But where there is a body of secondary literature, editors should follow that, and not be let loose to quote the primary source bits they like best.

So, the suggested wording was this:

We could of course keep the existing answer as well, but should change the question preceding it, as indicated above. -- Jayen 466 12:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'm inclined to use both your suggested response, and the old one with a new question, yours to emphasize the standard rules on POV-forks, and the old one to make it clear that minority views should not be presented as equally important as the majority ones in main articles. However, what does everyone think about moving both of them into a new section fo the main WP:NPOV page, with a change of questiona nd answer to more standard text? They're the basis for the important guideline WP:FRINGE, so I do think they should have a simple, policy-level statement. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with moving them into a new section either qith a Q&A or with a 'more standard text'. Doug Weller (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to moving them there. Jayen 466 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Moving anything onto the main policy page should have a fair amount of community input I would think, especially on this topic.(olive (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
 * That new version is a lot clearer and ties in well with issues of basing articles on reliable secondary sources rather than giving priority to self-descriptions by pseudoscience promoters, so support the change. Not sure if there's much value in keeping the previous version to supplement it. It could be readily phrased as an instruction rather than a question and answer and so made suitable for a move to the main policy page, which would perhaps help to point out that this is a policy. There's validity in the need for consultation before such a move, but it must be accepted that this is policy regardless of which page it appears on. . dave souza, talk 18:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work, Jayen466. Reads much better and a lot clearer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Echoing Jossi, this was well-done, and should be incorporated into policy. It is clear.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Jayen: I'm inclined to be a bit clearer about the issue. for instance, I'd prefer something like this (using the same question as in your second box, above):
 * further, if you want to retain the first paragraph as a separate FAQ question, then I'd prefer it to be modified for clarity. something like this, maybe:
 * I think these answer both questions fully and appropriately. -- Ludwigs 2  20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Both of these make it less clear.  Jayen's is much better.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * More comments. First, if an article represents a pseudoscience, and it is well known, then yes, the scientific debunking should be the primary, if not exclusive, theme of the article.  And I just cannot support the use of "fairly" in anything, since it's so judgmental.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Orange (damn, I have an inexplicable urge to call you 'Agent Orange' today ) - the article is supposed to be about a pseudoscience, not 'the debunking of a pseudoscience'.  the 'debunking of a pseudoscience' wouldn't even be notable enough for an article without an article about the pseudoscience itself.  you're forgetting that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for establishing truth.  it's our job to present even pseudoscience in a clear, neutral, and fair manner.  and no, I do not think wikipedia wants to establish a policy that says wikipedia reserves the right to be brutally unfair to any topic it thinks is stupid.  that's just wrong, on so many levels.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the POV which has caused so much damage to the NPOV status of articles on fringe topics. It is this which needs to be specifically addressed and put to rest in a final way per policy.  It is this POV which the former FAQ gave some tenuous support, by making the scientific view ipso facto the majority. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Martin, the scientific view is not a majority view. It is the verified and supported view.  If Wikipedia were to work using a majority view, the UFO's exist and make crop circles. Science lacks a POV, it simply is a methodology to ascertain the behavior of the natural world.  It can't think.  It can't opine.  Because humans, who are fundamentally flawed in being that rational, run science, a whole system was created to publish articles, to review them, and to bring them to the forefront fore discussion.  Over time these theories are enhanced and developed until they are fundamental facts, like Evolution or Gravity.  Psychics or paranormal are both rejected because they cannot be tested scientifically or when tested scientifically were found to be lacking.  So, your POV and Ludwig's suggestions actually create a POV, instead of keeping it NPOV.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Orange, this doesn't quite track. setting aside things that I would heartily love to debate but are out of scope (e.g.: of course science has a POV - what do you think a methodology is based on, if not a set of pre-binding assumptions?), let me make a few necessary things clear:
 * wikipedia is not here to defend science or truth. wikipedia is here to present human knowledge, and this means all human knowledge, even where it's wrong knowledge.  pseudoscience topics are valid field of human knowledge in their own right, and should be presented as such.
 * NPOV does not mean 'lacking a POV' on wikipeida; it means fairly representing all significant POVs. so even if science did lack POV (which isn't true) that would be completely irrelevant.  we're not looking for sources that present some 'neutral truth', ever; we're looking for sources that present their own POV, so that we can balance those fairly with other sources.
 * you are consistently oblivious to context, and that puts a tremendous strain on the credibility of your arguments. if you can't distinguish the different contexts in which a fringe topic might appear, how could you possibly have any insights in to the contextual nuances that go into establishing neutrality?
 * -- Ludwigs 2 22:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Science is a POV, and it is not Wikipedia's job to present information in a way which favors any POV. "Even if science did lack POV (which isn't true) that would be completely irrelevant...we're looking for sources that present their own POV" and we present all the POVs in proportion to their prominence.  I happen to believe science is the only way of gaining knowledge, but that doesn't matter.  Your take on psychic stuff is uninformed, but it doesn't matter either: Wikipedia is still not in the business of taking sides.  Orange, your POV has been discussed and rejected by the Wikipedia community.  There is no point engaging you on it.  Just don't edit war over it. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? Where has MY POV been rejected.  In fact, it's been supported more times than not. Give me a fucking break.  You just can't make broad pronouncements and get away with it.  Oh that's right, you used your pseudoscientific psychic powers to divine what I know and don't know.  I keep forgetting how much smarter you are than I.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's be civil here, please. Dreadstar †  03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work, you guys. For history's sake, I am against any policy which makes the scientific view ipso facto the majority view. This is used on articles to argue that within articles on fringe subjects the scientific view has the greatest WEIGHT, and thus should be favored in terms of a) space and b) wording. In other words, it takes over the subject of the article and tends to be asserted as fact or presented with wording which gives a very heavy bias.

I support Jayen's drafts and I think that Ludwig's drafts are very good expansions on it and make the issue clearer. I think we need to make sure the final draft makes clear that per WEIGHT the scientific opinion is not going to take over the entire article, per Ludwigs.

Thus the previous version has to go. It is not in accord with the NPOV principle.

I think we need to make it clear that the criticism should come either 1) from critics outside the field, in which case it should be Attributed. Or 2) should come from sources within the field (eg Astronomy) in which case it can be presented as the majority opinion, unless there is good reason to attribute-- for example, if the person writing is a noted critic of pseudoscience in general or a member of CSICOP.

We also need to note, per dave souza above, that pseudoscience sources are perfectly acceptable for describing the positions of fringe ideas. I don't know what he's really getting at, but if he thinks WP should use the secondary sources in order to take their point of view, instead of a neutral POV, then that is an indication that we need to make things clear. When he says "basing articles," it seems as if he would describe a fringe POV from the perspective of a mainstream source, thus cutting out the fringe POV's ability to speak for itself. That's unacceptable. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This makes sense, finally. In a simplistic  parallel. If in the fine arts I am writing an article on Rauschenberg's goat sculpture Monogram which let's say many critics would say is not art, then I can't write an article about Rauschenberg's goat and have most of the article be about how this is not mainstream art. The article is about the goat and no matter my view on it, and although certainly, the article must contain material on the critics' views of the goat negative and positive, the "weight" of the article must be about the topic (or subject) of the article, that goat. That's encyclopedic...(olive (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Exactly. We need to make that clear, and also that sources within the fringe POV are good -often best- for explaining that POV.


 * You can use fringe and pseudoscientific sources to describe beliefs, but you cannot use them to describe reality. Articles on, for example time cube, remote viewing or a flat earth need to accurately describe the ideas and their history, but need to also give a clear and thorough account of their relation to reality. It would be unacceptable, for example, to write an entire article on ideas about the flat earth without balancing the claims of advocates with the facts from reliable sources. This also needs to be done throughout much of the text, so that the reader can be given a clear idea about each claim. However, such an account of the relation between claims and reality should not be the sole purpose of the article, since the history and sociology of such ideas need to be covered as well. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're basically right, but I believe you err in your use of the word "reality." We don't do reality here on WP, but sources.  Yes, on all controversial subjects we need to describe both sides of any controversy, and who says what.  Yet, we should never, ever contrast POV X with Reality.


 * Controversy should have weight relative to its prominence in the sources. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources must be reliable sources, and undue weight must not be given to minority views amongst expert opinion on the subject. Where the subject is claimed to be science, that claim has to be shown in relation to majority expert scientific opinion and the scientific consensus on the subject. Of course that doesn't prevent due weight being given, for example, to majority expert theological views of faith based subjects. . . dave souza, talk 08:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As Dave observes, there is often a close interaction between WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. When discussing majority and minority points of view, it needs to be done keeping in mind the reliable sources analysis. If a pursuit such as, say parapsychology or "psychic", such as is at issue here, is asserted by certain of its advocates to be a "science", the majority view of the scientific community must be given its due weight w.r.t. that assertion and the minority view its respective due weight, using also a reliable-sources assessment when making the "due weight" assessment. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No consideration versus rejection
I see a WP:NOR problem with these:


 * ...these claims are not even seriously discussed by present-day scholars in that field, the presentation must clearly state that the theory has found no scientific acceptance. (Jayen)


 * ...Since pseudoscientific theory often make claims related to established sciences, the article must clearly state that the theory has not found scientific acceptance. (Ludwigs)

These can be read as: Lacking serious/reliable sources you may/should jump to the conclusion that the scientific/reliable sources reject the novel/pseudoscientific theory. Inferring verifiability from a *lack* of reliable sources? That would be a first...

In that case I'd prefer to stay with the present formulation, which is a bit more woolly but doesn't seem to have this NOR related issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Very good point. In practice, it is almost always the case that this "non acceptance" will be stated in the fringe or mainstream sources (and either are RS for such a statement), and if it isn't stated anywhere that it has been "not accepted" (or rejected), then it is OR just like you say.... but it is non-controversial almost always.  And perhaps we should make it clear that "not accepted," or "not considered" is not the same as "rejected."  FRINGE already does that, but it could be stated here also.  For example, saying that the concept of Orgone energy is not accepted by the scientific community isn't going to get tagged usually as it's self evident.  Saying that Psi (parapsychology) isn't accepted by mainstream science will not raise any eyebrows.  Saying either has been rejected is contentious, however, and therefore requires sources combined with attribution.  That's what you're saying, and the statements above are in harmony with that principle.  Maybe we just need to add a sentence? From FRINGE:


 * However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a good point, but a lack of credible scientific sources would mean that the subject is not notable as science, and should not be presented as having any scientific credibility. Thus a protoscience such as the phrenology of the 1820s became recognised as a pseudoscience, and it might be difficult to find any modern mainstream sources giving it serious consideration. A more nuanced situation arises where claims are still made for scientific credibility but no evidence has been published in recognised scientific journals, or the little attention it has been given by mainstream science has found it wanting. That still meets the current WP definition that "Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status." In such cases care has to be taken to ensure that a lack of modern attention is not presented as giving any credibility, or allowed to give undue weight to claims made by proponents. . . dave souza, talk 08:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the WP definition that anything which has not received publication in mainstream scientific journals, but claims to be science, is pseudoscience? Oh, well, it's the "otherwise lacks scientific status" bit, I see.  Lol.  Well, that makes most research, published in little specialist journals, pseudoscience.  Not only has it not gained overall "status," it never will because it's only of interest to a sub-sub-discipline which only two or three people in the world know much about.  Don't cite WP articles for accurate understanding for use in making overall policy.  That last bit should just be taken out.  I agreed completely with this diff. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 08:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Martin, I don't know what to say about the comment above except that it seems to demonstrate pretty severe misunderstanding of how science works. First, a journal can be "specialist" without being not mainstream. Specialist journals are frequently cited by other journals in other areas. And those aren't the only issues. Reputable journals of all types go through rigorous peer-review by experts in the fields. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, well if that's what he's getting at then there is no problem. I thought he was saying something different, hinging on the word "recognized." —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the OR problem Francis raises could be solved as follows:

Any good? :-) Jayen 466 17:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Except there are clearly notable pseudosciences that scientists won't even bother thinking about. Consider for example EVP which is so thoroughly rejected that it is very hard to find any scientists even saying "yeah, that's crap". But EVP is clearly notable with many mainstream media sources discussing the idea especially when it comes up in fictional contexts (as it has in many recent movies and television shows). JoshuaZ (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience – "4a) Verifiability and Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such." – feel free to summarise. . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it, doesn't this arbitration decision more or less remove the OR concern that Francis raised? Jayen 466 04:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert on EVP, but I'm pretty sure there are scholars of psychology, sociology etc. who find this sort of thing an interesting topic for research, especially if it's prominent in contemporary entertainment media., , , . The thing is, if no one has studied it, not even out of psychological or sociological interest, if the press don't mention it, and not even the Skeptics have a page on it somewhere, then we don't need to have a page on it either. Jayen 466 15:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the problem with Jayen's draft above is that, unlike the quote above, it doesn't say "reliable source varies with the topic of the article." It is clear that a RS for the content of a fringe idea will be the proponents of the fringe idea.  I really liked Ludwigs expanded version, because it made some of these things clearer. Basically, Jayen's draft may be easier to put in the policy, yet it doesn't cover a lot of things.  Still, as long as it can't be used against policy, it might be alright.  I do see that potential  though "this isn't a mainstream source which says what fringe people believe, so we can't use it."   You might not get the history in a mainstream source at all.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since a rewrite could be included in the mother policy, NOPV, and since the question and answer format is used very little there, I have transcribed as a statement rather than a question: This is a combination of the work and words of multiple editors, and hope they don't mind my using their words in this draft.(olive (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

[The above is not by me - Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)]
 * I find Olive's suggestion confusing, paticularly the third paragraph. Also, insisting on attribution could result in situations where you see something like "The Organisation of Psudoscientific Scholars say that there is strong evidence that UtterNonsense exists. Frederick Farrar disagrees, and says that UtterNonsense is not possible under the laws of science." - where Frederick Farrar is representing the majority, scientific view, and the Organization of Pseudoscientific Scholars has only a dozen members. Attribution could easily directly violate undue weight. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion above, Actually, I believe it should be possible to find at least some scientific discussion of the paredolia-like ways that people delude themselves into thinking that EVPs occur on a certain bit of tape. It might be necessary to go back to its earlier form, playing records backwards to find supposed "secret messages", but there's almost surely some commentary out there. And, given parity of sources, the pro-EVP sources are pretty weak, so we need not counter with articles in top-tier journals. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Shoemaker are you on the wrong page, perhaps? I put together the draft above as noted, based on the several drafts and ideas by multiple editors. I am in the dark or at least twilight on why you have introduced EVP into this discussion on a NPOV/FAQ and NPOV policy.(olive (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC))


 * The first and second paragraphs discuss undo weight in both articles whose topics are science and pseudoscience.(olive (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
 * EVP was used as an example a little bit above. I just threw in the comment down here as an aside. I'll edit it a little to make that clear. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Olive, where do you get the idea that we should be using "less reliable sources"? If no reliable third party sources show that it's science, then we don't present it as science. . dave souza, talk 11:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Attribution violates undue weight? Not if the scientific source is any good, and the reader not a total idiot. Rather, it strengthens it. Anyone else think that attribution is likely to mislead a reader? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there's nothing to prevent total idiots from reading and misunderstanding anything in our articles which is in any way obscure, and some seem to think that fringe or pseudoscientific organisations should be shown as though they match mainstream organisations with titles which are not in common usage by the general public. WP:NPOV, Undue weight "the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view" and WP:NPOV/FAQ apply. . dave souza, talk 11:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's one of those things where I've seen it done - the majority side is carefully attributed to individual scientists, making it look like there's just a few scientists that hold those views. There's a WP:FRINGE section on Particular attribution which, while it could be done a lot better, does point out a genuine problem: That attribution can be used to imply that widely-held beliefs are only held by a tiny minority, or, by using the names of tiny fringe organisations, you can make fringe theories appear to be much more widely-held. Both are problematic. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that as long as there's confusion, the writing is still too complex. If we can't understand it, either will a new editor looking for guidance.To explain, this rewrite includes work from Jayen, dave souza, Ludwigs, and Martinphi. I tacked it together.


 * The reference you make, Dave, to "less reliable sources" is not for science but pseudoscience, and I think attribution implies verifiability. That should be clear if not it should be rewritten.


 * The third paragraph is saying basically: In the case of a pseudoscience where mainstream sources are difficult to find the editor may use : a notable source by expert scholars to explain historical and philosophical perspective, if necessary a less reliable source well attributed (verifiable), and if not notable the pseudoscience should not be included in Wikipedia.


 * Doesn't the first paragraph take care of problems with presenting a minority view as if its a majority view, and in the second paragraph as well where it says pseudoscience should not be considered a mainstream scientific view and its relationships  to more  accepted scientific  viewpoints described?(olive (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC))


 * WP:V already takes care of this. The problem I’ve seen is where one or two mainstream scientists have made a comment about a pseudo or fringe science, and that singular comment is presented as being the view of the entire scientific community, while there’s no WP:V source that says the entire scientific community shares that view.  Indeed, it has been used in situations where members of the scientific community have not all agreed that something is pseudoscience – a few believe something possible, yet those holding the minority opinion are completely disenfranchised.  If only a limited number of the mainstream scientific community have commented on something, then that should be made clear... but the small number of actual comments should not be made to look like it’s a view held by the entire mainstream scientific community.  Rare is the occasion where the mainstream scientific community agrees on anything.  The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; so while the majority or even all members of the scientific community may agree that something is impossible, or stupid, or pseudo or fringe, if it is not Verifiable, then it is not something that can or should be included in Wikipedia.  If it is made so that you can do synthesis or original research for pseudoscience and fringe topics, then why not every other subject?  It’s a slippery slope and it is misleading to our readers.  We need to maintain complete neutrality and verifiability across the board in a predictably consistent manner.  Making an exception for pseudo/fringe articles doesn’t do that. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Practical considerations
The approach remains rather theoretical/philosophical – which maybe isn't too bad while we want it to cover a lot of aspects. Nonetheless contributors might want to find more practical recommendations. Here are some ideas, not yet clear-cut policy or guideline text, but let's explore whether such approach might add more practicality: --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the theory, approach or ideas we want to describe in a Wikipedia article make scientific claims or assumptions?
 * 2) * Scientific claims (in this sense) may follow from several indicators: the person proposing the approach may claim to be a scientist or professor; the terminology to describe the ideas may be hooked in a scientific discourse; the theory may be published in a scientific journal (Nature, The Lancet,...); The proposed claims may be discussed by the scientific community; [non-limitative list]
 * 3) * If the described theory, approach, ideas, claims, don't carry *any* scientific claims, no mention of "science" nor "pseudoscience" need to be made in the Wikipedia article describing them;
 * 4) * If there are scientific claims, then,
 * 5) ** The scientific community may reject the novel theory/approach/ideas/claims virtually unanimously: then it wouldn't be too difficult finding reliable sources to that effect: use them to describe the scientific approach, on the same page as the description of the novel theory/approach/ideas/claims, in order to acquire a NPOV.
 * 6) ** The scientific community may embrace the novel theory (without necessarily approving): then it would not be too difficult to find sources describing the novel theory as a scientific theory: use the available sources to describe and qualify the novel theory (without leaving out possible reserves scientists my have per the reliable sources).
 * 7) ** The scientific community may be ambiguous, some approving, some rejecting: anyway, again reliable sources are available to describe these approaches, and should be used in the Wikipedia article;
 * 8) ** The scientific community at large may remain moot on the point: attention should be given not to describe the novel theory as if it were something the scientific community is involved in: depending on circumstances e.g. the Wikipedia article could indicate that the theorist proposing the new ideas is a science fiction author, that the expression "speed of light" as used by the theorist is not 299,792,458 metres per second (take care not to suggest the contrary e.g. by using wikilinks "speed of light" in that case). Sometimes the "broader picture" should be given, summarizing conventional scientific approaches on the subject (take care not revert to original research, by adding something like "...therefore the [novel theory] is wrong" if no reliable source states thus - let the reader come to his/her own conclusion).
 * 9) "In universe" aspects: some novel approaches/theories/... may carry a distinct artistic (or otherwise) in-universe component, e.g. ’pataphysics - in which case WP:INUNIVERSE should be observed in writing an article about such approaches/theories.
 * A general rule might be "If insufficient sources exist to discuss the scientific community's response to a fringe theory, which claims to be scientific or makes claims obviously related to a scientific field, then the theory should not be on Wikipedia. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Too narrow, imho: Wikipedia's "reliable source" concept is broader than "scientific sources" (it might be useful to refer to the rejected WP:SPOV here). Scientific claims treated only in non-scientific reliable sources may have a place in Wikipedia. Whether they would have in a separate article is not the issue here (I mean, in the context of the NPOV policy). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would think, this rule would be so open to interpretation and other difficulties as to be impossible to handle in any contentious environment:
 * What constitutes insufficient sources could be debated.
 * Science does not sufficiently deal with fringe, if at all, by definition ... fringe to what.... fringe to science. Since peer-reviewed science becomes by definition the mainstream, and what makes something mainstream could be, at the least, peer-review, a relatively closed loop is created that would not include notable, albeit, not mainstream science topics - fringe to science topics.
 * In an article on a so called fringe science or a pseudoscience, references to science can and should be made as long as the pseudoscience is not shown to incorrectly be mainstream, since the terms fringe science and pseudoscience refer in part to a relationship the topic has to science, however slight that might be. In an article, material might be included to show the topic's non-association to science, the debunking of the pseudoscience in relation to science, as long as it is appropriately weighted, and attributed. All of this is possible in a well sourced, well written complete article but would be disallowed by the above suggestion, seems to me.(olive (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC))
 * Since we need attibution to show that it's science, if such verification is unavailable then we don't show it as science, but as a non-science social phenomenon. Where it's been subject to scientific testing which has not shown any validity for the claims, then we state just that. Since proponents of such claims commonly claim to have made tests, reports of scientific tests have to be published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Reports in fringe journals or self-published claims by proponents have to be treated as primary sources. . dave souza, talk 17:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because it's in a p-r journal doesn't mean it isn't WP:PRIMARY. We can report proponent's claims about their tests.  Also, above people were saying that attribution was a factor detracting from its believability.


 * The problem around here is that people often don't quite get that we aren't out to present the truth. We're just presenting sources, and attributing.  So all this evaluation that people are doing-- we don't have to do that.  We don't have to evaluate the truth of a claim, we only have to let the reader know who the claimant is.  We have to present sources in accordance with their prominence, not their truth.  If we use the sources right, we can write a good article on any topic without ever evaluating for ourselves who is right and who is wrong. Attribution kind of takes truth off our hands.


 * Prominence not truth: that is why RS and WEIGHT are relative to the article, not to some general body of humanity or intellectuality. Otherwise you could never rank which source is most prominent for the article.  In a fringe area, you would find that the most prominent sources are the fringe ones.  The most prominent sources stating the scientific or mainstream scientific opinion of the fringe topic will be from mainstream sources.  The most prominent sources stating the fringe opinion of the mainstream will be fringe sources.  The most prominent sources stating the relationship of the fringe claim to the mainstream will be both from fringe and mainstream sources, and attribution will be particularly important: don't like that?  No, we aren't here to tell the reader what the relationship is, we're out to report what people say.


 * Yes, that means if the reader can't tell a good source from a bad one, the reader will be twisting in the wind of truth and falsehood. That isn't our concern.  We aren't here to tell the reader what to believe.


 * The phrase "we...show it as" in the post above: that's utterly wrong. We aren't here to show anything as anything.  If that is how people are thinking about policy, then something very wrong is going on.


 * People don't get the italicized text here:


 * "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context."


 * Note that you can always get RS on fringe topics: the publications of proponents are the fully RS sources which you use.


 * For what they believe. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, self-published sources are by definition generally unreliable, and can only be used in specific exceptional circumstances - most fringe topics would fail that (e.g. per #3 "unduly self-serving") when no other sources apart from the self-published ones exist. But that is all WP:V matter, not something that needs to be rehashed for the purposes of the WP:NPOV policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You forget the fringe exception . That exception seems to have consensus because the alternative is to adjust NOTABILITY to exclude more, as Shoemaker suggests in a limited way above.  Whatever, but if we're talking about fringe, the sources have the fringe exception.  And of course in most fringe areas you can find plenty of fringe proponent sources from third party publishers.  We should probably make this exception even more clear, I guess.  The reason for it is that you sometimes can't describe a fringe idea without having recourse to such texts- yet it's still notable.  In FRINGE it's phrased to favor non-RS criticism, but the corollary is that fringe topics are also sourced to fringe sources, including self-published ones. This also constitutes an exception to WP:SELFQUEST 2, 3, 4, and 7. This is the practice.  If anyone wants to tighten up NOTABILITY, we've got a lot of articles to delete.  I'll support it.  There is of course disagreement on this, but the exception is commonly accepted, and necessary, since in many fringe areas you just don't have RS.  You have one or two RS which give it notability, but 90% of the description only exists on sites or self-published texts.  The alternative to using self published sources is thus to not allow fringe proponents to speak at all. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll notice the dodges on the Time cube article. It's about the site, not the ideas (thus I guess they could use the site as a source but for SELFQUEST), but they quote the website without citation.  This is where you get if you don't allow fringe sources to speak for themselves on articles about themselves.  Another example is the EVP article, where it has been argued that you can't use sources like the AA-EVP website.  The problem is that information is moving to the web, first, and second fringe ideas are often only described fully in proponent sources.  You can't get a full picture of a lot of these things without using their self-pub sources.  Perhaps we need to tighten NOTABILITY to say that unless there are enough mainstream sources for a full and comprehensive article, and some of the sources are by proponents, you can't have an article.  Proponents have to be able to speak for themselves or else WP is biased and not very useful.  This may not be easy to argue under current rules, but I think it would fly in a full-blown policy discussion.  So if anyone wants to argue that the fringe exception as I described is against policy, we need to have that discussion.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a misunderstanding of he Fringe policy,a s far as Ican tell. I believe you're talking about Parity of sources, which says that if the fringe claim's sources are weak, the criticism can be taken from similarly weak sources. That doesn't mean, though, that all the sources in an article can be self-published internet sources. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they could be- you need at least the requirement of NOTABILITY. But that is such a low requirement that if you are going to fully describe a fringe idea, you are going to be using such sources: this is used as a source here.  You just said "all the sources."  By standard policy, you don't use any such sources. That's why I'm saying there is a commonly accepted fringe exception.  It should be made more clear as now any wiki lawyer can do as he pleases. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, BTW, the logical corollary of WP:PARITY is that if the fringe sources are pretty good, and the skeptical sources are worse, you wouldn't use the skeptical sources. It assumes the fringe sources are always bad, or can be made out to be bad.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I can see why one might want to quote primary fringe sources -- articles on things like the Time cube or the moon landing hoax accusations are sometimes interesting and entertaining to read -- and the primary source may be more precise and detailed (or entertaining) than whatever coverage there has been in reliable sources. But I still feel queasy about letting editors loose on Daniken's collected works, or those of David Icke or of an EVP proponent, to pick their quotes as they will; I'd much rather restrict sources for such notable fringe topics to bona fide scholarly treatments (especially since such treatments often do exist, even on wacky stuff like EVP, and are unfortunately frequently ignored by us) ... or at least reports in reputable newspapers. The argument that the secondary sources may have got it wrong and Wikipedia has to rely on editors to select primary source quotes in order "to put things right" is not a very palatable thing to write into policy. Perhaps I'm lacking humour or need to lighten up a little. Jayen 466 05:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well no, we could do as you say... but it requires re-writing NOTABILITY in some manner where we'd always have enough mainstream sources to round out the article. Do you want a Wikipedia where fringe proponents don't get to speak for themselves at all?  That might be fine.  You are also going against the principle of PARITY.  Because a lot of the criticism sources are very promotional- Quackwatch, skepdic.com, etc.  The deal with parity is you have bad fringe sources and bad skeptical sources, but a loose NOTABILITY policy.  I have always thought that the source was relative to the claim, just like RS says.  So for example, I'm quite happy to have people sourcing to skepdic or quackwatch or whatever for a skeptical opinion.  But these sources are not RS- quackwatch was even noted as "partisan."   A "partisan" source promoting a particular POV and run by a single person is hardly RS, as the heading says.  Same with Skepdic.  However, I use these sources for critical POV, and I also use the Parapsychological Association for the parapsychological POV and aaevp.com for the evoip POV, as examples.  I usually write in Parapsychology related articles, which have many, many many peer-reviewed sources.  The critical sources are often not peer reviewed, and where they are RS, they are often out-dated.  here you have full justification for writing such articles with only scholarly criticism, and leaving out skepdic.com altogether.  I haven't insisted on it.  Perhaps I should.  I warm to your idea, but I do think letting fringe sources speak for themselves is necessary to round out the less talked-about fringe articles we have now.  Should we delete them?  How should we tell when they're notable enough? —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems once more, apathy has overtaken this discussion. But we still have a text version in the policy that we pretty much agreed at the time does not really make much sense. Shall we have another go? Jayen 466 22:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pathological science like Pseudoscience?
Maybe WP:PSCI is also valid for Pathological science, Junk science and their kin listed under Voodoo science? Said: Rursus (☻) 17:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing vs. describing a minority view neutrally
I added to the FAQ that it is not necessary to remove any information from an article which "advances the POV" of the minority, as long as we state emphatically that the viewpoint being advanced is in the minority.

Is this a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow? I think it's in accordance with recent rulings by the ArbCom.


 * "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view."

I think this distinguishes between:
 * 1) including a point of view (but not advocating it or "pushing for it") - which is permitted; and,
 * 2) using an article page for POV pushing - which is not permitted

The essential difference is that POV pushing declares one viewpoint to be right and/or another viewpoint to be wrong, while neutral editing merely says what a viewpoint is and why its adherents believe it.

In other words, we cannot say X is true. But we can say A believes X because of Y. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As phrased, I think it was a bit likely to only cause more problems: Remember that there's also weight issues: Including huge amounts of information on a tiny minority position in a mainstream article, for instance, gives the impression that the minority view is more significant than it is, even if you say "According to XYZologists" regularly. And, of course, you then get quibbling over well-referenced and the like that can cause problems themselves, plus appeals to popularity and cherry picking, which can skew an article despite containing well-referenced material. And, of course, with cherry picking and synthesising, an article or section can be "well-referenced", but still be nothing but original research.
 * The intent behind your edit was good, but it'd probably cause more problems than it solves. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, but I didn't mean mainstream articles. I had in mind only articles that are about a controversy (i.e., more than one side exists) or specifically about a view held by a tiny minority. Don't we have articles about conspiracy theories (like NASA has a secret lab somewhere in the desert with space aliens and flying saucers)?


 * I'm also not advocating original research - at least not on the part of us ordinary contributors. I am saying that published research that contradicts the mainstream should not be censored merely because it disagrees with the mainstream. That would amount to an endorsement of the mainstream as truth. I only had in mind cases where someone added an idea and/or its justification to an article about a politician, historian, scientist or engineer, but which was deleted with an edit comment like "rv POV".


 * We need a way to distinguish between contributor POV ("Let's put this in because *I* believe it") and the viewpoints of published authors. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We do distinguish between genuinely significant alernative views published in reliable sources, and views which are fringe where their inclusion in an article is inappropriate as giving undue weight to an extreme minority view. In articles devoted to these fringe views, we take care to give due weight to mainstream views of the fringe view. . dave souza, talk 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, evvewn in dedicated articles, it can sometimes be necessary to cut a lot of things about a fringe theory, because, for instance, it's written like a advertisement and the advocacy v. content ratio is low. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, of course, in these dedicated articles we must base them on verifiable third party reliable sources, using reliable secondary sources to avoid original research, and not just present advocacy from primary sources. . dave souza, talk 23:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is one of the problems with the new section: it presents as without exception something with dozens of exceptions. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Coming in very late just to wonder where WP:Undue comes into this (I think it does). dougweller (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy?(1)
How can a FAQ on a policy be a policy itself? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 09:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was split off the policy page several years ago, and helps to expand upon and clarify some of the issues involved. Pretty much the entire FAQ page can be found in the first revision of WP:NPOV. . Of course, in some ways, the name is a misnomer. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering that too. As Shoemaker points out, WP:NPOV/FAQ was spun off the main WP:NPOV policy.  Shortly thereafter, the policy tag was added  - apparently based on this discussion, according to the edit summary, but the discussion seems to indicate the FAQ was spun out of the policy because it "these are really essays and "chat", rather than policy".  Looks to me to be more along the lines of a guideline or even an essay.  Dreadstar  †  17:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's at least some important policy in there - WP:NPOV/FAQ, for instance, is the policy basis behind WP:FRINGE. I'd be inclined to remerge at least parts of the FAQ before downgrading it. The simple fact is that a clear, unambiguous statement like WP:NPOV/FAQ is the oly way to keep certain parts of Wikipedia at all sane to edit, such as Intelligent design, Evolution, Homeopathy and so on. Without it as policy, we could pretty much throw out any hope of getting any of those fields looking at all encyclopedic. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A dilemma. As the FAQ was spun off originally from the NPOV Policy one would think the material was significant but not crucial, possibly an important distinction. In which case, the auxiliary material should probably have never been tagged as a policy but left as an essay or at best a guideline. The Civility policy for example has numerous links to material/essays significant to the understanding of the policy but not critical to its explanation. If critical enough to be part of the policy one would assume that it should have been left on the page where it could be easily accessed. If any material is reinserted into the original policy, I would think a fair amount of discussion and a consensus would be necessary to distinguish what is necessary, from what is useful but not critical. (olive (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
 * Givenm it's BEEN policy for 7 years, I don't think we'd need that much re-evaluation. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

First, the pseudoscience bit (the bit in contention at this time) has not been policy for 7 years, but has been in constant conflict and question, and has been changed many times. Some of the users changing it were senior admins, who thought it was not in accord with WP basic policy. Second, the length of time it's been in could as easily be seen as it's being in need of review, as of it's having consensus. Third, it has been edit warred over, which often means it is not a consensus version, but people gave up. Fourth, the status of the FAQ as policy is in question, as above:

"What's for sure is that 18 KB of chat just doesn't belong in the main policy. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)"

So, I don't think there was any consensus to make it policy. We may need to merge/downgrade.

Fifth, the point is whether it is correct. There needs to be a discussion on whether some of its parts are actually NPOV in truth, or merely relics or bits which only some editors feel are correct. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless Martinphi provides some evidence, I don't think he accurately portrays the situation. His firststatement, portrayed more accurately, boils down to "The policy was questioned, and consensus said it should stay". If a policy having ever been challenged means it wasn't a policy, then no Wikipedia policy is one. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Somehow, it looks more like edit warring to me . —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's inaccurate. You ignore the lengthy talk page discussion that was ongoing simultaneously. That discussion went on for some time, but eventually died out after some mild constructive criticism of a new suggestion failed to result in any further suggestions. You'll note I was not even involved for much of the last part. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * shoemaker:
 * an FAQ should not be policy. at best it should have guideline status, and anything on the page that should be more than a guideline should instead be moved over to the policy page proper.  otherwise we open a tremendous back door where editors can surreptitiously write new policy without the normal review and consent process, and possibly end up with mutually contradictory policy statements.  I second Martin's suggestion that it should be downgraded.
 * I think it's high time this entire pseudoscience/fringe issue was reopened and revised. frankly, this supposed 'policy' strikes me more as a political move in ongoing ideological warfare than as useful aid in writing wikipedia articles.  the whole thing is predicated on a questionable understanding of the nature of science, and on some blatant misconstruals of the original ArbCom ruling (which itself is underspecified).
 * -- Ludwigs 2 06:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, something needs to be done, but let's take our time on it. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 08:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The ending of the discussion mentioned above by Shoemaker: "I've changed it in the proposal above, and made some tweaks in the response. See what you think. Any better? Jayen466 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)" —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 08:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Martin, but I'm getting a strong impression that you really want a major war with me. Maybe this isn't true, but I still think that such feelings means the best thing for me to do is to just disengage, and to make a polite request that you do the same, both of us communicating as little as possible with or about each other. If you would, I'd appreciate if you'd make sure that at least one neutral party's comment is said in any thread after I make a reply before you reply, and I'll do the same for your comments. I do not want to be pulled into a war with you, and so a tacit agreement to this sort of disengagement for the immediate future would be far preferred by me. Thank you. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * War with you? No idea what you mean.  You seem to be continually trying to get me banned from Wikipedia or sanctioned, etc. etc., but for my part I have only wanted to be left alone.  Nor have I done anything warlike toward you at all, although once I responded to an attack by going to AN/I.  I find no reason not to respond to you, but if you wish to not  respond directly to me that is up to you.  At any rate, be assured that I have no warlike intentions to anyone on Wikipedia, yourself very much included.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Various arguments about content aside for a moment, it seems fairly obvious to me personally that a FAQ page, which is effectively a policy fork where editors have substantially more leeway than they would ordinarily get on the policy page per se, is not properly categorized as a "policy". Plainly this one slipped through one of the many cracks that the diffuse concept of WP:Consensus quite frequently allows in such a large endeavor as Wikipedia. At best, it seems to me, this type of FAQ page is properly categorized as a supplemental guideline based on the policy page from which it is derived, unless adequate consensus can be achieved to the effect that it's not merely a convenience but instead is sufficiently central to the policy to merit the community's attention to maintain it with the same degree of diligence as policy pages in general. (I will intentionally avoid any personal judgement here about how well policy pages are typically maintained, except to say that in my observation more attention is typically paid to the core policy pages than is ordinarily devoted to various other pages.) ..... That said, this set of arguments is fundamentally a content dispute, which has escalated into an attempt to define or redefine the current balance between WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable sources, and perhaps also other policy pages that might be relevant here. Might I suggest that, if participants in this intense debate here can't hone in on what factors the dispute involves, or to the extent that participants disagree about either WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and/or other policy issues, that the discussion be moved into a forum where such balances are commonly negotiated? The normal course of resolving such content disputes is WP:RFC, followed if necessary by WP:RFArb, etc., ..... Maybe the most obvious step for longer term participants in WP:NPOV, of which this page is a direct extension, is to seriously consider "downgrading" this page to guideline status, and leave the content issues such as are being brought up here to local consensus about WEIGHT and RS, and if need be to RFCs and Arbcomm. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it best to keep it policy (as it has been for the last five years or so) until at least a few issues are settled. For instance, I think Neutral point of view/FAQ as important for understanding the NPOV policy as "Verifiability, not truth" for WP:V. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you say, Kenosis, except that we seem to be making some progress here, so give it a chance. I also don't know how it would be brought to ArbCom, as they don't do policy much.  The FAQ maybe should be downgraded.... which in itself might solve a problem, as either people would not care quite so much, or else any parts of it moved to NPOV would be given attention by the community.  Also, it's easier to say "the guideline doesn't jibe with policy."  On the other hand, I'm not sure the issue would get enough attention if it weren't policy, but whatever.  But this should not be seen as a content dispute, as it's been brewing for years. We have a couple good suggestions going, I don't see why we should not forge ahead. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Francis Schonken, this policy is essential for understanding aspects of the main NPOV policy, in particular WP:NPOV which links directly to this rather than providing the answers on the main page. It might clarify things if that section was reorganised to include all essential points from this policy, at which point anything less important could be covered in a guideline, but it's evident from current content disputes that this would be strongly contested and could easily escalate into a complete waste of time. A correction – when this was split from the main page, it was a summary style split into two aspects of the policy, and not a POV fork. . dave souza, talk 08:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dave, just to clarify, I didn't say "POV fork" but said "effectively a oolicy fork" in the sense you just described it, i.e. a fork devoted to FAQs. If it's to remain policy, it should of course be maintained accordingly by admins and other users familiar with specific aspects of NPOV such as WP:UNDUE, the Arbcom decision on pseudoscience, and other relevant aspects of WP:NPOV. At present, the section on "pseudoscience" appears to me to be consistent with the Arbcom decision, though there are many aspects of the section on "Balancing different views" that presently read like an opinion piece, with direct links to guidelines and even to essay pages. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to misrepresent that, I think we're on the same wavelength here. My feeling is still that it's not so much a fork as an amplification of aspects of the core policy, which have been left rather cryptic by the split showing the questions without the answers. As you say, it's consistent with the Arbcom decision, and the principles in that decision are important. Items 3a and 4a seem relevant to recent discussions. . . dave souza, talk 17:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy?(2)
This should not be a policy. WP:NPOV contains the actionable rule, and the examples here have broad consensus but are community interpretations of the NPOV policy. So, this should be labelled as what it is: a guideline. An official guideline, but nonetheless, a guideline. Mango juice talk 18:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been reaffirmed as policy several times, and has been policy since NPOV itself was, so, eh... Frankly, Policy and guideline are regularly misapplied anyway. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Policy?(3)
This has gone on long enough, FAQs are not policies, and this one was not meant to be one. Move the content you believe to be policy to the actual WP:NPOV policy and let this be a FAQ for that policy. Dreadstar †  16:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I know I am weighing in late, but I don't exactly agree. I DO agree that FAQs are not policy per se (NPOV is the policy, I think we all agree on this).  But I don't think FAQ is a "guideline" either.  Policies and guidelines are quite different things and ought to be different.  I do not see the FAQ as guidelinees because the FAQ only exist as an adjunct to the policy, as someone pointed out they were part of the policy and split off for length/structural reeasons.  To me they are still attached to the policy and have the weight of policy, not the weight of a guideline.  It seems to me that the source of the problem is this: when FAQ were split off of the policy page we should have created an entirely new category of WP pages.  It is not a policy page, but it is not a guideline either.  It is a codicil to a policy, it exists and has force only because (1) a policy exists and (21) this is connected to the policy.  It should not be spun off as a "guiideline" because it should only exist because of its relationship to NPOV.  I used the word "codicil" and that may be too legalisctic for Wikipedia but the fact is, I think we just have to come up with a new category to describe pages that are adjunct or auxiliary to policy pages ... and then reclassify this appropriately. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm...good point...guess WP:ESSAY doesn't fit either....aybe we need to create a new classification like WP:ADDENDUM..or perhaps something as simple as WP:FAQ with a subject qualifer NPOV Policy ? Dreadstar  †  17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the best tags for a page like this would be Supplement or Infopage, policy doesn't fit it, and guideline might, but I prefer the first two.  MBisanz  talk 17:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think those are excellent! I like Supplement best of all; much better than policy/guideline/essay.    Dreadstar  †  17:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been policy since 2002 (it was part of the NPOV policy before it was split off). You can't just demote it without at least getting a wide-ranging discussion. I'm reverting. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No it hasn't, you need to reexamine the evidence. This was split off the actual Policy because it wasn't policy material.  Dreadstar  †  17:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And immediately tagged with a policy tag when it was split off. Seriously, you're arguing that something that was tagged as a policy when it was split off, and which remained policy for, what has it been, five years, was never meant to be policy. Your argument has a severe disconnect from reality. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to review my edit from above: ":I was wondering that too. As Shoemaker points out, WP:NPOV/FAQ was spun off the main WP:NPOV policy.  Shortly thereafter, the policy tag was added  - apparently based on this discussion, according to the edit summary, but the discussion seems to indicate the FAQ was spun out of the policy because it "these are really essays and "chat", rather than policy".  Looks to me to be more along the lines of a guideline or even an essay.  Dreadstar  †  17:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)".  Dreadstar  †  17:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three years later is a bit late to begin objecting, don't you think? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Um...no. Dreadstar  †  18:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Shoemaker. If it was split off of policy, then it is no longer policy. To become Policy or reconnect to the original policy will require discussion and wide community input as is necessary when dealing with policy decisions like this.


 * I like Slrrubenstein's idea of denoting this is an auxiliary to a policy page... calling it a supplement is fine, too.(olive (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
 * It's been marked with the policy tag for three years. I simply think that it requires a reasonable discussion before it's changed. You can't very well say, in the middle of a discussion about it, that you're going to demote it now, and anyone who continues to say it's policy is clearly wrong. You need to show YOU have consensus first; you cannot claim that the status quo needs to show consensus to remain. Open a request for comment if you want, but I'm going to insist that proper procedures are followed. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's remained as a policy and has been used as such for good reason. Any merge into NPOV has to be carefully considered so that the policy isn't diluted. . dave souza, talk 18:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been being "carefully considered" for over four months. FAQ should not be a policy. Dreadstar  †  18:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's been under consideration for four hours. Just because you added something today to a section that had its last post on the 8th of October does not mean that the discussion continued from October until today. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Two policy pages for the same policy dilutes the statement and creates confusion. As has been noted above, if there is unique content in the FAQ that is needed in the policy page, it should be moved to the policy page - based on full discussion and consensus as is usual for updating a policy. It's useful for a policy page to be supported by a Q&A to help editors to make decisions about how to apply the policy in various situations, informed by experience, consensus, and in some situations, ArbCom findings - but the Q&A is not the policy, it illuminates the policy. An analogy is the relationship between the WP:V policy and the WP:RS guideline. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jack-A-Roe. We can't have two policy pages for the same policy.  Once an article splits off from a policy page, it is no longer that policy.  There is a practical issue here too: long-time editors have long watchliosts and people who watsh NOR and participate in discussions of proposed changes to NOR may not watch the FAQ page.  It is easier to make changes to FAQ than to NOR, for this reason, and for this reason it shouldn't have the same weight.  This is why Dave Souza expresses a very valid concern about merging this page back to NOR.  So it ought not to be a "policy."  That said, I still do not think it should be a guideline.  It should be called something that indicates that it exists because of and as a suppelement to NOR, and its purpose is to help people understand a policy.  That does not make it a policy, but it is not a guideline either, it exists by virtue of its function vis a vis a policy and we need a category that appropriately and clearly communicates this. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dreadstar that it would be better to call this page a guideline, or even for it to have no status, but have it simply as a help page regarding the policy. What do people see as the benefit of calling it policy? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of "help" pages concerning policies. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV/FAQ is the clearest policy-level discussion of how psuedoscience should be handled in Wikipedia. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's to become policy, there needs to be consensus for it to go on the policy page. As it's currently written, I don't think it would get that consensus. That's the problem with making FAQs policy &mdash; lots of people edit it to be helpful, but then it assumes the status of the policy it's attached to, which it really ought not to. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But it is policy. See the policy tag? It doesn't cease being policy until there's consensus to have it stop being policy. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a clear consensus that the policy tag shouldn't have been placed on it. In favor of it being tagged policy: Shoemaker's Holiday, Francis Schonken, Dave Souza. Against it being tagged policy: Rlevse, Dreadstar, Olive, Martinphi, Ludwigs, Kenosis, Mangojuice, Slrubenstein, SlimVirgin, MBizanz, Jack-A-Roe. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy?(4)
A discussion from October, which had no discussion since, had a few comments added today by Dreadstar, and then he promptly began claiming that per the four-month discussion...

No. You have just started a new discussion. The old discussion closed with no consensus, and it is now only four hours since you re-opened the topic, and thus far, far too soon to be making any changes to whether this is policy or not.In fact, Dreadstar changed this page from policy to guideline mere minutes after reopening the discussion, linking to that discussion, and treating it as if he was dealing with a long-running discussion, not one four months old. I think this behaviour is absolutely abominable. Please stop, open an RfC on this policy, and if you get consensus for your proposed change of levels after more than a couple hours have passed, then you'll have something. Less than one hour since you reopened a discussion is ridiculous. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is consensus that it shouldn't have been tagged as policy, SH, and there has been for months. People feel they have more leeway to edit this than a policy page, and not so many people watchlist it. In addition, there is text in it that arguably contradicts NPOV. Let's take the policy tag off it and decide what to call it, if anything. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The notion that it shouldn't be policy because people have been trying to edit it a lot is not at all persuasive. The response to that should be to revert people not to declare that somehow makes it not policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dreadstar and Slim Virgin. There is a large group of editors who don't agree this should be a policy so why not "clear the floor" and begin a discussion on what it should be.(olive (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
 * I've said this about five times: OPEN A POLICY RFC. Do this with proper process. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I’d like Shoemaker to please provide a link to the consensus that made this FAQ a policy; as I’ve stated before, the discussion at the time this was spun off WP:NPOV indicates that this FAQ was spun out of the policy because it "these are really essays and "chat", rather than policy". As for right now, I don't see any consensus or reasonable logic that this or any FAQ should be a policy at all.  And I agree with SlimVirgin, there’s clearly no consensus that this should be a policy.  If there are things in this FAQ that should be Policy, then move them to the relevant policy and make this FAQ what it should be....which is not a policy. Dreadstar  †  20:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Shoemaker, I'd also like to see where it was decided this should be policy. This page has no talk archives, so it's hard to see what's what. So far as I can tell, it was removed from the policy page because it was deemed inappropriate for policy. Then someone tagged it as policy, and there has been disagreement ever since. Removal and restoration of the tag:


 * Moved by FT2 out of the policy page, June 26, 2006
 * Tagged by Francis Schonken as policy, June 27, 2006.
 * Policy tag removed by Radiant! Sept 9, 2006
 * Restored by Francis Sept 9, 2006
 * Policy tag removed by Pmanderson March 15, 2007
 * Guideline tag removed by Jossi, so it's now untagged, March 16, 2007.
 * Policy tag restored by FeloniousMonk, March 17, 2007.
 * Policy tag removed by Dreadstar, Feb 12, 2009.
 * Restored by Shoemaker's Holiday Feb 12, 2009.
 * Policy tag changed to supplement by Littleoliveoil, Feb 12, 2009.
 * Restored by Dave souza, Feb 12, 2009.
 * Policy tag changed to supplement by SlimVirgin, Feb 12, 2009.
 * Restored by Stifle, Feb 12, 2009.


 * SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And how does that compare to other policy pages? I'm quite certain that you could make very similar lists for WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOR, and so on. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion here is that this page provides specific community-agreed-upon interpretations and applications of NPOV. These should be just as binding as a policy. If there is disagreement, then we should open it at least to a community-wide RFC. NPOV is far too important to the project to deal with this in any less casual of a manner. -- Levine2112 <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 21:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If this page "should be just as binding as a policy", then it should be policy. Cardamon (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 00:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that this same question is being discussed at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. It's not clear from that discussion whether it's about this section or the pseudoscience thread at the top of this page, but the question about the FAQ being policy is mentioned there, hence the reason for linking that discussion here. -- Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy?(5? sigh...)
Heavens, I make a point of studiously ignoring Wikipedia for a few months (because I'm no good at the political games: I always lose), and I come back to find the exact same puerile arguments still ongoing. it is to weep...

points of logic:
 * 1) if there is this much contention over whether the FAQ is policy, then there's no point in it being policy - seems like half the Wikipedia population will IAR it anyway.
 * 2) the idea of an FAQ being policy is ridiculous - what if the questions frequently asked change? who decided what questions were 'frequently asked' in the first place?  if there's anything here that deserves to be policy, it should be on the POLICY page, not on the FAQ designed to exemplify and clarify policy.

now I will grant that there are some important and interesting issues under discussion in this debate, and I'd love to actually discuss them (that would be fun). but please don't waste time responding to this if you're just going to spout the same old mindless b#llcr@p. I'm not interested in reading it. -- Ludwigs 2 00:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My take on this is that consensus-derived applications of a policy are in fact an extension of the policy itself. This FAQ tells us how the community has aggreed to apply NPOV in frequently misunderstood situations. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 03:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * but that strikes me as pretty much the definition of the difference between a policy and a guideline (or FAQ):
 * Policy: a broadly agreed-on set of (usually abstract) principles that can be applied universally.
 * Guideline/FAQ: examples of the application of policy to specific situation, in response to issues that have been raised.
 * Guidelines don't need to have quite as much broad consensus as policies, since it's assumed that guidelines have a lot of contextual elements specific to the situation they are dealing with - there's more room for disagreement there.
 * now, what I see happening here is an ongoing attempt to elevate a contentious application of policy to the level of policy itself. This effectively changes the nature of the policy without establishing proper consensus.  and it is contentious: there are editors who support it and editors who oppose it, and no real effort between the groups to discuss the matter reasonably.  that tells me right there that this doesn't qualify as policy.  if it were up to me, I would remove the Policy status, remove the Guideline status, and just leave this as a simple explanatory FAQ until such a time as the editors involved settle down and cooperate to produce something that they can all agree on, which can then be added to the main policy page without all this silly political maneuvering.  that would be the reasoned and reasonable approach, don't you think?  -- Ludwigs 2  05:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to suggest that the definitions of Policy and Guidelines which you give us above - logical and well reasoned as they are - do not match up to how Wikipedia defines its Policies and Guidelines. From WP:PG:


 * "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature."


 * And:


 * "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow. They are often closely linked to the five pillars of Wikipedia. Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur."


 * So the question is: Is a FAQ of a policy itself policy or a guideline? Or something else entirely?! Let's start here:


 * Are the answers given to the questions at this FAQ considered standards which all editors should follow or more advisory in nature?
 * Does the FAQ page have wide acceptance among editors? If not, is it disputed much more frequently or by many more editors than a typical policy? Than NPOV itself?
 * Is this FAQ closely linked to the five pillars of Wikipedia?
 * Is the FAQ page considered a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow or are exceptions to the answers more likely to occur than they occur with policies in general? More likely to occur than with NPOV itself?


 * -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 05:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll grant your distinction between my definitions and Wikipedia's (though I'm not seeing as big a difference as you - mine are just more generalized). That being said, your questions seem (to me at least) to have some fairly direct answers
 * No, almost by definition. Policy says 'this is a standard we on Wikipedia apply.' questions start appearing in article talk, asking 'how do we meet that standard for this particular problem?' and the answers to those questions end up in the FAQ.  such answers, though, can only say how the policy was adapted to work in a given situation; they do not extend themselves to a more general usage without a lot more discussion and effort, at which point they are no longer answers to questions but are actual revisions to policy.
 * This particular FAQ - obviously - does not have wide acceptance. with an average policy (so it seems to me) there are specific clauses that might give people pause, but there is an overwhelming support for the core principles of the policy.  almost no one, for instance, argues that Neutrality is a bad or undesirable thing, though there are certainly disagreements about what neutrality means in specific cases.  however, the history of this talk page shows quite clearly that there is not overwhelming support for the main principles of this FAQ.  there's not even whelming support.
 * yes and no. most of this FAQ is advisory in nature (e.g. what do I do about...?), which is not out of line with the five pillars but not really linked to them.  standard FAQ stuff.  parts of it are attempts at extending NPOV into new (and sometimes questionable) arenas, which is problematic.  the sections on religion and morally offensive views are probably the best in terms of the five pillars, others are worthwhile, some are (in my view) close to contradicting some of the pillars.  as a whole (to keep the structural analogy), this FAQ would not bear loads well, and serve to weaken some of the other pillars if taken too seriously.  more on that if you like...
 * some of the clauses here are too specific to lend themselves as universal standards. some present themselves as universal standards, but lack the consensus to actually survive as universal standards.  a very few might work as universals without too much in the way of exceptions, but not the entire FAQ by a long shot.
 * really, the problem here is that while there are a couple of sections that I think all of us might agree are worthy of policy, if I were to say 'let's move this section and this section into policy and leave the rest' I'd meet instant opposition, because (frankly) the goal of all this silliness is to get the (contentious and opposed) pseudoscience sections entrenched in policy. No compromise is going to fly that excludes those sections.  I mean really - if the pseudoscience sections weren't in this, would anyone even bother trying to elevate this FAQ to policy?  no one has tried that with any other FAQ on wikipedia that I know of, and the skeptics circle are the only people who have been actively pursuing the creation of new policy.  a six year old could do that math.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ugh. A random, unstructured and rambling commentary on NPOV. In places, barely comprehensible (e.g. "You are not contradicting that belief by accepting that Wikipedia is not the place to demonstrate that to other people before it has become accepted human knowledge"). Completely lacks the clarity, precision and quality of thought that we expect from a policy. Could aspire to be a guideline, but as it stands, it's just a badly-written essay. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at this another way:
 * FAQ is not policy


 * The FAQ is not essential to NPOV the policy, and so was split off.
 * Without NPOV, the FAQ probably would not exist and owes its raison d'etre to the policy.
 * NPOV is capable of standing alone without the FAQ, as indeed it does.
 * In the same way, the art critic is not essential to the painting. (isn't that the truth).
 * Without the painting the critic might as well go home
 * And again, critic, and FAQ enhance but are not essential to.
 * Critic, and FAQ further describe the essential aspects.
 * Critic and FAQ are about the policy and painting but are not the painting or policy themselves. They supplement or are addendums to the essential aspects.
 * The critic is not the painting and the FAQ is not the policy
 * In a general sense the FAQ may be described as something that helps guide the policy, but we don't use guideline in that way on Wikipedia. A guideline here is much more akin to policy than this general definition, so I would think the FAQ needs to be called something else - supplement, addendum ... whatever.(olive (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

I think there is enough dissensus (and dissensus with sound reasoning, at that) to show that this FAQ does not merit policy status, so I'm requesting that an Admin remove the policy tag. I suggest it be removed entirely, and we can start a separate thread on whether the FAQ should have guideline status. thanks. -- Ludwigs 2 23:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ There is, I believe, consensus for the removal of the policy tag. However, until its new status is decided, I will leave it with no status for now. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 01:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There is/was no consensus for the removal of the tag, which should be clear from the above (people called "dissensus" for removal of the tag, whatever that is).

Anyway, if the presence of a policy tag is *disputed* and *discussed at the talk page* there's a perfect tag to indicate that:

Please (at least, if not reverting the previous "editprotected" edit as controversial), add this tag. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, done. There does seem to be consensus for removal, but until this discussion is complete, and everyone's more-or-less agreed, I won't risk ending the discussion and unprotecting the page. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 01:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * tx, re "There does seem to be consensus for removal": see also Fringe theories/Noticeboard, making clear there is/was no consensus for the removal of the Policy template.
 * As for the content of the policy/no policy discussion, here's another idea: why don't we move WP:NPOVFAQ and WP:NPOVFAQ back to the WP:NPOV page somewhere? --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * hmmm, let's work through the logic here:
 * Given: pages should have broad consensus in the community to be considered policy
 * Demonstrated (by this talk page): this page does not have broad consensus in the community
 * Conclusion: this page should not be considered policy
 * I don't object to the 'under discussion' tag, but I see no reason to keep the page tagged as policy until the discussion is over, certainly not when there are this many objections to it.


 * with respect to Francis' other suggestion - lol. it's as I suggested above, the entire policy struggle on this page is to get the pseudoscience material entrenched as policy.  please know that those sections are entirely problematical, and there's no way they should be moved onto the policy page without a great deal of discussion.  I'm actually shocked (and pleased - I like honesty) that FS was that upfront about the larger goals here.  that allows for a clearer discussion.-- Ludwigs 2  01:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with Francis' suggestion. On Ludwig's comment: there hasn't been an RFC, alerts on the village pump, or similar, nor more than a couple days for discussion. It's way too premature to claim consensus to demote it. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Shoemaker: way too early to make which claim?
 * that a number of editors object to this FAQ being policy? that's not a claim, that's a fact - read the at least 8 editors above on this page, and heaven knows how many more in the archives.
 * that there's no logical reason for making this FAQ a policy? again, that's a fact - no logical reason has been presented, and there are plenty of reason's offered why it doesn't fly.
 * that this is all just a trick to get the pseudoscience material into policy without establishing proper consensus? ok, that's a claim, but I don't think it's too early to make that claim at all, since it seems patently obvious.
 * or are you referring to some other claim? please do tell... -- Ludwigs 2 05:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've edited the above post to make it clear I was talking about the same thing as the other seven times I raised the point and was ignored. I trust that's sufficient, and does not require you to continue to make bad-faith speculation of what I might have meant. This is precisely why I hate working with you, olive, Dreadstar, and the rest of your group - you're more interested in throwing smoke around than dealing with actual points. See also the FTN discussion, where Olive makes a ridiculously bad-faith assumption, then leaps on one aspeect of my clarification to throw the discussion off-topic, or any of dozens of other interactions I've had with your group. It gets tiresome.  Please stop it. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF, then moderate your comments accordingly. Dreadstar  †  05:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. You reopen a two-monh old thread, and immediately claim consensus begin edit-warring to demote it from policy, and all your friends instantly show up to agree with you. You travel as a pack. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Shoemaker:
 * your argument seems to be that there is no consensus to remove a policy tag from a page that has no consensus to be policy in the first place. reminds me of the time I was 10 and the local bully told me I couldn't have my bike back because he stole it from me fair and square.  didn't work on me then, and it doesn't work on me now.  This FAQ does not have the consensus it needs to be policy, therefore it is not policy, period.  the tag is a formality, so you might as well give it up and let it go.
 * I've made actual and very clear points above about why this shouldn't be considered policy. you, by contrast, have said nothing except to make accusations of bad-faith against me and others.  I'm not the one blowing smoke...
 * I swear, if you and the band of merry skeptics you hang out with spent less time on political games and character assassination, and more time on fruitful, reasoned discussion, we might actually get someplace on this. so I'll leave it up to you: is the next thing you type here going to be a clear, on-topic explanation of why you think this page merits policy status, or is it just going to be another diatribe about how Olive, Dreadstar, etc., and I annoy you?  your choice.  -- Ludwigs 2  08:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs, your opening comment in this section included don't waste time responding to this if you're just going to spout the same old mindless b#llcr@p, and it doesn't look like your level of civility has changed much. Give it a break. Now, did I miss something, or are your clear points 1) if there is this much contention over whether the FAQ is policy, then there's no point in it being policy; and 2) the idea of an FAQ being policy is ridiculous - what if the questions frequently asked change? who decided what questions were 'frequently asked' in the first place? You'll have to forgive me, but I don't see the clarity.
 * According to WP:POLICY:
 * Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow. They are often closely linked to the five pillars of Wikipedia.
 * Now, this FAQ has been a policy since 2006. Maybe that was the wrong call back then, but it happened years ago, and dredging old history and declaring it was the wrong call is not a sensible reason for change now. If it's still wrong, which is all that matters at this point, it should be easy for you to demonstrate that with an RFC or some other attempt to determine a broad consensus for change. At that point, your first point becomes clear to me.
 * Regarding your second point, the way I see it, the FAQ outlines a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow. However, I wasn't aware of any reason that FAQ's and policies are to remain distinct, so can you point to such a reason in the form of a previous discussion, policy, guideline, etc. so I can see why it's so ridiculous? At that point, your second point becomes clear to me. Thanks. Ben (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ben: please note that as grumpy as I can get at times, I (almost always) make comments about behavior, not about people. If you want to tell me that my 'b#llcr@p' comment was inappropriate, I'd accept that (I'd disagree, but I'd accept it).  however, making a comment about me and my personal 'level of civility' is itself a violation of wikipedia rules of civility.  please reframe the comment so that it's about the act, not the person, or redact it entirely.  an apology would be nice as well.
 * now, to your points:
 * I wasn't here is 2006, but my first question would be: did this FAQ go through the normal consensus building process to become policy, or was it simply declared policy by fiat (over the objections of the few people who noticed the move)? looking at the objections that have been levied above, and at the page itself, it seems clear to me that it had to have been by fiat - a protracted examination process by the community would have (at the very least) forced the FAQ into some sort of consistent structure, cleaned up obvious inconsistencies, and removed obviously biased statements.  the FAQ as it stands is a mess, even for an FAQ, and the community at large wouldn't have tolerated it as policy on the grounds of mere aesthetics.  so again, we have political gamesmanship going on - trick it into policy status, and then defend that with your last breath.  not very nice.
 * again, I wasn't here in 2006, but I am now, and it's clear to me that large sections of this FAQ are not consonant with the 5 pillars of wikipedia. I can give a protracted discussion of that, if you like.  it's my obligation as a good citizen of wikipedia to redress that problem, now that I am here.
 * as I discussed above (please read more carefully in the future) FAQ's are by their nature applications of policy to specific instances or problems. Policy is supposed to be generalized, as universally applicable as possible, so the contents of an FAQ will not by their nature be up to the standards that are required of policy.  this isn't to say that FAQ are useless (they serve a good purpose in helping people learn how to apply policy).  nor does this mean that nothing in an FAQ could ever be treated as policy (the answers given to specific problems can sometimes be generalized to a more universal form).  what it means is that the FAQ itself should not be policy; anything in the FAQ that's policy-worthy should be extracted out, discussed, modified, and after careful thought added to the policy page.
 * clear enough for you know, or is there something more I can explain? -- Ludwigs 2  22:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think I was out of line by noting your level of civility, you are welcome to report it. I think you'll be wasting your time though, and my comment stands.
 * With respect to your other points, there is no point in speculating what would have happened if past history was changed. Maybe everything would have happened as you predicted, but it doesn't matter now. Furthermore, the claim that 'x was not done right in 2006' might be perfectly true, but it's no reason to start making changes in 2009. Finally, everything you say might be true, for instance maybe large sections of this FAQ are not consonant with the 5 pillars of wikipedia, or policy is supposed to be generalised, but it's not for me or you to decide. Since you didn't point me to anything official that established your claims, I have to assume no-one else has decided this either. To borrow from your observations of poor process in 2006, the correct way to deal with this now is to gain a community consensus for the change you want. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * well, excellent! since you're not interested in disputing any of my points, and you allow the possibility that the process of getting a policy tag on this page was deeply flawed, then I imagine you would have no objection with removing the policy tag and starting again from scratch. that would be the wisest course, if we're concerned about proper consensus, no?  I'll count that as a vote in my favor, thank you very much.
 * I didn't really expect you to apologize for the incivility, by the way. I just thought I'd point it out.  it's a new year, and as far as I'm concerned everyone starts out with a fresh slate and a decent line of credit.  so no worries.    -- Ludwigs 2  03:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're so terribly clever Ludwigs. Fortunately, your imagination doesn't speak for me. Now run along and start an RfC or something, ok? Ben (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * lol - I also didn't expect you to admit it when you've lost an argument, but after that last comment I don't suppose a formal admission is necessary. I'm content.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker. I could have bypassed you comment on the FNI, but I found it offensive, and by not commenting and allowing it to go by unnoticed I in effect agree with it...Editors came in to support the statement which I couldn't agree with either. Its not blowing smoke to deal with what appeared to be prejudice in collaborative situations. It appears that you didn't "mean " the statement and I can accept that. I also attempted to bring the derailed discussion back here to continue with the issues after you explained your position. But ... you made the statement I didn't, so I'm not sure why you lay the blame at my door rather than your own. A simple explanation and then continue on might have been preferable. By the way, because some editors are in agreement on something doesn't make them a group. These editors don't agree with you. That's all... that's pretty simple.(olive (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

Common objections and clarifications
The above heading is part of NPOV policy, but the section itself contains only "Common objections or concerns" with links to the clarifications provided in NPOV/FAQ. Essentially these clarifications are part of policy, and so require that standing. As SlimVirgin pointed out above, they were part of the policy until moved by FT2 out of the policy page, June 26, 2006, and were tagged as policy nine hours later after discussion. The policy tag has remained for the two and a half years since then, with the exception of five occasions when the tag was removed then reinstated, mostly within the day but on one occasion after two days. With these brief exceptions NPOV/FAQ has remained in use as policy.

If the tag is to be changed, the supplement tag isn't sufficiently clear that the contents remain in full force as clarification of NPOV and part of that policy. Downgrading the page to a guideline leaves unanswered questions as part of policy, and so the answers would have to be moved into the policy page. I'd have no objection to them being rephrased as statements rather than remaining in the question and answer format. If it helps to overcome the problems some editors have with a FAQ being policy, an alternative acronym could be chosen with the shortcuts being redirected to a new title. . . dave souza, talk 09:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. It may be that some, even most of this could be integrated wholesale into the NPOV page, actually. For instance, "There's no such thing as objectivity" easily fits into th e section on what the neutral point of view is, and "Making necessary assumptions" could stand as its own section easily. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, why can't we just move condensed portions of the faq back into WP:NPOV? I note, for example, that the pseudoscience bit in the faq is adequately represented in the main article.  A check through the WT:NPOV archives shows that FT2 spun out the faqs from the main article for reasons of length, concision, and the impression that the faqs read like chat logs.  I don't see why experienced policy editors can't condense and reintegrate these sections back into the main NPOV, while keeping them concise and un-chatlike.  Skinwalker (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * with some conditions, this would work for me. I'd like a chance for the community to discuss and debate anything that gets moved over into NPOV (because, as I said, some of the stuff here isn't policy-worthy, and I have no idea what's been added to the FAQ in the last couple of years since - my initial and main objection to all of this was the potential for injecting stuff into policy without proper consensus).  the FAQ can and should remain, because FAQS are a good idea in general, but it can't be marked as policy (taking off the policy tag will allow it to grow and change and act like - you know - a real FAQ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * I disagree that something that's been policy for years should require a new debate to be added. I think we should just do it. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how a discussion would be in any way problematic. if in fact these points are as acceptable to the community as you seem to think, a discussion will reflect that and everything will get added. If not, then a discussion will reveal problems and resolve them.  either way, you end up with policy that's stronger and and more clearly based in consensus.  rushing to judgement here will only give the impression that someone is trying to push something into policy without proper consensus, and we don't want that, do we?  -- Ludwigs 2  16:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on, you know as well as I do that all that will happen is that every fringe-pusher on Wikipedia, sensing blood, will descend, shout a lot, drown out the much less motivated majority, and nothing will move forwards. Perhaps I'm pessimistic. Anyway, this FAQ was written by the founders of Wikipedia themselves. I think that, perhaps, we can respect their vision. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * well, speaking as someone who is periodically accused of being a fringe POV-pusher - for no readily apparent reason, mind you, except that I irritate some people - you'll forgive me If I can't quite take that category as exactly meaningful. I see no reason to rush ahead with this just to preclude some people from having a voice in the debate. no one ever said consensus was an easy or comfortable to achieve, but I think we all agree that it's important, right?   -- Ludwigs 2  06:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're considered a POV pusher, because you push a fringe POV on numerous articles. Consensus is NOT a system to block ideas--RS and VERIFY rule firstly.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * and so it goes... was that as fun as you'd hoped?  -- Ludwigs 2  07:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't let you get away with your fringe POV stuff before, and I won't now. Since I don't tend to mind read, knowing that it is a fringe belief set, I won't dare guess what you know or don't know, but when I see fringe POV, I see it.  That's what I know.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent for clarity) Can I offer a suggestion? It seems to me that a FAQ shouldn't be policy - it should be a clarification of the application of policy. However, it is clear that the current page also includes elements that are deemed policy. How about creating a (temporary) page called something like "Additional Information", moving those parts currently in the FAQ (whose status is disputed) to that page, re-tagging the FAQ as a guideline and then discussing how to re-integrate the removed parts back into the main policy page? Once that is sorted the "Additional Information" page can be deleted.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion began with a single person claiming that this was never intended to be policy, that it never was policy, and that therefore he could do whatever he wanted with the page and we should have no right to ask he get consensus, or even to ask that widespread input be sought before a page was demoted. These actions and the events surrounding this discussion so far do not bode well for any sort of productive discussion; What if, for instance, that person again decides that he is the arbiter of policy, and edit wars again, as he did at the start of this discussion. It just doesn't seem a good or healthy environment for any sort of discussion, so there's a strong inclination to just lock things down, keep the status quo, and return to this at some later date.
 * I apologise to those of you on the opposite side acting reasonably in good faith, and hope you'll understand that I neither want this to apply to everyone, nor to be taken further than what I said - but I do think that explaining my reasons for concern may, at least, mean that the problems can be dealt with. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess my understanding of this is a little different than Shoemaker's. The Policy tag was added by a single person soon after the original split was made. The attempt to rename the FAQ came after a discussion in which three editors thought the policy could renamed something that reflected the fact that the FAQ was split off because it was not necessary to the original policy, and was more likely an addendum or supplement. There was as far as I remember a three to one ratio. If this is coming back to discussion,  I see no reason to suppose that any editor would not be willing to further engage in discussion on the matter, AGF, but I do feel that discussion with the wider Community is necessary given we are dealing with a potential policy/guideline decision. I am busy with another project so may not be able to contribute much, but will comment if I can.(olive (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Although I'm not sure that what we have here is even a guideline, I think FimusTauri makes some good suggestions on how to approach this.(olive (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Shoemaker: re: This discussion began with a single person claiming that this was never intended to be policy, that it never was policy, and that therefore he could do whatever he wanted with the page and we should have no right to ask he get consensus, or even to ask that widespread input be sought before a page was demoted... that has to be the most twisted representation of something I've said that I've ever seen.  I mean, even down to the very first point: note - I didn't start this discussion, but entered it halfway through, following up on another editor's complaint.  I don't mind you objecting to my words (that's a good place to start a discussion), but if you're going to do so, please object to my words, and not some heavily warped and fragmented reflection of them.  thanks.


 * otherwise, I agree with Fimus and Olive. let's create a temporary page where we can reach a proper consensus about what belongs in policy and what doesn't.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ludwig? I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to events a bit before you got here. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry, my mistake - it was close enough to what I wrote above to give me pause. my apologies for the misunderstanding.-- Ludwigs 2  02:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. The big difference is you did not use that discussion to justify an edit war to "correct" the situation, which is the problem that's pretty much the main reason why I'm a bit hesitant to suggest any further action at this time, though I do agree we should revisit this eventually. 'Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines is the consensus about what belongs in policy and what doesn't. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Time for site-wide advertised RfC?
It seems clear from the above that too few editors are involved here and this deadlock does not seem like is going to end anytime soon. Perhaps it's time to put forth 1-2 clear proposals and submit them to the attention of a larger community by advertising the RfC on the watchlist? Xasodfuih (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * that is an excellent idea. give me a bit, and I'll see if I can draft something up.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs, since you have a rather odd view of what constitutes POV, you should find something else to do. How about you NOT do it?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ludwig is capable of writing the first draft. In my experience with RfC, sometimes just crafting the language of the RfC helps work out some issues. If you got the drive then go for it, Ludwig! -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 02:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

can we have faq related to WP:CHERRY?
I think it will be a good idea to add details on WP:CHERRY to the FAQ. cherry picked quotes can be a POV problem. I want to add a small section on WP:CHERRY at Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. Can other pls comment and share their ideas? Thanks --Nvineeth (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC Proposals
here's the way I think RfC proposals should get broken down. and please, let's not confuse the discussion of whether this is the best breakdown for the proposals with the inevitable discussion of whether each proposal should be accepted or rejected. keep it focussed on which ones are the the appropriate bones of contention to raise for the community to decide on. also, if we edit the proposals, or suggest new ones, let's keep them in the section above the discussions so they don't get spread out all over the place.

N.B. signing here: -- Ludwigs 2 05:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All later proposals are (of course) contingent on proposal 1 being adopted
 * Proposal 1 might have a sub-proposal asking whether the FAQ should have no status at all or guideline status, but I suspect that will be a moot issue after discussion.
 * Proposal 2 I've added as common sensical if proposal 1 is adopted
 * Proposals 3, 4 and 5 might be split up into separate proposals, if necessary. particularly proposal 5: removing the pseudoscience section is a no-brainer, since it's a simple duplication, but the other one will certainly cause some debate.
 * the Other resources and external links sections should (of course) stay with the FAQ page, though the first external link might be better suited over at Fringe_theories.


 * I think that it's a little awkward to have only one "side" to vote on; maybe it would be better to have paired proposals? This would also have the advantage of allowing voting on alternate compromise measures people should come up with. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * well, I'm open to suggestions (which is why I put the proposals out here for review in the first place). generally speaking (and this is my professional opinion), it's better to have 'Yeah/Nay' type proposals, or maybe two opposed proposals that are unambiguously distinct, rather than more complex competing proposals that overlap.  we want to do the work of framing the issue(s) concisely for the community (otherwise there's too much burden on the community in terms of digging through the details).  I've tried to structure these as Yeah/Nay proposals, though of course we can (and should) restructure what's here into simple statements of the proposed action, with separate pro and con arguments.  if you want to edit in short opposing points, please do so - I can only effectively give my point of view. -- Ludwigs 2  22:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since there hasn't really been any discussion on this, I'll start the process of putting these up as RfC's (once I figure out how to petition for a site-wide banner). actually, I'll probably only offer four of them: proposal 1 and proposal 4 can be merged, I think. I'm also going to go ahead and delete the pseudoscience section from the FAQ, since it's already present in the policy itself, which will save on confusion for proposal 5. -- Ludwigs 2 23:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * whoops, hadn't realized the page was protected. when did that happen?

can someone delete the 'pseudoscience' section - Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ - from the FAQ? this section appears to be a word-for-word repetition of of the pseudoscience section in the main policy page - Neutral_point_of_view - and even claims to share the same shortcuts (I'll check to see which the shortcuts actually point to, and edit them to point to the policy page). nothing contentious in this; it's just redundant to have exactly the same text in the policy and in the FAQ. -- Ludwigs 2 23:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since there's no apparent difference on looking the two over, and this was raised below without dissent, I've accepted this as talk page consensus and have deleted the section from the FAQ. This can be reviewed if anyone has a cogent objection. . . dave souza, talk 09:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa!!!! Hold on there cowboy.  It might be repeated word for word, but is deletion the appropriate way to do this? It should be tagged for rewriting not deleted.  It should give more information and examples, since pseudoscience is a very contentious issue in NPOV.  When an editor makes several proposals, which lead to fundamental changes in how we support NPOV, I think it behooves us to obtain a wider range of input before making changes.  I'm reverting your deletion and tagging it for a rewrite.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears the FAQ is protected. Should have known.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it's now part of NPOV there seems to me to be no reason to duplicate it here, if there are any proposals for additional FAQ info about pseudoscience these could be drafted and set out as part of the consultation. Alternately, there could be a proposal that a rewrite be prepared as and expansion on the current statement. As the page is protected, I took the action on the basis that there was a reasonable consensus, but if that's definitely contested, I'll revert myself and it can await the formal process. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

<undent, bows to the wisdom of the Orangemarlin> A good reason for leaving something here, which I'd overlooked, is that it breaks any links to that section without directing editors to the new location of the section. In a spirit of compromise I've restored the section heading, with Main article: WP:PSCI, Further information: WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The latter two links aren't featured in WP:PSCI, and consideration should be given to adding them there. This edit also makes it clearer, I hope, that the section can be rewritten by agreement. . dave souza, talk 10:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * excellent compromise.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Maybe, but it's a very old FAQ page written originally by Wikipedia's founders, and I think that we should note this by giving it some special status. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the FAQ should continue to be a official policy. It gives some very clear instructions to be taken related to NPOV biases. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, but keep in mind that all we are discussing here is whether these are the correct proposals to submit for the community to decide. the actual decision on whether to implement them will get made later, at a proper RfC (policy).  -- Ludwigs 2  09:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * oops! sorry I did not read the first para! very sorry. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. It should stand. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Yes, we can reduce the summary in "Common objections and clarifications", while things are discussed in greater detail in the FAQ which continues to be a official policy. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * As with the section below, I'm broadly in agreement with checking to ensure that the issues are well covered on the main policy page, and moving any necessary clarifications there rather than keeping them on this FAQ page. . . dave souza, talk 09:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The assertion that there's "nothing really new" needs careful examination in each subsection to ensure that we're not removing much needed clarification. Making necessary assumptions jumps out as a common enough issue that should be clear in policy. . . dave souza, talk 17:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
I think that the "equal validity" description is mainly just a second explanation of WP:UNDUE in the end. It seems a decent FAQ question, but I'd leave it here. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's actually a very clear statement of something stated in a more roundabout way in the Pseudoscience section as "the task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science", and while it's useful as a linked section, it could be merged into that statement. The second paragraph of WP:WEIGHT covers the point, but again the language is less direct. . dave souza, talk 17:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No change required. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected request
Editprotected request disabled. Please establish consensus first before requesting a change. (Or, better, work out whichever issues have caused this page to be protected and then you'll be able to make the changes yourselves.) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, my apologies for any confusion. dave souza, talk 10:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Archived version to replace dead link on page
Here's a link to an archived version of the article "Blinded By Science: How 'Balanced' Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality" to replace the dead link which appears at the bottom of the page in the external links section. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to policy on ambiguous words in religious articles
The current article on the use of ambiguous words in religious articles does not reflect consensus and requires revision &mdash;FimusTauri (via posting script) 16:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussions about using the word myth(ology) with respect to religious stories have been conducted over numerous articles and over a number of years. Some of you will know me from exactly that discussion on Noah’s Ark. I have also raised this issue more recently at the Village pump, but feel it necessary to widen the discussion as the ‘official policy’ on this matter has been abused.

The official Wikipedia policy Neutral point of view/FAQ includes a section that reads


 * Regarding terminology: Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about some particular terms can be found at WP:WTA.

Readers may be surprised to learn that this section is a relatively recent addition to “official” policy and that this version was written by someone who strongly advocates using the word “myth” to describe religious stories. They may also be surprised to learn that the relevant section in the linked article on “Words to avoid” was written by this same editor. I urge anyone who has not read this section to take a look – it is several paragraphs dedicated to explaining exactly why you ’’should’’ use the term myth and nothing at all about avoiding it.

Neither article was amended with consensus or discussion – the editor simply added his point of view and now resists any attempts to alter them. This alone is reason enough to require that this section of policy is reviewed and a proper consensus achieved.

There are other reasons for examining this policy. As it is currently stated, it is open to abuse by editors who have an agenda (conscious or otherwise) to label ‘’all’’ religious articles as “myth”. This has already happened in the article Christian mythology, where the section on “Important examples of Christian mythology” begins with a list that is so sweeping as to encompass ‘’every’’ story in the Bible. Whilst some might believe that this is ‘accurate’, and no doubt can find scholarly opinion that agrees, it is certainly not the majority scholarly view.

There is no doubt that it is appropriate to label some religious stories as ‘myth’ – few would argue with this label when applied to most of the creation accounts, for example – but it is clear that some editors have extended this use far beyond the intentions of the scholars they frequently cite. It is ‘’not’’ acceptable to conclude that, because ‘’some’’ religious stories are widely labelled as myth, we can therefore label ‘’all’’ religious stories as myth.

There are two arguments frequently raised by those who favour the use of this word. Firstly, they argue that it is the term used in ‘scholarly’ literature and is therefore appropriate (and we would be violating WP:NOTCENSORED by avoiding it). They are also – quite correctly – able to supply numerous references in support of this argument. There is no doubt in my mind that there are a large number of scholars who will use the term ‘myth’ in reference to religious stories. However, this ignores the fact that there are many scholars who avoid using the term. This is where the requirements for verifiability actually fail us – whilst it may be possible to cite many references that avoid the term, it is almost impossible to find any that explicitly state that they are doing so. Hence, we have the situation where a point of view is given pre-eminance simply because it is impossible to verify an omission. That said, there are many scholars who may be cited, but which are rejected as ‘invalid’ because they have a point of view to push. Is it not the case that Wikipedia is all about presenting all sides of the argument? Of course a religious writer has a point of view; so does a secular one. To ignore religious writers because they are “biased” is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.

The second argument used by those in favour of using the word is that those who oppose it do not understand its meaning. I have regularly come across the statement that ‘in scholarly use, myth does not imply falsehood’ or some such. This argument, along with a re-stating of that written in the “words to avoid” article mentioned above, is a specious one, invented to cloud the issue. The definition of the word does not affect any of what I have written above, but it is of great importance to some issues below.

The editor is advised in “words to avoid” to “be careful to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally”. This is simply nonsense. The ‘’reader’’ will take whatever inference they feel is applicable to the word. Or do we expect the reader to be familiar with Wikipedia guidelines? If the reader understands the word myth to mean a ‘made-up’ story, then that reader will assume that meaning regardless of the editor’s intentions.

Those who favour the widespread use of the word ‘myth’ within religious articles would have us believe that the general readership of Wikipedia are academics who are well aware that the encyclopaedic use of the word should not make any implication as to the veracity of the story. This is nonsense. Wikipedia is read by millions around the world for as many different reasons. Imagine a school child whose homework is to look up the history of Jesus. Wikipedia will appear high on any search engine. If that child looks at the Christian mythology page his homework is likely to read “The story of Jesus is made up. The end.”

Some editors have attempted to get round this by using ‘infoboxes’. To me, any word that needs to be explained should be classified as jargon and therefore should be avoided. Attempts to explain the word are everywhere in religious articles on Wikipedia. This barrage of explanation is proof in itself that the word will be received ambiguously.

If the term may be misunderstood then it should be avoided, or used only where the context gives clear indication of the intended meaning.

I am not advocating that we should completely avoid using the word ‘myth(ology)’ in religious articles – it clearly has a place. Instead, I feel that the policy should be to use it with great care. This applies to all words with more than one meaning. Therefore, my proposal for the policy guideline, to replace the paragraph quoted at the top of this page, is:


 * Regarding terminology There are many words that have different meanings that are dependent upon their context. For example, fundamentalism and myth. These words should not be avoided in cases where there is little dispute over their application, for example in “Creation myth”. However, if there is a reasonable probability that a reader may misunderstand the use of a word, it should be used with great care, or an acceptable alternative be found instead. Avoid using such terms in the lead; if they must be used at all, place them in an appropriate section, where context will inform the reader of the desired meaning.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Responses

 * Fimus, please refrain from forum shopping. You've brought your issues up on article talk pages, the village pump, and now here. As I've explained, the word myth is not alone in the English language in having multiple meanings. Another classic example is the word theory. In both cases they are extremely useful classifications in the relevant fields. Honestly, you seem more concerned about getting little Timmy the information you think he should have, instead of building an encyclopaedia. If that's the case, then I'd suggest you have a look at Conservapedia. If not, and you believe a term (any term) is being used wrongly on a particular article, then bring up your concerns on the talk page of that article, and back up your claims with sources. Cheers, Ben (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh... This issue isn't going away any time soon, Ben. If you've got a spare couple of days, read all the arguments at the two archives at Category talk:Christian mythology, dating back years...  Not to mention the comparable Jewish and Islamic pages... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am seeking consensus on an important issue - something you failed to do, Ben--FimusTauri (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a lot of text to say ultimately very little. You endorse the use of myth in some instances and not in others. Precisely what criteria separate the two? Why should creation accounts be described as mythical but not the life of Jesus? Ilkali (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a slippery slope argument, but there has already been a lot of discussion and consensus on that very question, and how to keep neutrality from getting usurped by one aggressive "school of thought", and it is obviously controversial as you can get. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Defining myth, what is it that makes it what it is, what is it that makes it not something else; that ought to be interesting, it might even be worthy of an article; oh wait there is one... maybe all you guys need to do is go edit that...and then stop using it in ways that people find offensive.

Rktect (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I wouldn't gratuitously want to use any word in ways that people find offensive, that can't be our primary goal - if it was, there are a lot of articles we wouldn't even have. And I don't think you can have a religious article that some people don't find offensive. dougweller (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "In traditional societies, myth represents the absolute truth about primordial time". That's by Mircea Eliade, who has shaped scholarship about the issue. Myths are always the absolute truth to the one who believes in them. That is not offensive. But at WP we can't handle any narrative about the creation of the world or what happened thereafter between God (or the gods) and humankind as a fact. Until it's not scientifically accepted as a fact, it's a myth, no matter how many millions of people believe in it. That Moses recieved 10 tables at Sinai mountain is (or should be) firmly believed by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, that's more than 53% of humanity... But as long as it's not considered a historic account of what happened in Egypt several millennia ago - and it is certainly not - it's a myth: "a person or thing which is fictional or unproven" (Collins dictionnary). "Unproven" does not mean it's altogether made up or a lie... it's just unproven, and the Deluge myth might even be proven as a fact some day. Until then, a believer should be able to assume that an encyclopedia can't consider something a fact just because he believes it. And we certainly can't start to distinguish what we may label a myth without offending anybody and what not. How can you tell a good Christian he should firmly believe in the Moses' narrative but not so firmly in the Deluge myth? I thought religion is precisely about believing something which is not proven; if it weren't, there wouldn't be more than one.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I promised myself that I wouldn't get into this argument again. But anyway, I don't think that we can avoid the word "myth" in many cases. The articles on Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, and Islamic mythology do and should exist; those are legitimate topics. In my opinion, anything legitimate enough to make it into Britannica is legitimate enough to be included in Wikipedia; and Britannica does have a section on "Christian myth and legend" (http://search.eb.com/eb/article-67562).


 * This does not mean that I support the use of the word "myth" in religious contexts when it serves no constructive purpose and is clearly intended to push a "myth means sacred story and not false story, and everyone should use it that way" agenda. (Before anyone accuses me of being opposed to the term "myth", please take a look at my edit history. If anything, I'm in the pro-myth camp. I've worked hard on the Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, etc. articles.) There's no need to use the word "myth" when "story" will do; nor is there a need to deliberately try to legitimate the use of the word by adding it into articles. Our job at Wikipedia is to report mainstream opinion, not to create it. (I'm not accusing anyone here of doing this; I'm just making a point for the record.) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think we should legislate against the use of the word "myth" at policy level. I'd personally say that myth should be used with some caution, but could be very useful for putting something into context: referring to the story of Longinus as part of mediaeval Christian mythology instantly contextualises it. It's a sensitive issue, and it should not be used in an attempt to disparage religion, but I think it does have uses, and particularly all things not found directly within the holy books should almost always use it, e.g. Veronica's Veil, Golems, etc, as well as most things found in religions that lack canonical holy books, e.g. Norse mythology, Greek mythology, Hindu mythology. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am particularly gratified by these last two comments. Can I ask that people look at the specific proposal. I am not asking that 'myth' is simply avoided - only that it is used with care.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I largely agree with Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday. The word "myth" should not be randomly inserted into religious articles to push the viewpoint that "myth does not mean false story, and if you think it does, then you need to change your usage to match academic usage". Such a move would be either POV or redundant (depending on your viewpoint). However, there are situations where no other word will do. In particular, phrases like "sacred narrative" and "traditional story" are awkward and inelegant. If there's a sentence in which a religious story is called a "sacred narrative", and there is no way to restructure the sentence without distorting its meaning, then "sacred narrative" should definitely be replaced with "myth" (or, depending on the story's content, "legend"). To deny that "myth" can be used as a synonymn for "sacred narrative" would be to deny the actual use of the word in academia. Again, the word should be used for the sake of conciseness and clarity, and not so much avoided as ignored when unnecessary.


 * I definitely do not agree that the term "myth" applies any more to "religions that lack canonical holy books" than to other religions. If we use "myth" that way, then we'll end up promoting the popular notion that the term "myth" applies only to less "legitimate" religions. If we're going to call the stories of modern-day tribal religions "mythology", then we can't very well argue against calling Christian stories "mythology" too. (Of course, I'm not saying that religions without canonical holy books are actually less legitimate; I'm just saying that that's the common perception.) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My thought was that, as these religions do not emphasise the strict truth of the stories, and maty (as in Greek mythology) have mutually conflicting stories, it's probably less controversial to refer to, say, the Bhagavad gita as, say, a mythic history. It still should not be used to disparage the religion, but the issue is less sensitive, as it's primarily a story used for sacred instruction, not one where the exact details need be strictly believed. B asically, to sketch out the uncontroversial points. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention something in my first message (a few posts above this one)... Encyclopædia Britannica also has entries on "Jewish myth and legend" (http://search.eb.com/eb/article-35338) and "Islamic myth and legend" (http://search.eb.com/eb/article-69250). So use of the word "myth" in connection with world religions definitely has encyclopedic precedent. Just thought I'd point that out. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For those who do not have a subscription, could you just state what is included in those articles. I entirely agree that there are many stories properly defined as myth - but my biggest objection to the current wording is that it has allowed at least one article to include everything in the tanakh under the term "myth". Does the article on Jewish Mythology include the story of the Diaspora, for example?--FimusTauri (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are asking that, among other things, the Jesus story not be included in Christian mythology. That's not just a matter of diction, which is what I interpret Shoemaker's comment to be about. We may change our wording to avoid offense, but we don't change our ontology. Ilkali (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The essence of my point is that care should be used when applying "myth" (and many other words) to religious stories. To say "most religious stories are myths" is semantically equivalent to saying "most athletes take drugs". Accurate? Certainly, because most athletes do take tea or coffee and an occasional paracetamol. No scholarly work would claim that "most athletes take drugs", because the word "drug" has several meanings and the inherent ambiguity would lead the reader to misunderstand the intention of the author. Such a statement needs a qualifier. A scholarly work would, instead, read something like "Most athletes take mild stimulants in the form of caffeine, or mild pain-killers such as paracetamol." WP needs to be just as cautious. If you wish to say "most religious stories are myths" you must qualify such a statement, with something like "most religious stories are myths, in the sense that they are traditional stories that may or not be true".
 * That aside, the true debate here should actually be about the proposal for changing the wording. It is a simple fact that the current wording in the article was placed there without discussion and therefore without consensus. I would ask that editors look at my proposed alternative and debate that.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that Phatius McBluff has a very good point: we can't start classifying religions as those who may have myths and those where the narrative must be considered "more truthful" as to not offend. About the Jesus story: it would be a myth if it was only found in the Bible, yes. But many scholars think Jesus might have been a historic person, because of his being mentioned in Josephus, so the Bible narrative might not be a myth but an interpretation of the biography of a historic person. Therefore, Jesus is not the best example to decide if something is a myth or not. Abraham would do much better. Or Noah. Or Adam&Eva. Of course we don't need to put the word myth everywhere, I agree. But it would make very little sense to have an entry about the Deluge myth and take the Bible version out of it, because it's writtten in the Bible (and Coran) and not on cuneiform tables.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ilyacadiz, your remarks above illustrate perfectly how the term "myth" is usually confounding, and taken to mean the antithesis of "historical". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, don't you agree that a myth is something considered unproven (but not necessarily altogether untrue) by history scholars? "Taken to mean" means that there is another, more correct, meaning. Which one?--Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone here seems to agree that "we must use the term with care", but I don't think everyone means quite the same thing by this statement. The care that should be taken is carefully checking how reliable sources relate a topic and the term, not care to make sure people aren't offended. I've only been heavily involved with two articles myself, creation myth and Noah's Ark, and the vast majority of the arguments against using the term have been along the lines of the latter, with the odd 'confusion' argument thrown in. This latter type of care shouldn't enter our mind. To give a much better analogy than Fimus': many people are offended by the fact that humans are primates, but the classification is useful, not to mention interesting, and to omit it for fear of offence is nothing short of ridiculous - it should not enter our mind.

To put an ambiguous statement like "use this term with care" into the FAQ is inviting endless arguments as different people interpret it differently. The current version in unambiguous. A topic should be called mythical if and only if the majority of the reliable sources do. WP:UNDUE takes care of one direction of that implication, the FAQ takes care of the other. If Fimus is concerned about a particular instance of the use of the word myth, then he should challenge it on the talk page of the offending article, not try and insert ambiguous language here. Cheers, Ben (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My concern is about the general use of the term. It began on one page, but I have seen its widespread misuse and am very concerned by it. The current wording is far from neutral, in my opinion, which is why I have provoked this debate. Clearly, the current wording already "is inviting endless arguments as different people interpret it differently".--FimusTauri (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing the bigger picture. Everything should be challenged on Wikipedia, including this. However, the argument will end because we have some clearly defined policies to work with. Arguments about the use of the word myth will potentially never end with ambiguities as the guiding light. Ben (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to like accusing me of things, Ben (sockpuppetry, missing the bigger picture, having religious motivations, not getting the point). I am beginning to suspect personal attacks. Please remember WP:CIVIL.
 * On a point that you seem to be failing to grasp. Would you go to the Barak Obama page, put in a statement that "Barak Obama takes drugs" and an infobox that reads "When we use the word 'drugs' we mean it in an academic sense. It does not imply abuse or otherwise"? It is semantically equivalent to what you are trying to do with the word 'myth'. The mere fact of the ambiguity of the word means we must take extreme caution when using it - if the reader may take the wrong meaning, we must either clarify the meaning or find an alternative.
 * On another point, at least you seem to want to debate the actual proposal. Any comments on the proposal (rather than just the word 'myth') are welcomed.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fimus, your example is about as related to this problem as astrology is to my week. Why not use the primate example I gave? It's offensive to many, it's ambiguous (so we're monkeys?), and so on. Your proposal is an attempt to try and remove the use of the word myth except in instances you personally, or anyone else who comes along, finds palatable, irrespective of the reliable sources on the matter. No go I'm afraid. As I just said, a topic should be called mythical if and only if the majority of the reliable sources do. Oh, and I have no problem debating the issue. I have a problem rehashing the debate again and again and again as you move through Wikipedia. Ben (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I can't believe the coincidence. Someone on Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy is using the current wording to argue against using the term myth. I mean, putting all of our interpretations aside, doesn't that say a lot? Ben (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Again you make accusations (that I want myth removed in all but the places I want it). Utter nonsense. If there is majority scholarly opinion about a story that it is a myth, then fine - Creation is the most obvious example. You, on the other hand, would appear to want every last story in every religious text classified as a myth. I seriously doubt that you will find reliable sources that claim this is correct. I am looking for a genuinely neutral way to use ambiguous words (not just 'myth'). If the consensus is that I haven't got that right, then please, by all means, suggest tweaks or alternatives. We all know what your alternative is, Ben - it is there for all to see, inserted without discussion or consensus.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone quoting the current wording in that context is proof positive we need to change it--FimusTauri (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What? They argue myth technically works, but that 'creation story' is consistent with NPOV too, so why not use it. This was precisely the point of the current wording - arguments must hinge on the reliable sources, not on avoiding or attracting to a particular term. Ben (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If a creationist objects to the word "creation myth", that doesn't mean at all we should change it. And maybe we should consider that in other languages (French, German, Spanish) "mythe", "Mythe", "mito" don't have and never had any negative connotation at all. It is word commonly used by scholars all over the world. I wasn't aware that there are people in the - very broad - English-speaking space that have evolved to consider it negative, but are you sure all English speakers would agree? At least, the scholarly community, used to read other languages, would be very astonished. "Story" is far too inexact a word for an encyclopedia. We don't say that the Bible is a "story book" but a religious text and a canonical book. Let's keep to an exact, accepted, scholarly wording.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ilyacadiz, the earliest uses in most European languages derive from the New Testament which stated that "myths" are pagan stories not to be believed. It's still widely seen in this context by many readers of the Bible. Then you have folks like Tom Paine who used the word polemically to attack the Church, not at all in a neutral way, eg "the Christian Mythologists, calling themselves the Christian Church, have erected their fable, which, for absurdity and extravagance, is not exceeded by anything that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients.".  That's the history of the word in English. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that settles it. If the negative connotation for the term myth is the opinion of the Bible that myths are pagan stories and not to be believed, as opposed to Bible stories, which must be believed, than addressing this concern by avoiding this word for Bible stories would mean that WP considers the Bible trustworthy and the rest of religions not. I fear that won't go. On the other hand, we can't address the polemic use made by certain people of certain terms in a guideline for WP policy.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? You lost me. What are you trying to say here? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe I got it wrong, but you said the earliest uses in most European languages derive from the New Testament which stated that "myths" are pagan stories not to be believed. It's still widely seen in this context by many readers of the Bible. I assume that most people uncomfortable with the word myth when referring to a Christian story are readers of the Bible. And I would think that they are uncomfortable because calling their own stories "myths" equates them to other (pagan) stories which are "not to be believed". So they understand that the one who uses the word "myth" wants to tell them they shouldn't believe their own stories because they are not better than the pagan ones. That's a logic reasoning, unfortunately I think we can't adapt WP style to such concerns. We can't help equating Christian (and Muslim, Jew, Hindu.... etc) stories to pagan stories, if we don't want to be very POV pro-Christian (or pro-Muslim, Jew, Hindu...). We can't try to say which stories are better and might be believed and which are not. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't that clear-cut to me. We can, should, and do say which stories are believed, and currently, the pagan stories have very few believers, and very few temples, so that's what we say. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So the number of people believing a story defines if it may be labelled a myth or not? Where do we put the minimum figure of believers for a story not to be called a myth? Any suggestions?--Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't we use the word only when there is no opposition among the described subjects or adherents to said belief? For instance, one of the larger neo-pagan religions is called Asatru.  They revere the Norse sagas, but make it explicit that they are comfortable with them being referred to as "myths".  It would seem then that nobody at all objects to calling the Norse sagas "myths". But if you found a source suggesting that a significant number of people did object to calling the sagas "myths", I would be the first to argue that the term "myth" should not be used, so as to be neutral and not offend the adherents. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I object to that principle. I think WP cannot establish as a guideline for the use of a word (or, for that, of an image) if believers are happy with it or not. That would amount to censorship. Many believers would not be happy with any description of their faith that does not fit into their believings.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What you are suggesting instead, amounts to discounting the opinion of those who profess whatever belief we are describing, as insignificant, irrelevant, or possibly stigmatized as "fringe" for NPOV purpose, when it is not always "fringe" in all cases. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unlike even more complex situations, like images of Muhammad appearing in that article, there is a simple and reasonable solution to this problem. We simply defer to the reliable sources on the topic. If they classify 'x' as a myth, then so do we. If they don't, then we don't. This is perfectly objective, easily challenged or backed up if people are concerned about fringe views, and so on. Ben (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But Ben, you've already stated several times that you only hold those sources "reliable" of secular scholars that dictate to the religions how to interpret their own Bible / Quran, and sources speaking for the religious bodies themselves "unreliable". Once again, WP:RS imposes no such litmus test for establishing reliability for purposes of determining if a viewpoint is relevant or significant enough to be included in NPOV, as WP:RS/N will surely explain to you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Break
If Wikipedia editors spent as much energy on improving articles as they spend on arguing over terminology, then there would no longer be any dispute about whether high school students should be able to use Wikipedia as a reference. (Okay, I'm exaggerating. But you get my point.) I think it's high time that both sides made some concessions in this matter. Here are my suggestions: I think these proposals are entirely reasonable. They might form the basis for a compromise, or at least a truce, between the two sides in this debate. Look, none of us (I hope) want to get into any more fights than are necessary. We all know that some random anonymous editor is going to complain whenever we insert the word "myth" into a religious article. So, to save ourselves a headache, why shouldn’t we defer to popular usage and avoid the word "myth" when it isn't necessary? On the other hand, we shouldn't let popular usage stop us from creating articles on legitimate topics like Jewish mythology. (I'm particularly proud of my efforts on Jewish mythology, by the way.) Just to summarize, here's my proposal: --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, the pro-myth folks should stop insisting on including the word "myth" in religious-themed articles when other wordings are equally acceptable from an informational and stylistic standpoint. Consider Noah's Ark. The intro currently says, "Noah's Ark is a large vessel featuring in the myths of Abrahamic religions." Instead, why not write, "Noah's Ark is a large vessel mentioned in the Abrahamic scriptures and tradition"? The same amount of information is conveyed either way; so if an editor insisted on the former wording, I would suspect that he had some ulterior motive for inserting the word "myth" into the article.
 * The anti-myth folks should stop complaining about the existence of articles like Jewish mythology and Christian mythology. As I demonstrated by citing Britannica, articles with such titles have encyclopedic precedent. Nor should anyone complain when stories about Jesus and Noah are mentioned in such articles. Given that an article titled Christian mythology exists, it can rightfully discuss any story that might fall within the category of "Christian mythology" from an academic standpoint (even if not all academics would categorize that story as a myth!). Certain editors should also stop complaining about the inclusion of Jesus, Noah’s Ark, etc., in Category:Christian mythology for the same reason.
 * Third, here's something we should all be able to agree on. Articles and category listings with "mythology" in their titles should focus only on stories. Rituals, superstitions, taboos, and theological concepts are not myths by any scholarly definition. For example, Trinity does not belong in Category:Christian mythology. (Fortunately, it isn't currently located there.) Whether you believe in the Trinity or not, the Trinity is not a mythological figure: no traditional Christian story describes the adventures of the Trinity. The Trinity is a theological concept, not a myth.
 * If a religious article doesn't have the word "myth" or "mythology" in its title and lacks any section specifically devoted to discussing "mythology", then avoid the word "myth" (except when alternative wordings are unacceptable from a stylistic standpoint).
 * Articles on "[Insert religion here] mythology" should be left alone, and the attacks on them should cease. Same goes for "Category:[Insert religion here] mythology".
 * Pro-myth editors should be careful not to equate "myth" with "religion". Each religion contains myths (i.e. traditional or sacred stories), but each religion also contains a lot more than just myths (i.e. rituals, theology, etc.).
 * Regarding your third point, I have never seen anyone make that claim anywhere, let alone on Wikipedia, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Regarding your second point, I think anyone should be allowed to challenge any material in any article if it isn't cited. Asking people to stop attacking (challenging) an article is not a reasonable request.
 * By far, your first point I have the biggest problem with. It leads to one of two outcomes - either we avoid the word myth with respect to all religions (no matter their status), or we only avoid it where people complain. The second instance has many obvious POV implications. Consider for instance that many mythical concepts in Christianity, or any religion, have parallels in earlier and/or different religions. It will be necessary to discuss these parallels in most articles. If we're talking about Egyptian mythology and Christian stories (or whatever), we're in trouble.
 * So suppose we completely avoid the word myth except in 'X myth(ology)' articles. How far do we take it? Do we have the creation myth article, but Adam and Eve feature in a creation story? What about non-religious articles? Does the evolution article mention creation myths, or must it also avoid the term? If not, how do we justify this? Do no articles on Wikipedia link to Christian mythology, since we're suppose to avoid the term, and in effect creating an isolated set of content forks? Or do we have to pipe a link every time, in effect censoring our article titles? When others come along and ask why we don't use the word myth to describe these things when the majority of other sources do, how do we respond? "Sorry, we prescribe our own terminology because some people don't like the term myth"? Give me a break, this is everything neutrality is not. This is not some sort of slippery slope argument, these are valid questions, answers to which we will have to justify to every other editor that comes along. It looks like a bloody nightmare to try and manage. Compared to just following suit with respect to reliable sources, for any term, not just this one, it seems like a joke.
 * I can not support censorship, and I can not support deviation from the reliable sources on a topic. Especially not because some people 'just don't like it'. Sorry. Ben (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Ben is right. I would summarize my opinion as follows:
 * If a scientific term is commonly used without any negative connotation by the neutral and trustworthy sources we use to write WP articles, we can and should use this term. There is no sense in telling us "try to find another one".
 * All religiones are to be treated equal, regardless of the number of believers they have. That is scholarship.
 * No style guidelines can be made in order not to hurt believers of a certain religion. All style guidelines must follow the best available, updated and most commonly agreed upon scientific literature. Which is that may be challenged and debated in each case.
 * I'll put here a text sample of the WP entry Deluge myth which I think is perfectly neutral and can't hurt anybody: "In mythology, a deluge myth, or flood myth, is a story of a great flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution. It is a widespread theme among many cultural myths, though it is perhaps best known in modern times through the biblical story of Noah's Ark, the Hindu Puranic story of Manu, through Deucalion in Greek mythology or Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh."


 * I can't see anybody challenging this text by telling us that the biblical story of Noah's Ark shouldn't be mentioned among these myths because it's written in the Bible. And don't tell me that here the word "story" is used instead of "myth": it is completely clear to the reader that Noah's story is one of the many flood myths. Only if you can challenge that fact, then you can demand not to use the word myth when referring to a Bible story. If this fact goes unchallenged, no style guideline to avoid the term makes sense. It would amount to: "it is but we mustn't tell". Of course, as to give weight to different opinions, editors are free to include a Pope quote telling us "although scholars consider this a myth, our Church considers it to be an historic account". Why not, if you can source it.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think both Ben and Ilya are mistaken. For example Ilya says "All religiones are to be treated equal, regardless of the number of believers they have. That is scholarship."  How is that "scholarship"???  That isn't "scholarship", it's just a rather weak argument you made that doesn't make much sense.  Why must we take a religion with 3 adherents as equally a "significant point of view" as one with 300 million?  It flies in the face of all our policy and precedent.  And similarly, Ben said "If we're talking about Egyptian mythology and Christian stories (or whatever), we're in trouble."  Uh... "in trouble" with whom?  All the disgruntled believers that the Egyptian myths were historical???  Come on now... Find a source that says anyone today objects to calling the Egyptian stories "myths". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ben, I think you misunderstood my second point. Let me restate it:
 * "The anti-myth folks should stop complaining about the existence of articles like Jewish mythology and Christian mythology. As I demonstrated by citing Britannica, articles with such titles have encyclopedic precedent. Nor should anyone complain when stories about Jesus and Noah are mentioned in such articles. Given that an article titled Christian mythology exists, it can rightfully discuss any story that might fall within the category of 'Christian mythology' from an academic standpoint (even if not all academics would categorize that story as a myth!). Certain editors should also stop complaining about the inclusion of Jesus, Noah’s Ark, etc., in Category:Christian mythology for the same reason."
 * You object that "anyone should be allowed to challenge any material in any article if it isn't cited". I don't deny that at all. In fact, strictly speaking, any unsourced material is fair game for deletion. Thus, I liked your suggestion above that we defer to the wording of our sources: If our source calls story X a "myth", then we can too; if our source uses other wording, then so should we. In making my second point, I didn't mean to deny the right of any editor to challenge anything.
 * What I meant is this: the existence (not the content) of articles like Christian mythology should be accepted by any anti-"myth" editors who are interested in productive dialogue with pro-"myth" editors. Based on the arguments on this and other talk pages, it seems obvious to me that productive dialogue will be impossible until the anti-"myth" folks make at least this concession.
 * Moreover, editors with an interest in productive dialogue should also accept the content of such articles insofar as it is cited. If we have a source that calls the Exodus story a "myth", then we can legitimately discuss the Exodus in Jewish mythology, even if not all scholars would call the Exodus a myth.
 * I hope that clears things up somewhat.
 * As for my third point, you'd be surprised what used to be in the Christian mythology article. The article used to discuss baptism and the Eucharist as examples of parallels with other mythologies. I was quick to remove that nonsense when I came upon the article. Baptism and the Eucharist are rituals, not myths! Also, see the discussion Category talk:Christian mythology, where one editor claims that Trinity should be included as "mythology". --Phatius McBluff (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I got the impression you were asking editors to stop complaining about the material in those articles without any regard for sourcing. In fact, I was probably focused more on your 'summary' as I wrote my own reply, even though I read your entire response. Anyway, if it's reliably sourced and people still complain simply because they don't like it, then I agree, they need to stop.
 * Your last paragraph surprises me a lot. Ritual and mythology are often intertwined, but never equal. Of course, deferring to reliable sources takes just as good a care of these types of situations. If someone wants to argue the point, they need to bring reliable sources to the table. If we ignore the reliable sources for one set of articles though, we can't enforce that requirement, so I'm still opposed to your first point I'm afraid.
 * To make myself clear (the last reply was a bit of a shocker), the only way to stop drawn out arguments like this is to have a clear and objective requirement for inclusion, exclusion and terminology - if the reliable sources use it and include it, so do we. If they do not, we do not. Done. Importantly, it does not depend on the type of article. In this way, there is no room for argument on either side of the table - and this was precisely the goal. Some people may not like that, but we're not here to project our own feelings onto articles, we're here to reflect reliable sources. Cheers, Ben (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here we go, "Reliable sources" again... But, you only accept sources that use your definition as reliable - proving that yours is a circular argument. You don't have authority to reject all the sources that you don't like, on grounds that you and your sources are "right" and they are thus "wrong".  Any religious groups, no matter  how large or significant, seem to be too stigmatized to be entitled to have their interpretations of their own scriptures treated neutrally, in your view (except perhaps where it might agree with your view!) That's not how WP:NPOV works, and not how WP:RS works, like I keep telling you.  I think maybe I will do something like you did, and start collecting on my user subpage, for convenient reference, all the sources that are reliable for establishing that there are really TWO sides to a controversy on whether or not the Bible / Quran, or any parts thereof, should properly be labeled as "myth" - all those same sources that you unilaterally "rejected" as having "the wrong POV"... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, sorry really. You can't equate scholarly research and religious dogma. The opinion of scholars is very clear: "There are no known cases of naturally-occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild". Period. The fact that hundreds of millions of catholics believe (or are supposed to believe) that precisely such a thing occured around -1 AD in the Middle East is not even mentioned. You can and you must quote the opinion of believers about their sacred stories, this is always an important piece of information, but you can't demand that this opinion affects the wording of what scholars agree upon. And you can't tell me that the story of Jesus is essentially different from the story of Karna - both mentioned in Virgin birth (mythology) - just because Hindus are less prone to complain when reading WP.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, we need to decide if "NPOV" means, per your interpretation, we accept only self-appointed secular "scholars" who intrude themselves into religious subjects, and we stigmatize religions with even hundreds of million of adherents, or if it means we treat the views of religious bodies on religious topics as significant and admissible. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not what Ilyacadiz said. Let me quote it for you:
 * You can and you must quote the opinion of believers about their sacred stories, this is always an important piece of information, but you can't demand that this opinion affects the wording of what scholars agree upon.
 * We do not exclude significant points of view, as you suggest. Cheers, Ben (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is, does NPOV allow us to give precedence or greater "weight" to what, say, non-Muslim scholars say about the Quran, or should wording reflect that Muslim interpretations of the Quran are equally significant?? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer is, the scholarly point of view is the primary point of view. The point of view of adherents is obviously significant, and must be included and discussed, giving due weight to different interpretations. It's the same with every other article Til. Intelligent design, and other pseudo-scientific topics are the classic examples of where this type of problem comes up. Ben (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that's where I strongly disagree with you, and NPOV doesn't seem to say what you think it says. Muslim scholars are scholars, no matter how snobbish atheist scholars may feel towards them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked for a proposal in the original post and all I could find was:

I feel that the policy should be to use it with great care.

So I changed the policy, under WP: SOWHAT? (TSC-01)*


 * Trivial Semantic Concession 01

"great care" wouldn't be enough to prevent this issue arising again, of course. So, in lieu of future proposals, I made it stronger.

It now reads When using "myth" in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use the utmost care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology or mythology.

NB: The policy is the same as before. More importantly, the sources are the same as before.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Break 2
This has gotten to the point where I hardly understand what's being argued. Without trying to pick a fight with anyone, I will try to explain what my confusion is. Most participants in this argument now seem to be debating the relative weight that should be given to secular sources and to religious sources. This is an interesting debate, but I don't see how it affects the question of whether the word "myth" will appear in religious articles, assuming that we go with Ben's proposal. If you recall, Ben's proposal (which I find wholly reasonable) is that we defer to sources when it comes to wording. If a published work calls the subject matter "myth", then so can we (in the portion of the text for which we are using that work as a source); but if the work doesn't use the expression "myth", then we shouldn't either. Clearly, if we adhere to this policy, then the word "myth" will easily make its way into articles, no matter how many Muslim and Christian scholars we're allowed to use as sources. Why? Because folks like Ben and Ilyacadiz will easily be able to find plenty of sources (both secular and otherwise) that call religious stories "myths". Once they have those sources, the word "myth" is fair game for insertion, regardless of how many sources do not use the word. This would be untrue only if the other side were able to provide sources that specifically condemn the use of the word "myth", and those are hard to come by. Remember, failure to use the word "myth" is not equivalent to condemnation of its use.

I admit that I may have misunderstood the point of the above debate. If so, would someone please enlighten me?

P.S.: I like Ddawkins73's change to the policy description. Something like that should have been added a long time ago. However, I'm afraid that we've reached a point where such a change will be insufficient to quell the debate. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should clarify my above remarks. Suppose that an article contains the following sentence: "The Messiah figures prominently in Judeo-Christian apocalyptic mythology and may be a borrowing from the Zoroastrian myth of Saoshyant." (This sentence doesn't currently appear in any Wikipedia article, by the way.) Suppose that this sentence has 4 sources. Now, suppose that one of the sources says, "The Messiah may have entered Jewish mythology from its contact with Zoroastrian mythology". Further, suppose that the 3 other sources say, "The Messiah is an important figure in the body of Jewish prophecies and apocalytic narratives, although not all Jewish groups hold a theological belief in an actual person who will perform the deeds traditionally attributed to the Messiah", "Christians believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah", and "The term 'Saoshyant' appears in the Gathas, but the notion of a specific savior called Saoshyant developed in later Zoroastrian tradition as part of the developing story of the end-times". The first source uses the word "mythology". The 3 latter sources do not use the word, but that in itself is not a reason to avoid using the word. Thus, the words "myth" and "mythology" will be legitimate here, no matter how many sources we can cite that do not use such words. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the debate went a little far away from the subject, but I think it did because the underlying cause of the discussion is up to which point the respect for religious beliefs of a possible reader is allowed to influence the style used in Wikipedia. My opinion stays that scholars, regardless of their religious affiliation, are capable of analyzing in a rational way the different existing beliefs and sacred texts and use a common terminology for that purpose, and that this terminology includes the word "myth" without any offending connotation. Only if someone rejects this rational analysis because he/she assumes as true everything written in a specific sacred text, as opposed to other texts (sacred to other people), then he/she would be offended, but this approach, in my opinion, cannot be called "scholarlike" and cannot dominate the style in Wikipedia. That, as Ben observed, does of course not mean that the opinion of believers is to be excluded or not given due weight. It does just mean that no style guideline can be dressed on a approach which favours one specific belief as opposed to others.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re Phatius' comment: This would be untrue only if the other side were able to provide sources that specifically condemn the use of the word "myth", and those are hard to come by. Not that hard to come by.  Remember, this debate has been going on for years, and we've found quite a lot of this very thing.  I'm starting a compilation now at my subpage User:Til Eulenspiegel/Religious narratives as sacred canon, and hope to have it shaped up and presentable in the near future. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Break 3
Having been away for a couple of days has proved useful to me, as I can now see where there are a number of misconceptions amongst some editors. There are also some fallacious arguments being used as a result of these:


 * 1) I am not dogmatically against the use of the word "myth(ology)". The Noah's Ark lead was quoted earlier, which includes that word, a wording I was involved in drafting. This represented a significant compromise on the part of myself and Til, in particular. On the other hand, certain editors were dogmatically insisting that "myth(ology)" be included. The particular compromise reached stated that the story of Noah's Ark was included in the mythology of Abrahamic religions, whilst avoided stating either that the story is a myth, or that the Bible/Quran are mythologies. The distinction is subtle, but important. In theory, this sort of compromise is how WP should work. However, in practise this compromise is unsatisfactory to both sides and, further, will not prevent more arguments in the near future.
 * 2) "The anti-myth folks should stop complaining about the existence of articles like Jewish mythology and Christian mythology." We're not. The complaint is that these articles have self-justified branding every religious story as a myth. Consider the statement "Certain editors should also stop complaining about the inclusion of Jesus, Noah’s Ark, etc., in Category:Christian mythology for the same reason." This is an attempt to justify including all religious stories in the category "myth". This is clearly wrong. "Religious stories" is not a sub-category of myth - if anything, myth is a sub-category of religious stories.
 * 3) There is plenty of material that rightly belongs in an article entitled "Christian mythology" - George and the dragon and Arthur and the round table are two examples that spring to mind. Yet the pro-myth lobby would not only have us equate the story of Jesus with Arthur and George, they actually give the Jesus story pre-eminence as an "important example" of Christian mythology. (And, Phatius, I have gone through the history of that page and apprecaite how much you have helped to improve it, but it has a very long way to go yet)
 * 4) "We simply defer to the reliable sources on the topic. If they classify 'x' as a myth, then so do we. If they don't, then we don't." This isn't quite what NPOV states. To quote: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as 'the truth'" In other words, if reliable sources state that a story is a myth then we should present those sources as one point of view, and also present opposing viewpoints with due weight. We do not assert something as fact if there are conflicting viewpoints. There are plenty of viewpoints regarding the Biblical stories, certainly from David onwards, that do not consider those stories 'myths'. In big, bold letters we are told "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." If we state "the story of Jesus is a myth", we are asserting an opinion, not a fact.
 * 5) On Phatius' specific example about Zoroastrianism - using that example, equating Jesus with 'myth' would be a direct violation of WP:SYN and is a brilliant example of the very foundations of many of the problems we have here. The pro-myth lobby use exactly those kind of arguments to falsely justify including the word.
 * 6) I wholeheartedly agree that "not giving offense" is not sufficient reason to avoid a word. That is not what is being argued. The argument is that most readers understand 'myth' to imply 'falsehood'. If that is what a reader believes, then that is what a reader will understand the word to mean. Therefore, if we use the word myth without explaining what we mean by it, then we are giving the reader the wrong impression - that is bad scholarship.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Back up
What do we mean by myth? We mean nothing (or shouldn't). By "myth", Wikipedia means what the reliable sources mean. Who are the reliable sources? What field or fields? Ddawkins73 (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely correct! What we mean should be what the reliable sources mean, because all we do is report the reliable sources and not interpret them. This system breaks down, however, when editors use statements from a reliable source without giving them proper context. Consider the following statement:
 * The academic study of mythology will, in its broadest definition, encompass many stories not traditionally seen as being 'myths', such as those found in the religious texts of many contemporary religions.
 * This statement (assuming an accurate definition of 'myth(ology)' precedes it) is very neutral: it provides a context for anything that follows and allows for the inclusion of the story of Jesus in the succeeding discussion. At the same time it avoids stating that "the story of Jesus is a myth". Context is vital here. Unfortunately, some editors on WP will take a source that has a statement such as this, extract comments from further on and cite them as "evidence" that the story of Jesus is seen as a myth amongst reliable sources. In this instance, the story is treated as a myth - not defined as one.
 * The core of my objection to the current wording is that it allows editors to effectively redefine 'myth' to encompass, quite literally, whatever they want it to mean. The word is ambiguous and, like any other ambiguous word, we have to be very careful about its use. I would like to see this discussion move away from the specific item 'myth' and into the wording of what, after all, is described as 'official Wikipedia policy'. The current wording was inserted without discussion. Let's discuss it!--FimusTauri (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, we seem to be on the path to progress. FimusTauri, do you mean that you would be okay with an article on Christian mythology that includes a discussion of Jesus if we include a disclaimer like the one you just wrote? If so, I don't think there need be any conflict between you and the pro-myth camp. Discussions of the complicated history of the word "myth" already exist at Religion and mythology, Islamic mythology, and Christian mythology (at a few spots in the article and in the infobox), where they are tolerated by the pro-myth camp.
 * Here's a proposal: In Christian mythology, why don't we add the disclaimer that FimusTauri suggested to the intro, and then go through the article, making sure that we have a source for every place where we discuss a story as an example of a "myth". I'm not quite as sure that that disclaimer would be appropriate for Jewish mythology and Islamic mythology: in neither Judaism nor Islam did the Greek word muthos traditionally mean "false story". Clearly, though, some similar kind of disclaimer could be usefully added to both Jewish mythology and Islamic mythology. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to Ddawkins73's question, the relevant fields for the study of mythology include folkloristics, religious studies, and classics. For a discussion of the various definitions of "mythology" used in academia, take a look at Mythology. My idea for the Christian mythology article is that we start with the most restrictive definition of "myth" (the folkloristic definition: "sacred story about how the world came to be in its current form") and discuss the religious stories that fall under that definition (according to one source I have, that would include Genesis 1 and 2, Eden, and Noah; according to another source, it could also include the Christ story), then the stories that fall under the religious studies definition ("stories centering around gods"); finally we can throw the doors open and discuss Christian-themed legends, folktales, etc. The upshot of this method is that it automatically arranges the stories in something close to their order of significance for believers. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't do disclaimers. However, I fully support articles establishing some context as soon as possible, the first sentence ideally. I don't see anything wrong with Fimus' proposal provided it's worked into the Christian mythology article as a discussion of the finer points of the topic, not as some sort of glaring disclaimer before the actual topic is even introduced. I don't think that will be hard at all, but this isn't the place to discuss that, so can we all agree to move that discussion to Talk:Christian mythology? Once we have established discussion there we can discuss the wording Fimus wants to discuss here without distraction.
 * In fact, the discussion on the Christian mythology page will be a good litmus test for the current wording, since we'll have a concrete case study to refer to. In particular, we will all be able to ask ourselves questions like: is the current wording helping or hindering in that discussion? Is the current wording inconsistent with what everyone seems happy with on the Christian mythology page? If not, we will be able to pinpoint the exact problem. If so, maybe something can be made clearer. And so on. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, okay, let's not call it a disclaimer. And "disclaimer" probably isn't the best word to describe what Fimus was suggesting anyway. (I was the one who introduced the word "disclaimer".) Anyway, I think we can all agree that something like the sentence that Fimus suggested would be perfectly appropriate in religious articles. I second Ben's proposal and suggest that we take this discussion to Talk:Christian mythology. We can then use our progress there as a basis for further discussion about general policy here. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion at Talk:Christian mythology. Please go there if you want to use our discussion here to try to hammer out some kind of consensus for the Christian mythology article, which we can use to help form a consensus for general policy. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly feel that Talk:Christian mythology might be appropriate for changing that one article, but is an inappropriate venue for hammering out site-wide policy. I have stated that I intend to take this all the way to arbcom if necessary, to get a binding site-wide determination on NPOV.  I have also repeatedly suggested checking the sources I have found with WP:RS/N, who can certainly help those editors who have trouble grasping what satisfies the reliable source policy for establishing significant points if view, to ensure that religious views of religious texts are given due weight and are treated neutrally.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "There is probably no word that causes more confusion in biblical studies today than the word myth. That is because it is used in many different senses by different writers in different fields and genres, which often overlap. G. B. Caird, in The Language and Imagery of the Bible, has distinguished nine different senses of the word myth..." -- Handbook of Christian Apologetics Peter Kreeft, 1994, p. 201
 * "The truth is that scholars disagree about the definition of the word. One recent writer [Caird] has isolated nine definitions of myth and another [J. W. Rogerson] documents twelve aspects of myth. This proliferation of definitions of myth is the reason why one scholar would look at Gen. 1-11 and say it is free of myth, while another scholar would look at Gen 1-11 and pronounce it entirely mythical." -- The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17  by Victor P. Hamilton, 1990, p. 58.
 * "Mythology is a disease of language." -- Max Muller. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Like Til, I do not think that any discussion on a specific topic can be extended to a site-wide policy; once again, context is important. However, I certainly welcome the discussion proposed by Phatius and will have more to say on the relevant page.
 * I firmly believe that a consensus can be reached. On the face of it, the arguments boil down to two sides that say


 * 1) You must include the word myth(ology) with respect to religious stories, and
 * 2) You must not include the word myth(ology) with respect to religious stories.


 * In truth, neither of these statements is a true reflection of what either side is saying (there may be exceptions - on both sides - but this is not my understanding). The first step towards consensus is to get a true reflection of the two sides, which are better stated as:


 * 1) Myth(ology) is the correct, academic term and is therefore appropriate in most articles on religious stories, and
 * 2) Myth(ology) is an ambiguous word that should be used with caution in articles on religious stories.


 * These two opinions are considerably closer together. When the arguments are viewed in this way, I am sure that either side is better able to understand that the other side is working in good faith. That will be the next step towards consensus.


 * The next step towards consensus is, for me, quite straightforward, and requires only bridging the already-reduced gap between the sides. A small concession on both sides can almost eliminate the gap:


 * 1) Although myth(ology) is the correct, academic term, which is appropriate to most articles on religious stories, we should take care in its use and ensure that the reader fully appreciates the context in which it is used.
 * 2) Although myth(ology) is an ambiguous word that should be used with caution in religious articles, it is an acceptable word if given the correct context.


 * These two positions are almost identical - can we bridge the gap?--FimusTauri (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Only my proposal has a clear line, while the opposing arguments know no bounds. The clear line I am proposing is topics that are in any living group's "canon" (or puranas, or the equivalent) be off-limits for "myth" if there are significant published objections. Extra-canonical stuff like Holy Grail, and extremely small groups like Asatru that call their own canon material  "myth" and noone disagrees, are, er, "fair game" (with apologies to L Ron Hubbard) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "The clear line I am proposing is topics that are in any living group's "canon" (or puranas, or the equivalent) be off-limits for "myth" if there are significant published objections". Objections to what, exactly? If a reliable source says that a particular topic is not a traditional religious story then yes, we cannot neutrally describe it as a myth. But if a theologian says "I don't want to describe Jesus' life as a myth because I'm uncomfortable with it" then (s)he is not acting as a reliable source on the ontology of theology. Wikipedia defers to reliable sources on ontological issues - how the world is and was and will be - but makes its own decisions on presentational matters. Whether to use a potentially offensive and ambiguous word falls into the latter category. Ilkali (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I should clarify that I don't mean we can't discuss who might consider the canonical stories to be myths, provided we also discuss those who disagree, per NPOV. We just shouldn't side with only one POV -- unless it truly is the only POV, as in the case of the Grail or the Norse sagas. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Til's proposal is a gross violation of the NPOV policy, not to mention unworkable. Moving back up to Fimus' comment, I didn't ever say what is decided on the Christian mythology page should be adopted site wide, I said it would make a good reference point, and would be useful to see how things work. Can we please stop clouding the discussion with such little "oh but"'s? It seems people are looking for things to object to.
 * Onto your proposal, can you please explain to me how the word myth is ambiguous when used with respect to religious articles? I don't see how you can make this argument. Although there are varying definitions, the concept is certainly clear enough without having a precise definition on hand, and this is all that is necessary in ancillary articles. It is exactly the same with the word theory. Readers do not need to have a solid understanding of how the term is defined for the concept to be clear in scientific articles. And of course, being a scientific article is the context for drawing upon the intended meaning of the word. In exactly the same way, religious articles are the context for drawing upon the intended meaning of the word myth. Long pseudo-disclaimers at the beginning of articles, which your proposal hints at requiring, is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia - definitions are to be discussed in the main article related to the term, mythology or scientific theory for instance. Ben (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand how 'myth(ology)' can be ambiguous then why the hell did you insert a section about it in this FAQ?--FimusTauri (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. It appears you didn't read what I wrote, here or in the FAQ. Please don't waste my time. Ben (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Myth has a range of formal meanings in different fields." These are your words, Ben, from WP:WTA - if it has a range of meanings, it is ambiguous. The only way I am wasting your time is that you appear to be utterly inflexible on this issue.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, and look Til is off on another one of his rants below too. I tell you what guys, since you both seem incapable of having a clear and straightforward discussion with me present, I'll leave. But only for a week (there's always a catch!). Hopefully by then you and Til will have sorted your shit out, and you will be able to present a clear, precise and well-founded (that is, not contradicting other policies) proposal. Sound ok? Ben (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources for this dispute
Ben's definition of "reliable" (as in "reliable sources") is Orwellian; he has repeatedly declared that only those sources that suit his POV are "reliable", and that all the sources he doesn't like are "unreliable" for establishing an alternative and significant POV. That's not how NPOV and RSS policies work. He still thinks that one side of the dispute is utterly and forever illegitimate, and therefore his side by default may be redefined as "neutral" and "proven unassailable fact". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd propose you all agree to chose a somewhat ambiguous compromise and have done with it. Wonderous or some other similar word implying uncertainty might be substituted for mythic since myth implies a made up story and is offensive to some. If it could be arranged so that myth would no longer be expected to be used anywhere that the statement is verifiable and or a testable hypothesis then you could reduce your quarrel to its real crux which is which statements are verifiable. If a testible hypothesis can be witnessed, or backed up by references to archaeological, historical, linguistic or other scientific proof its certainly not mythic. This could be broken up into whats a factual basis and whats elaboration. Supernatural explanations that can't be verified might be described as wonderful or wonderous rather than mythic and broken out from historical elements.Rktect (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Rktect, we have at least one individual who is actually incapable of compromise. Ben insists that all religious articles are 'fair game' when it comes to the word 'myth(ology)'. So long as an individual remains so intransigent a compromise will never be reached. So, maybe its good for him to take a week off - maybe the rest of us can reach a viable compromise in his absence.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So I take it that is a 'yes' to my question above? If so, you get extra credit for developing the ability to attack the argument, and not the person, before then too. Cheers, Ben (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well regardless of whatever reason it is that you don't want to answer, we should make it official so my silence isn't interpreted as a lack of objection. I'll check back in a week, or you can ping my talk page in the mean time. Cheers, Ben (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Clear and precise proposal
I am proposing a change to an 'official Wikipedia policy' because the current wording of the policy was inserted without discussion or consensus. It is entirely appropriate that the arguments for this proposal be backed up by official guidelines:

From WP:5:
 * Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view."

Official policy requires "providing context" - which I am asking for. This is not the same as "pseudo-disclaimers".

Official policy requires that "we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view" - which I am asking for. Stating that a story is a myth is stating a point of view.

Official policy requires "presenting no one point of view as 'the truth' or 'the best view.'" - which I am asking for. Demanding that religious stories be called 'myths' is demanding we present the view that they are myths as the "best view".

From WP:NPOV:
 * Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

Presenting a religious story as a myth is not allowing the reader to form their own opinions. If a reader believes 'myth' means 'a made-up story' then stating that a story is a myth will, in the mind of the reader equate to saying that the story is made up. That is an inherent ambiguity in the term which can easily be resolved by providing context.

Again from WP:NPOV:
 * Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view.

The use of the term 'myth' is disputed, so this dispute should be made clear to the reader.

WP:NPOV again:
 * Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.

That a religious story is a myth is an opinion, not a fact.

In the light of this, I will restate my proposal, but some minor alterations:

Regarding terminology There are many words that have different meanings that are dependent upon their context. For example, fundamentalism and myth. These words should not be avoided in cases where there is little dispute over their application, for example in “Creation myth”. However, if there is a reasonable probability that a reader may misunderstand the use of a word, it should be used with great care, or an acceptable alternative be found instead. Where the meaning of a word is ambiguous, or where a word has multiple meanings, ensure that the context in which it is used adequately explains the desired meaning.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be better, besides "if there is a reasonable probability that a reader may misunderstand the use of a word", to add "or if there is significant sourced disagreement with the use of the word"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are correct to make that point, although I wouldn't simply insert it. I would add a whole sentence at the end. Something like
 * If there is significant and verifiable disagreement to the use of the word in this context, then that opposing point of view must also be included.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Very good, that certainly sounds fair enough. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I oppose a specific policy regarding the word "myth". This word is a scientifically used term, as it is "primate" for humans, and as such it cannot, in my view, be banned or complicated by a policy guideline. That every article about any myth must mention also the view, held by some, that these stories are not myths but historic accounts, is very clear and granted by WP:Neutrality. Nobody, as far as I can see, has asked to not include such sources and viewpoints. They must be included, and the reader must be able to form his or her own view by comparing the sources. To put obstacles to the use of a specific word does not serve this purpose, in my view. By the way, has anybody come up with a Dictionnary definition that says that the word myth equates falsehood? My Collins does not hint to that in the least. But it seems that there are more prestigious dictionnaries around. Please start giving a good source for the claim that that "myth" could equate "falsehood"--Ilyacadiz (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please start giving a good source for the claim that that "myth" could equate "falsehood" -- Er... have you checked any dictionaries? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Presenting a religious story as a myth is not allowing the reader to form their own opinions", "That a religious story is a myth is an opinion, not a fact." You seem to be pretending not to understand the nature of ambiguity. Whether a statement like Jesus' life is mythological expresses an opinion depends on what meaning we take for mythological. You know this. If a piece of text has a neutral intended meaning, but a subset of the audience derive a non-neutral meaning, that's not a WP:NPOV issue. The policies you are citing have no relevance here. Ilkali (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "The use of the term 'myth' is disputed, so this dispute should be made clear to the reader". You're wrong for the same reason I outlined in my (as-yet-unanswered) reply to Til Eulenspiegel. Reliable sources dictate what we can say. They don't dictate how we can say it. Ilkali (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have stated all along that this will probably end up in arb com because it is such a gross and blatant violation of NPOV to determine which modern religions' adherents believe in "myths"; no matter how you try to make it a "neutral" word, it simply isn't seen that way by many scholars. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If anyone were to be a reliable source on competing interpretations of the word myth, it would be sociolinguists, not theologians. It simply doesn't matter whether scholars are or aren't comfortable using the word to describe the myths of living religions, because it's not an ontological issue - it's just prosaic convention. Again: Core policies compel us to say what they say, but not to say it how they say it. Ilkali (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But you are saying that theologians' views about theological topics and articles, do not matter as much as these "sociolinguists" views.  Please read policy more carefully; I differ with your interpretation. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "But you are saying that theologians' views about theological topics and articles, do not matter as much as these "sociolinguists" views". No I'm not. We're not going to get anywhere until you understand this distinction. Theologians are an authority on theology. Sociolinguists are an authority on popular perceptions of the language of theology. Neither one matters unless we're talking about what information to put in an article, which we're not. We're not talking about what to say, we're talking about how to say it. The only reliable source on Wikipedia's prosaic conventions is Wikipedia itself. Ilkali (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I think your "sociolinguists are an authority" theory is crap. Socio who? say what??? They aren't any authority for me. Are they some kind of unanimous prescriptive body??? !  Have they made a "determination" that all of the scholarly objections to terming modern doctrines "myth" are wrong because they say so?  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to back up a little, Fimus proposed a wording that included: If there is significant and verifiable disagreement to the use of the word in this context, then that opposing point of view must also be included. I don't see anything in his wording that runs afoul of existing policy.  But you say no, we can't have that, because "sociolinguists" and wikipedia are allowed to "overrule" any verifiable disagreement, and rule it out of order, all for the sake of being needlessly inflammatory?  Just how far out on a limb are you going to take this? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're clearly not making any effort to read or understand what I'm saying and I'm tired of reformulating my argument for your benefit. I'm going to drop this for now. Ilkali (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I understand your argument well, I just find it preposterous... Sociolinguists have authority!  LOL Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep a little cool, please. Let me just repeat: If there is significant and verifiable disagreement to the use of the word in this context, then that opposing point of view must also be included. That is common Wikipedia policy. There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia which would allow us NOT to include an opposing view to anything, if there is a significant and verifiable disagreement to any stated fact/opinion. So I just can't see, guys, why we need an extra policy on that, just restricted to the word myth. There are thousands of facts/opinions around and thousands of editors challenging them and including the opposite (sourced) viewpoint. Why do you pick out the myth word for a policy? Anybody of the pro-myth folk ever said that opposing views should NOT be mentioned, if well-sourced? Maybe I missed some former debate--Ilyacadiz (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that seems to have been the consistent position of the "pro-myth folk" all this time - that the opposing views don't matter in this case, because the "pro-myth" sources supposedly have some kind of extra precedence in the dispute. The bolded proposition above isn't really any new policy, as much as an amplification of existing policy, since there's apparently been special confusion on this point among some editors. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What I think Ilkali meant
Everybody, calm down! Please! I feel that this discussion has gotten badly off-track, and I suspect that all participants may need to take some time off and try to have a fresh discussion later. However, I doubt that this will happen, so I will try to stop the conversation from drifting farther off-track by bringing it back to a recent point made by Ilkali: "If anyone were to be a reliable source on competing interpretations of the word myth, it would be sociolinguists, not theologians. It simply doesn't matter whether scholars are or aren't comfortable using the word to describe the myths of living religions, because it's not an ontological issue - it's just prosaic convention. Again: Core policies compel us to say what they say, but not to say it how they say it. Ilkali" "'But you are saying that theologians' views about theological topics and articles, do not matter as much as these 'sociolinguists' views'. No I'm not. We're not going to get anywhere until you understand this distinction. Theologians are an authority on theology. Sociolinguists are an authority on popular perceptions of the language of theology. Neither one matters unless we're talking about what information to put in an article, which we're not. We're not talking about what to say, we're talking about how to say it. The only reliable source on Wikipedia's prosaic conventions is Wikipedia itself. Ilkali" Til, I think that you misunderstood Ilakli's point. I believe that Ilkali means something like the following:


 * Wikipedia policy says that we must include all views on an issue. For example, suppose that we discover a new planet, Planet X, and we're trying to figure out what it's made of. Atheists think it's made of frozen water; religious believers think it's made of water vapor. Thus, some atheists are fond of saying, "Planet X consists of ice, not water vapor"; whereas some religious believers are fond of saying, "Planet X consists of water vapor, not ice". According to Wikipedia policy, we should provide readers with both viewpoints.


 * However, imagine that, in academic circles, the word "ice" means "water in any state". (I know that academics don't actually use the word "ice" that way. Remember, this is only a thought experiment!) In that situation, Wikipedia could rightfully say, unequivocally, that "Planet X consists of ice" — even though people disagree about whether the planet consists of frozen water or water vapor. Why? Because, in an academic context, "ice" doesn't mean "frozen water"; it means "water in any state". Thus, by saying, "Planet X consists of ice", we wouldn't be failing to provide both sides of the debate. Of course, after saying that Planet X consists of ice, we should add that people disagree about whether it consists of frozen water or water vapor. But, in itself, the statement "Planet X consists of ice" in no way violates policy. Policy says that we must give both the atheists' position and the believers' position, but it doesn't say that we must use the same wording as the atheists and the believers. In popular speech, the word "ice" may mean "frozen water", but we don't have to use the word that way.


 * Now let's consider the analogous situation of the word "myth". Atheists think sacred stories are false; believers think they're true. Thus, some atheists are fond of saying, "Noah is myth, not truth"; whereas some believers are fond of saying, "Noah is truth, not myth". According to Wikipedia policy, we should provide readers with both viewpoints. However, in academic circles, the word "myth" doesn't mean "false story"; it means "traditional story", "sacred story", etc. Thus, Wikipedia can rightfully call the Noah story a "myth". Why? Because, in an academic context, "myth" doesn't mean "false story". Thus, by calling Noah a myth, we aren't failing to provide both sides of the debate. Of course, after calling Noah a "myth", we might want to add that people disagree about whether the Noah story is true or false. But, in itself, calling Noah a "myth" in no way violates policy. Policy says that we must give both the atheists' position and the believers' position, but it doesn't say that we must use the same wording as the atheists and believers. In popular speech, the word "myth" may mean "false story", but we don't have to use the word that way.


 * According to this line of reasoning, neither theologians nor "sociolinguists" matter when it comes to the wording of articles. Theologians are authorities on theology — for example, on whether sacred stories are true. Sociolinguists are authorities on the popular use of language — for example, on whether people commonly use the word "myth" to mean "false story". If we're trying to determine the content of the article Christian mythology, then both theologians and sociolinguists matter: we must include the theologians' views on whether Christian stories are true, and we must include the sociolinguists' views on whether most people who believe that Christian stories are false use the word "myth" to express this belief. However, if we're trying to determine the wording of the article, then neither theologians nor sociolinguists matter. A particular theologian may say, "Noah is true, not a myth," in order to express his belief that the Noah story is true. But if we're not using the word "myth" in the popular sense of "false story", then we are not contradicting the theologian by calling Noah a "myth".

I hope I captured Ilkali's point here. Sorry I was so long-winded, but I thought it was important to make clear exactly what I thought his point was. I have to say that I don't completely agree with it. Popular usage of words actually does matter to an extent when it comes to the wording of articles. Since "myth" popularly means "false story", we would risk misleading people if we simply called Noah a myth and left it at that. We must at least make clear to the reader that we are not using the word "myth" to mean "false story": otherwise, we will run the risk of violating the spirit, if not the letter, of Wikipedia policy. Til, I am sure that you will not agree with Ilkali's point for somewhat the same reason that I don't. And I am sure that you will disagree much more strongly. However, I hope that I have at least clarified an important issue somewhat.

P.S.: Ilaki, please let me know if I've misinterpreted your remarks! --Phatius McBluff (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Even assuming that is what Ilkali meant, it is simply a repetition of the same arguments that the pro-myth lobby have been using all along and which I have refuted in half a dozen different ways here, without a single valid counter-argument other than "myth is the academic word" being repeated ad nauseum. Essentially, the argument they are presenting is one of verifiability to the exclusion of the other pillars of Wikipedia, especially WP:NPOV.


 * If you want a dictionary definition that says myth=falsehood look here: . When you have scanned down that page and seen the many examples from respected dictionaries, click "thesaurus" - every single antonym of myth listed equates to "truth".


 * Let me repeat something that has utterly passed Ilkali by: I (and Til and others) totally and utterly appreciate and understand the argument you are presenting - that acadamics use the word 'myth' to describe religious stories, and therefore we should. We understand that - we disagree that that alone is sufficient argument to justify the universal inclusion of the word in religious stories. Let me reiterate why I disagree:


 * The argument is, in itself, flawed. There are opposing viewpoints - academically held - that do not agree that religious stories should be termed myths.
 * Many of the sources cited as referring to religious stories as 'myths' do not state, without qualification, that they are myths. Many of the stories are treated as myths, because they contain fantastic/supernatural elements. This is not the same thing.
 * There is considerable disagreement amongst the academics as to what, exactly, a myth is. How can we categorically state that a story is a myth if the very people we are referencing cannot agree? This alone is sufficient reason to demand, as per WP:NPOV, that we present alternative viewpoints.
 * The term is ambiguous. Not only because of academic disagreement, but especially because of the "popular" definition of a 'made-up story'. Any ambiguous term requires explanation if it is going to be used. WP:5 demands that we "provide context" - boldly stating that "Noah's Ark is a myth", "Jesus is a myth", etc etc is not providing context.
 * The pro-myth lobby are fond of this fallacious argument that "we don't mean its false" when they use the term myth. They usually follow this up with "there is a link/infobox to explain what we mean" and "we shouldn't use pseudo-disclaimers [and what is an infobox if not exactly that?], we explain it in the mythology article". In other words, its ok to call anything they like a myth, without explanation and without context because they have "explained" it elsewhere. The simple fact is this: if Joe Public comes to read a religious article and sees it describing the story as a myth, the majority of the time he will read it as saying that the story is "made up". Joe Public will not bother to click the clink (why should he; he "knows" what 'mythology' means). Result? The atheists pro-myth lobby have told Joe Public what they want him to hear. The opposing viewpoints have been utterly bypassed. Yet again, WP:NPOV is violated.


 * There are other arguments, but these, I feel, get to the heart of the matter. Four severe violations of WP:NPOV. Not one of these has yet been addressed by the pro-myth lobby. The "academics use it" argument is only a (bad) statement of one of the pillars of Wikipedia; they are completely ignoring one of the others.


 * Ilkali has also misunderstood two specific points. There is no attempt here to "ban" the use of the word "myth". It has been clearly stated over and again that what is being attempted here is a policy that allows its use in a genuinely neutral way. Secondly, it is not just about that word. This policy is intended to cover any word that is ambiguous. The only reason myth is being discussed, apparently in isolation, is that it is the most glaring and controversial example.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to have read even more imaginary meaning into my comments than Til has. Where have I given the impression that I thought there was an "attempt here to "ban" the use of the word "myth""? You're fighting against straw men. Also, your 'us vs them' (theists vs atheists) attitude is especially unhelpful. I'd prefer my arguments to be viewed on their merits rather than being tidily categorised and dismissed based on my religious views. If you can never agree with me just because you're a theist and I'm an atheist, then why should we bother talking? Ilkali (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies, Ilkali, it was Ilyacadiz who used the word "ban", not you. On the other hand, would you please apologise for calling me a "theist". I have never stated that that is my position and have already found offense at a related term applied to me by Ben.
 * As for the "Us v them" 'attitude' - the debate has always been stratified by the "pro-myth" lobby because they have so far utterly refused any compromise. Go back up and read my comments carefully - I specifically set out how I do not view this as "us v them" and showed that an actual compromise wouldnt be too far off - except that the pro-myth lobby simply refuse to budge.
 * Finally, you tried to claim earlier that this is not a WP:V or WP:NPOV issue. Utter rubbish. The pro myth lobby use WP:V incessantly to back their arguments, whilst conveniently ignoring WP:NPOV. what is more - this debate is about the wording of a section of official policy on NPOV. It is in the context of NPOV that this whole discussion is taking place.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Finally, you tried to claim earlier that this is not a WP:V or WP:NPOV issue. Utter rubbish. The pro myth lobby use WP:V incessantly to back their arguments". You still don't understand that I am not the pro myth lobby. We are not a collective, we are a set of individuals. I have my own opinions and my own line of arguments, and other people's points are irrelevant to mine.
 * "would you please apologise for calling me a "theist"". No. How is that in any way offensive? You've suggested that "pro myth" is equivalent to "atheist", which implies you don't consider yourself an atheist. If you're using a broad definition of atheist then that makes you a theist by definition. If you're using a narrow definition then you should, by your own principles, apologise to me for supposing too much about my views - how do you know what kind of atheist I am? Ilkali (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is extremely offensive to imply that I (or anyone else) am being motivated by religious (or any) ideology. The only occasion when I connected "atheism" with the "pro-lobby" is in the example above, where I used the word atheist incorrectly (because I was distracted and thinking about another discussion). As soon as I realised what I had said I struck out the word and offered an apology (see the page history).
 * For the record, I am interested in this discussion because I wish to see WP:NPOV properly enforced. The current wording and many WP articles that use the word myth are far from neutral, for the reasons I have outlined above.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "The only occasion when I connected "atheism" with the "pro-lobby" is in the example above, where I used the word atheist incorrectly". Surely you're aware that, unless someone looks at the edit history, it reads like an intentional jab at the "pro myth" commenters? Ilkali (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely you are aware it is normal on WP to strike something out which is in error.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a terrible great point. Ilkali (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're mostly right about my meaning, but I want to stress that, in the text you're paraphrasing, the only point I was trying to establish is that this matter doesn't fall under policies like WP:NPOV or WP:V. Ilkali (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Another thing - at the beginning, the "pro-myth" crowd says "You don't even have a single reference that say the term myth is objectionable".  I find a couple that say exactly that ; they respond these "don't count", and therefore it is my original research because I am making the whole thing up that there is any objection, without providing references. So I find a few more, and lo and behold, these are still not verifiable evidence of any other opinion for the "pro-myth" crowd, which wants to play judge, jury and executioner over all the rss.  Eventually it turns out that no number of sources, and no matter how explicitly they dispute the term "myth" , will ever be sufficient to satisfy their demand for proof their own POV is not universal and indisputed. It's the old "We demand sources for position B, but with a caveat: any sources for position B don't count.  Now get looking".  game.  This is why we have such a POV travesty here, and why Fimus' proposal to rectify it with a reminder is 100% consistent with existing NPOV policy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not the person who said that. You think you're seeing a shifting of position, but actually you're just talking to a different person. Maybe if you stopped assuming that atheists are one homogeneous religion-hating entity, you'd find it easier to understand opposing parties' positions. That's assuming you want to. You seem to be having a lot of fun beating up straw men. Ilkali (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said you were the person. But now that you're here, could you clarify whether you think there is verifiable proof of a disputed POV with regard to classifying modern religions' scriptures as "myth"?  Or has it still not been established that there is any controversy? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "I never said you were the person". You replied to my comment, in a section about my comments. If you don't think I'm aligned with the quoted statement, why did you quote it? Again: We are not a collective.
 * "could you clarify whether you think there is verifiable proof of a disputed POV with regard to classifying modern religions' scriptures as "myth"?". I'm not going to get into this until we've established how it matters. I think we both agree that it does matter, but we disagree on how. Ilkali (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, dodging the question yet again. Let me try another angle - if there is not yet sufficient published proof that this semantic question has been hugely controversial over the ages - what then would it take?  Is there any standard of proof of another side to this issue existing, that you would ever consider attainable? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Great, dodging the question yet again". I'm delaying the question. Until you stop fighting against a position I don't hold, I'm not going to indulge your questioning. We're not going to move forward until you understand where we already are. Ilkali (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And I'm not going to "understand where we already are" if you won't explain your position, or even divulge whether or not you recognize the dispute is well-sourced and long-standing, or claim there is no dispute. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "And I'm not going to "understand where we already are" if you won't explain your position". I don't seem to be doing anything other than endlessly re-explaining my position for you and Fimus. I don't have infinite patience. Go re-read what I've written previously if you want to know what I think. Ilkali (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read it many times, and I'm still laughing. Didn't you say that any objections from theologians don't need to be considered for NPOV purposes, because "sociolinguists" determine how we are to use language, including on theological topics?  Please correct me if I have mischaracterized your argument in some way. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Didn't you say that any objections from theologians don't need to be considered for NPOV purposes, because "sociolinguists" determine how we are to use language, including on theological topics?". No, I didn't. See the problem yet? Ilkali (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay then, so you mean you acknowledge that objections from theologians can be considered for NPOV purposes, right? I'm not a mind reader, please help me out. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking for telepathy, I'm asking you to demonstrate a modicum of intelligence. Ilkali (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not pretend that objections from theologians and other scholars to "myth" don't even get to the table for consideration, that would mean that theological objections fail even to rise to the level of respect accorded a "WP:FRINGE" theory. Since you are refusing to make yourself clear and everyone is trying to figure out what you meant, I do not see any valid objection to incorporating Fimus Tauri's draft clarification, since it is perfectly in step with NPOV. If there is significant and verifiable disagreement to the use of the word in the context of the article topic, then that opposing point of view must also be included. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What Ilkali actually said

 * "Presenting a religious story as a myth is not allowing the reader to form their own opinions", "That a religious story is a myth is an opinion, not a fact." You seem to be pretending not to understand the nature of ambiguity. Whether a statement like Jesus' life is mythological expresses an opinion depends on what meaning we take for mythological. You know this. If a piece of text has a neutral intended meaning, but a subset of the audience derive a non-neutral meaning, that's not a WP:NPOV issue. The policies you are citing have no relevance here.

Too right I know that what is taken as the meaning of 'mythological' is crucial. See above. "Myth" has many different meanings; it is interpreted differently by the very academics who are being cited. It is ambiguous - that is the point. What other meaning can ambiguous have? It means that we cannot be certain of the meaning. If the word has several meanings then we cannot be certain of the meaning - therefore, it is ambiguous. The exception is where the writer presents explanation or clarification or appropriate context. This is, after all, what I have been asking for. It is also very relevent to policy - this is explicitly stated in WP:5. As regards "neutral intended meaning" - what a weasel-worded way of reiterating the tired and utterly repudiated argument of the pro-lobby (without insinuating that you are one of these - merely that you are reiterating one of their arguments). How a word is meant is utterly irrelevant to how a word is taken - to assume that the editor has good intentions makes it all ok is assuming that every reader either is someone who uses the "academic" definition all the time, or that the reader has actually gone off and read Wikipedias policies. To make assumptions like this is direct violation of policy.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First: If you're going to quote me, please include the markup I used. I'd rather not sound incoherent just because you were lazy.
 * The rest of your comment just rehammers the same old points. Yes, it matters that people might be confused by ambiguous wording. Of course it does. Yes, we should be careful about how we use the word myth. I don't think anyone's denying that, least of all in the text you quote. My comment was a reply to one of yours, and was intended solely to refute the points you made there - to point out that you were misapplying policy. It wasn't intended as a statement of my opinions on the wider issue.
 * "How a word is meant is utterly irrelevant to how a word is taken". The two are separate things, obviously. Here's the pertinent difference: We need to worry about the former because policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV tell us to. We need to worry about the latter because it's one of the demands of good writing. It's the distinction between ontological integrity and prosaic effectiveness that I've been trying to get you to appreciate since I started posting here. Can you please confirm that you recognise this distinction?
 * "to assume that the editor has good intentions makes it all ok is assuming that [...]". Nobody has expressed that sentiment! Straw men, one and all. Ilkali (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You say
 * Yes, we should be careful about how we use the word myth. I don't think anyone's denying that
 * Hoo-bloody-ray! Someone has actually acknowledged that we need to be careful. That is the sole argument that needed to be acknowledged. All we need do now is hammer out what, exactly, that means and the extent to which the official policy guides editors in "applying care".


 * I recognise the distinction you are trying to make but disagree that this means one is policy and the other isn't. WP:5 states that we must provide context. This means that what is meant must be coupled with suitable context or explanation to ensure that what is taken is the same as what is meant. On the other hand, I am not sure how metaphysics and integrity can be crammed into a single phrase (this is not an attack - I am just confused by the phrase "ontological integrity").--FimusTauri (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "All we need do now is hammer out what, exactly, that means and the extent to which the official policy guides editors in "applying care"". I didn't say that individual editors need to apply care. I'd prefer for us to carefully choose an approach that makes things simple and direct at the per-sentence level.
 * "WP:5 states that we must provide context". For views, not wordings.
 * "I am just confused by the phrase "ontological integrity"". Our ontology is the representation of reality that our words are meant to convey. It is a bank of information that hopefully resembles reality but that is ultimately defined by how reliable sources describe reality. When I talk about integrity, I mean adherence to WP:V and suchlike - the ontology must reflect verifiable, representative scholarly opinion. Ilkali (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i.e. The point of view that a particular religious story is a myth must be given context.
 * Ok, so when an article says that "the period of the prophets" is an "important example of christian mythology", the reality represented is that the diaspora and the invasions by Assyria and Babylonia etc are myths? Provide a decent (undisputed) ref for that and I will agree that "ontological integrity" has been maintained and WP:V has not been violated. --FimusTauri (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * New shorthand: mythA carries the academic meaning, mythF carries the colloquial meaning (the one that entails falseness).
 * "The point of view that a particular religious story is a myth must be given context". A statement like X is a mythA is rarely a point of view per se. There is not often disagreement on whether something is a traditional religious narrative. Conversely, a statement like X is a mythF is a point of view, and probably shouldn't be in any article. The sentence X is a myth is not a point of view. It's a sentence.
 * Now, could you restate your question using the shorthand I described above (or something equivalent)? Ilkali (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "X is a myth" is a sentence, but because "myth" is ambiguous, the reader cannot know what meaning of "myth" is being used. "According to the definition used by folklorists, X is a myth" or "X is an urban myth" are both unambiguous, because they provide context. So long as no context is provided, the word is ambiguous. All that I am asking for here is that context is provided to remove ambiguity.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All I am saying is that the policies you cite - such as the snippet of WP:5 you mentioned - do not apply. Ilkali (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if you would feel the same way if you saw a WP article that stated


 * Atheism is a religion.

Such a statement would have plenty of people "up in arms" (and not just atheists) [Please do not consider this a "theism vs atheism" thing - this is just an example, but one that I feel is particularly apposite]. However, such a statement has exactly the same validity as "The story of Jesus is a myth". Why? Because I am using the "academic" definition of religion - i.e. "a body of beliefs" and I am also using the "academic" definition of "atheism" - i.e. "the belief that god does not exist" (please don't muddy these waters with arguments about strong/weak atheism etc. This is just an example. Every dictionary definition I have seen states that atheism is the belief that god(s) do(es) not exist - lack of belief is defined in the same dictionaries as "agnosticism". For the sake of simplicity and this example, thats all the definition we need.)

Thus:
 * Atheism (the belief in the non-existance of god) is a religion (body of beliefs)

Equally, it would not be hard to find references. In fact, it took a very short time to discover that in the US a court has ruled that this statement is a statement of law. See [ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874 ].

On the other hand, I can foresee many individuals would want to instantly remove or flag that statement as being in violation of NPOV. So why does the same rule not apply to "myth"?--FimusTauri (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no difference. As I've said, an article is composed of two things: A body of information that it intends to convey (the ontology), and a collection of words and markup used to convey it (the prose). If the former contains the assertion that atheism is a conventional religion (a la Christianity, Islam, etc) then there's an NPOV violation. If it doesn't, and the prose still contains the sentence atheism is a religion then merely the prose is faulty, in that it is misleading and inflammatory. In both cases there's a problem, but the two problems are at different levels, are affected by different editorial constraints, and have different solutions.
 * Now, regarding myth: I'm happy to discuss whether the contested uses of the word constitute bad prose, but I reject the claim that they violate NPOV. Ilkali (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of Myth

 * Thanks for the Dictionnary link. It can clarify the issue further, because there is no sense in discuss what "people might think if they read" - we must discuss what a specific wording actually says. My question is: cany anybody actually misunderstand the word myth, if he/speaks English and is reading a Encylopedia entry about Noah's Ark?


 * Myth is (taken from [dictionary.reference]


 * First definition set (Dictionary.com Unabridged. Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006)
 * 1. 	a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
 * I hope you agree that nobody can find this offensive, because it says: "with or without a determinable basis" - so the fact that a myth might tell the truth is spefically included.
 * 2. 	stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
 * Goes as for 1)
 * 3. 	any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
 * Says that it is invented, but the example - with "pure" - shows that that is a kind of speech figure, not an academic term.
 * 4. 	an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
 * That does not necessarily mean "false" or "untrue" - Shakespeare's Romeo is fictitious, but you wouldn't say he is "false".
 * 5. 	an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
 * That's the first really negative meaning, although even here it is not necessarily false - it might be just unproved. Well, yes, and Noah's Ark story might be the truth, but it is actually unproved. The fact that it is considered true does not imply that it's actually proved.


 * Second definition set: (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)
 *  1. a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
 * Nobody says it's false or not.
 *  b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
 * as for 1)
 * 2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
 * That does actually refer to a living or existing person or a proven fact, so a myth might very well be truth, not falsehood.
 * 3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
 * A half-truth is at least partly true or based on a truthful account, however alterated.
 *  4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).
 * That example refers clearly to a popular belief about modern history, which is just a general impression not sustained by writings. Nobody would replace the word "German Artillery" with "Noah" here.


 * Third definition set: (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)


 * ''Myth\, n. [Written also mythe.] [Gr. my^qos myth, fable, tale, talk, speech: cf. F. mythe.]
 * 1. A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical.''
 * That does not say it is false. It is "received as historical" that does not mean it is mistaken. It might or might not.
 * ''2. A person or thing existing only in imagination, or whose actual existence is not verifiable.
 * As for Mrs. Primmins's bones, they had been myths these twenty years. --Ld. Lytton.''
 * Well, do you think Noah's existence is verifiable? He might have lived and I might believe it, but is he VERIFIABLE? Anyhow, the example shows that this kind of meaning is used for modern things or persons.
 * Myth history, history made of, or mixed with, myths.


 * Forth definition set: (WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University).
 * a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people
 * Accepted as history - that's it. Not even unproven.


 * Forth definition set: (Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper)


 * ''Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; they are endorsed by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion. Once this link is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale. Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the result is religious legend, not myth." [J. Simpson & S. Roud, "Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254]
 * General sense of "untrue story, rumor" is from 1840. Mythical first attested 1678.''
 * That definition gives 4 lines to the academic definition and takes care to clarify that these stories are revered as "true and sacred" and does not label this as unduly. One line is given to the sense of "untrue story, rumor" (and even a rumor is not necessarily false, it may be truthful).


 * Result: in every dictionnary quoted, the first and normally also the second meaning are academic explanations not offensive to anybody. Most of the later meanings either just underline the "unproven" factor or are clearly referred to modern things or persons, and nobody reading about Noah would mistake the meaning of "myth" there for "something people told each other in the doorway about the bones of Mrs. Primmins". Somebody who reads the Noah entry in an encyclopedia knows that he or she must expect the commonly agreed-upong academic sense of a word, and if he/she does not know this sense, then he/she should really click on myth as to get informed about this sense. I can't see how a WP policy would try to put restrictions on the use of a word every dictionnary agrees on its common academic sense.


 * By the way, the word "ban" might have been a little exaggerated, but once a policy says that a word must use with great care, how can I demonstrate that I applied sufficient "care"? I fear this kind of wording for a policy would either result in a ban of the word or in the repetition of endless debates about how much care is needed in each case (very similar to this very debate we have right now) with the only difference that those who oppose it may quote the WP guidelines to strengthen their position. Not a very NPOV - idea. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You appear to be arguing that we shouldn't proscribe the word "myth" because this would result in a form of "censorship" tantamount to a ban. Please correct me if I have read you wrong. Assuming that is what you mean, then can you not see the obverse of the same argument? If we do not place restrictions on how the word is used, then it becomes used without restraint, often incorrectly. That is exactly what we have now. As a result, stories such as: the sermon on the mount; the invasion by Sennacherib; the Diaspora(s); the rebuilding of the temple; and so on have all become classified as myths on WP pages. This is clearly not accurate. Even if one were to accept that, for example, Jesus walking on water may be called a myth (and I have problems with that), these other events most certianly are not - but have been classified as such simply because they are stories that have been found in a religious text.
 * With respect to your point that all of the entries show the "academic" definition first. I understand that. The relevant point here is that there are different definitions. The academic definition is first precisely because that is what it is - academic. The "popular" definition is relegated because of its innaccuracy. My point is that readers will be more likely to take the "popular" definition. Therefore, we should provide context. This is not the same as proscribing the use of the word myth - it is simply ensuring that the reader understands what is meant. This is explicitly stated in WP:5.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Re:The "popular" definition is relegated because of its innaccuracy. I haven't seen any dictionary or other source calling the "popular definition" inaccurate, and would dispute that there is anything inaccurate about it. The earliest usages have this meaning, and ever since then there has been nothing but scholarly disagreement about what constitutes a "myth", not some kind of approved unanimous resolution agreed by all scholars that 'henceforth all of the following will be regarded as "myths"'. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for my shorthand. "Inacurrate" as seen by some scholars (especially dictionary writers!) would better reflect what I meant.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dictionary writers? If they wanted to indicate they thought one meaning was "inaccurate", they could easily have done so. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming that is what you mean, then can you not see the obverse of the same argument? If we do not place restrictions on how the word is used, then it becomes used without restraint, often incorrectly. That is exactly what we have now. You read me right, yes. But I can't see the obverse argument. If a word is used incorrectly, you go to that article, you challenge the incorrect use, you point out with a source why it's incorrect, and the article will improve. That's done all over Wikipedia when a word is used incorrectly.
 * As for the examples, you bring up, I'm a little astonished, as I can't find the word myth in this articles. If anybody calls Sennacherib a myth, you go (or I go) and point out a few scholars who accept Sennacherib as a historic king (all, except for fringe theories). The same goes for the Jewish Diaspora: nobody has attempted to call it a myth, as far as I can see. Nebuchadnezzar II is considered a historic figure and so is Simon bar Kokhba. Where does the myth word fit into that? Count on me to delete it if anybody tries.
 * Even if one were to accept that, for example, Jesus walking on water may be called a myth (and I have problems with that)... Well - don't count on me to delete that, unless you can find a scholarly source which explains why this should be considered a true historic account. Remember: the only argument which can't be called scholarlike is "because I believe it". Any other argument is welcome.
 * ...these other events most certainly are not - but have been classified as such simply because they are stories that have been found in a religious text". As I said above, if someone labels as myths facts commonly accepted as history by scholars, only because they are also mentioned in religious texts - and the examples you gave seem to be in that category - then drop me a note and I'll help you clean it up. Cheers--Ilyacadiz (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Much as not a single one of the dictionaries establishes that the "popular meaning" is "inaccurate", by the same token, not a single dictionary establishes that it is "incorrect". Dictionaries are supposed to note when popular meanings are considered "inaccurate" or "incorrect"; in the absence of any source whatever stating this, it's OR, the "popular" meaning is equally valid and correct English, and your whole premise falls apart.  Not to mention, you are still turning a blind eye to centuries of strenuous and verified objections to people's faith being redefined as "mythology", which is still a POV violation, one that won't ever go away, until it is addressed with a clarification that NPOV actually applies here as well with regard to differing viewpoints. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In specific repsonse to one of Ilyacadiz's points. In the article Christian mythology, under the section "Important examples of Christian mythology" there is "the period of the prophets" which encompasses Sennacherib, the diasporas etc.
 * On the other point - it is not whether Jesus walks on water is historical or not that gives me concerns about calling it a myth - my concerns relate to NPOV, but I do not wish to get into specific details to the detriment of the overall picture. Suffice to say (yet again) that I object very strongly to anyone implying that I am driven by any ideology other than trying to achieve true neutrality on WP.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In Christian mythology there is no reference at all to Sennacherib or the diaspora. There is a reference to the "Period of the Prophets" and the only example given is the Daniel story about Bel and the Dragon. That everything which falls in this period should be considered as mythical is your own assumption - nobody has said that. If you think this is too easy to assume, we should add a word there kind of "The Period of the Prophets also contains mythological narratives". --Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to see my point - without "also contains" the whole period is subsumed into "examples of christian mythology". To be honest, there is so little in this period that anybody calls a myth that it is wrong to cite the "period". It would be far more accurate to give specific examples (and then back them up with cites).
 * Going back, however, to my original point. The current usage of "myth" on WP has "allowed" the situation to develop where that article describes a whole period as being an important example of christian mythology without anyone (until I came along) challenging it. The same is true of the Jesus stories - they have been lumped together in that article without regard for the fact that only certain individual stories are ever classed as myth in any context.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we agree in one important point - not everything written down in a sacred text is to be considered a "myth". Of course not! I think that is common sense and, most of all, strict adherence to the sources. Somebody said earlier that the word "myth", under the current policy could only be challenged if you came up with a source saying it was not a myth. That's not completely accurate in my view. A scholarly source handling it as a historic fact is enough (as for Sennacherib, for example) to not use the word myth in the header and restrict its use to specific quotations, if needed.
 * Maybe I should put it in a nutshell:
 * An account which is part of a sacred text but is considered historic by scholarly sources (other than fringe) should not use the word "myth" as a first description and restrict this term to quotes of those minority scholars who might consider it a myth.
 * An account which is part of a sacred text and is considered a myth or non-historic by the vast majority of scholars may use the term myth as a description but must include the view of minority scholars who disagree.
 * An account which is part of a sacred text and is regarded as a myth by most or all scholars may use the term myth but should include the information that adherents to that religion - if so - consider it to be a true account.
 * Count on me to implement that kind of guideline whereever necessary.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's exactly where your concept of WP:NPOV seems to fail. It seems to pretend that there is some kind of 'consensus' or 'majority view' on what has always been a totally controversial and disputed topic -- when in fact the "consensus" is really only among those scholars who might agree, and it is only achieved by relegating all those other scholars who disagree to some inferior status.  Npov is already very clear that if there is a verified controversy, we must simply describe it as such, let the reader form their own opinions, and not pretend there is "majority consensus" and no controversy, nor force some intermediate view to be "correct". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep it simple
The original purpose of this debate was to define a policy (although it seems it would now be a guideline - see below) on the use of ambiguous terms in religious articles. I have been searching for a policy or guideline on the use of ambiguous terms more generally and find that there is little information. There is a section in WP:WTA, but that section only deals with specific examples and does not give a general guideline. This has led me to realise that the current debate should probably be widened to encompass the use of ambiguous terms in any WP article. That said, I see no problem with continuing the debate here for the time being.

The crux of the issue is this:
 * How do we define "ambiguous"?
 * Having defined the word, how should editors be advised to use ambiguous terms?

I think it is important that we establish answers to these two questions as general principles, rather than getting into the specifics of the word "myth".

A dictionary definition ( reads:


 * open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal

Other dictionaries offer similar definitions. I can foresee some editors arguing that "myth" is not covered by this definition, so rather than getting bogged down in semantics, I would suggest that, for the purpose of WP guidelines, we should avoid the word ambiguous, and concentrate on providing a guideline for two seperate categories:


 * 1) Words with uncertain or multiple meanings or interpretations (i.e. "ambiguous" in the strictest sense)
 * 2) Words with multiple definitions (where individual definitions are "unambiguous", but the use of the word may be ambiguous because the reader may not know which definition is meant)

There is no existing guideline that explicitly covers type 1. However, there are plenty of guidelines that tell us, in essence, that we should simply avoid this type of word (unless part of a quotation). I do not think it would do any harm to explicitly state this.

Type 2 is where we have the main issue here. I feel we need some sort of guideline that requires using words with multiple definitions should provide context and/or explanation, so that the reader understands which definition is meant. That, simply put, is what I am proposing. Bear in mind that there are plenty of words with multiple definitions where no special effort is required to provide context. For example, "The ruler of Egypt..." implies a human regent, rather than a 12" piece of plastic (On the other hand, if this were, in fact, referring to the measuiring device, it would be necessary to provide some specific context or explanation....)

Does anyone disagree that we should ensure the reader knows which definition we are using when we include a word with multiple definitions?--FimusTauri (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I will disagree with any solution that does not take into account, or off-handedly dismisses as "illegitimate", the vast number of verifiable references from theologians and other scholars objecting to use of "myth" by any of its myriad and slippery definitions to apply to "scripture". The references are there, they aren't going away or going to hide under a rug. There has been nothing but heated disagreement from reliable sources as to exactly which parts of certain scriptures, if any, meet any of the "scholarly" definitions of myth.  If it is wikipedia's place to make any determination or declaration as to who is 'correct', and which parts of which scriptures it considers 'myth' and which it does not, then wikipedia has assumed the identical role of a council determining what should be considered canonical by its readers.  NPOV policy is already perfectly clear, we should leave it to other councils or published sources to declare what they consider canonical or myth, then we can describe what they say and where they differ - but what we cannot do is prescribe.  So, the language has to be a discussion of these views, not an endorsement of only one of them.  It's that simple. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To keep it even more simple; there have been basically two proposed formats being argued:


 * 1: "Person A says the Bible contains myth, but Person B disagrees".


 * 2: "The Bible contains myth."


 * Note that in version 2, Person B doesn't even get to come to the table. Person A is declared as the victor hands down. Version 2 is also a gross violation of NPOV policy, because for onr thing, you can take "Person B" and multiply him by hundreds of published scholarly objections and disagreements in reliable sources.   Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly do not disagree with you, Til. However, if we can establish a policy on the use of ambiguous (multiple definition) words, then many of the current arguments will either disappear or become more focussed. Whilst the FAQ is an issue of NPOV, I have come to realise that the discussion I have raised is actually a far more general one. Trouble is, if I move it to a more appropriate place, certain editors will use that as an excuse to throw more accusations at me.
 * Whilst I appreciate that the NPOV element of the discussion is crucial, I would still ask the same question as earlier:
 * Does anyone disagree that we should ensure the reader knows which definition we are using when we include a word with multiple definitions?--FimusTauri (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, provided we attribute the differing opinions per NPOV. When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources. -- WP:NPOV -- Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that "we should ensure the reader knows which definition we are using when we include a word with multiple definitions", such as myth. I really agree. Of course, when reading an entry about Noah's Ark, Deucalion or Gilgamesh, any reader knows that the use of the word "myth" there refers to a sacred story, not to gossip stories about a politician, much the same way any reader knows that in the sentence "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", the word band refers to a group of musicians, and not to "a herd or flock of animals, such as gorillas or coyotes", which is one of the definitions of the word Band. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)--Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My hope is that a basic principle can be agreed - and so far it has. You have highlighted, Ilyacadiz, where the next stage of the debate will lie - to what extent is context assumed. For now, I just want to ensure consensus on the basic principle.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would also be significant, and worthy of mention, if (hypothetically) a vast number of sources objected to using the term "band" to describe the Beatles. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I missed something, but if you did provide it already, I hope you won't feel too bothered just to paste it once more here: can you give me some scholarly sources which object to the use of the term "myth" as inappropriate for narratives as Noah's Ark or similar? Thanks a lot--Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. You can find several here: User:Til Eulenspiegel/Religious narratives as sacred canon But that is by no means complete. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Til. You seem to miss somehow the meaning of the word scholar. A handbook for missionaries or Bible preachers is not scholarly work (and that's 90% of the sources you give). If it's that what you pretend, then we should open a new debate for the word scholar. As for now, I use the term as defined in Wikipedia. (unsigned by Ilyacadiz)


 * Sorry, Ilya. You seem to miss somehow the meaning of the word scholar.  There isn't any litmus test like "Only those scholars who accept our definition of myth are true scholars, and the rest aren't".  That would exclude many Christian scholars, Muslim scholars and Hindu scholars from being "true scholars", while most atheist scholars by that definition are "true scholars".  That's circular POV rubbish, and also practically the same as what Soviet "scholarship" did.  The truth you aren't acknowledging is, scholars (of any stripe) have NEVER come to any "agreement" on exactly which parts of which scriptures qualify as "myth", and which don't.  They've never even reached agreement on what is the "correct" definition of "myth" that should be applied.  Nor could they ever agree, for these are things that scholars have debated for centuries, continue to debate now, and in all likelihood, always will.  The "pro-myth" scholars don't get to declare victory and tell the "anti-myth" scholars "We win, we are the only true scholars, you can go home now".  They just aren't going to do that.  Since it is a controversy, we are required to report what everyone's views are neutrally. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I never said that I wouldn't consider a scholar a scholar unless he or she agrees with my definition. I only say that when reading the Scholar entry, I can't find anything that says that preacher handbooks are considered scholarship and even less a single sentence that says that to believe in something because it was said by the Almighty is part of the scholarly method. If you want to challenge this definition of scholarship, go ahead, but until then, don't try to tell me that sentences as
 * "they have been revealed from the Almighty, and are his word to us and not the say-so of men."
 * "We believe that God has acted in this world of space and time."
 * "It's the inspired Word of God, and you can believe in it down to the most "insignificant" of details."
 * nor sources as the following
 * Bible Teacher's Commentary (for pastors)
 * The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Dallas Seminary, 2004 ed.)
 * Dictionary and Concordance: Holman Christian Standard Bible 2006
 * Why Good Arguments Often Fail: Making a More Persuasive Case for Christ‎ (subject:Religion) by James W. Sire, 2006
 * Preaching Christ from Genesis, 2007, Sidney Greidanus
 * are part of what Wikipedia calls scholarship. We should sort out that first, than we can go back to the myth story. Before it's clear what is considered scholarship and what not, this debate doesn't make any sense. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you'll be surprised. Several of my sources certainly do qualify as "scholarship".  Once again your prejudices are showing and causing you to redefine our terminology accordingly.  As I said before, redefining "scholarship" like that is exactly the kind of trick the Soviets tried to pull. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Notice that we don't say "Herodotus and Flavius Josephus were not true 'scholars', because they did not use the correct methods to qualify as such". In their case, we can say their scholarship is outdated, because they were thousands of years ago.  But they were still definitely "scholars", regardless of their method. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 proposal
If I can intercede a point that I hope might clarify things. the problem with the word 'myth' (and with a number of other words like it) is not that the word is ambiguous, but rather that the word has a pejorative sense. for most English speakers, a myth is a fabrication with a possible (but unlikely) element of truth. Grendel and the Great Bull of Heaven are myths (because no one seriously believes these creatures actually every existed, except as allegories); King Arthur and the Round Table is a set of legends (since many people do believe that he and his knights existed, but acknowledge that the stories are fanciful); religious stories are generally beliefs, since they are taken by notable numbers of people to be near-literal truth, even without evidence. I mean, if an author were to start a sentence with the phrase "the myth that Lincoln freed the slaves..." everyone would know immediately that the author didn't think that Lincoln actually freed the slaves - calling something a myth dismisses it as an irrelevant piece of fiction.

using a pejorative word as though it weren't pejorative is a common form of bias (you see it a lot with people who claim that racial epithets are just 'their word' for people of that race, not bad words...). they are easily avoided, and ought to be avoided by wikipedia editors. for instance, there's no reason to call anything in a religious work a myth - we can call it a 'biblical story' or some such which keeps away from implications of truth or falsehood. if you wanted to add a section to this effect (either on the FAQ or on the main policy page) I'd suggest something like the following as a first draft: "Wikipedia editors should avoid words that have pejorative connotations, even where the word otherwise seems to fit. Words that imply that their object is false, wrong, bad, dirty, dumb, less-than, or even milder implications like cute, entertaining, silly, or etc. should be changed to more neutral terms that have no such connotation. In general, if the dictionary definition of a word contains a sense which would generally be viewed as insulting or dismissive, or if other editors complain that a word is insulting or dismissive, the word should be considered pejorative and changed without further debate." what do you think? -- Ludwigs 2 20:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see here three different positions in the whole debate:


 * a) The word "Myth" is commonly used by most or all scholars when describing Bible narrative such as Noah's Ark and therefore Wikipedia editors should feel free to use it when their sources use it.
 * b) The word "Myth" is commonly used by most or all scholars when describing Bible narrative such as Noah's Ark, yes, BUT it could be considered offensive by some readers and therefore Wikipedia editors should not use it or not use it too much.
 * c) It's not true that the word "Myth" is commonly used by most or all scholars when describing Bible narrative such as Noah's Ark - many scholars disagree, so this cannot be considered a "commonly accepted" scientific term and therefore should be avoided.


 * As you suppose, I'm in the a) camp. I got the impression Ben (and may be Ilkali) is also (please correct me, guys). From the last entry, I think Ludwig is in the b) camp. Fimus also? Til is obviously in the c) camp.
 * At this moment, the a) position is the one applied in most Wikipedia entries.
 * I'm against a consensus on the b) position because that would mean that Wikipedia editors are asked to create a new language convention / usage, different from that of their scholarly sources, out of concern for offended readers. I think we cannot ask Wikipedians to create language conventions different from that used by scholarly sources.
 * It's a different thing for the c) position - this is not something we can simply agree upon, it's something that should be demonstrated. If it comes out c) is right, than I will of course agree to that consensus.


 * Is c) right? For now, Til claims there are many scholarly sources that disagree with the word myth. I would say he has not provided any. Why not? Because I don't think that a preachers handbook or similar can be considered "scholarly". There is no use to try to convince me by telling me that everybody can be considered a scholar (Herodotus and Josephus Flavius o.k. - but they weren't preachers, if you see what I mean) because I adhere to the definition of scholar in Wikipedia: somebody  who applies scholarly method and intellectual rigour, be it in the past, be it nowadays. The entry says nowhere that believing something because it's considered a divine revelation is part of the scholarly method.
 * Conclusion: to prove c) right, Til must either look for sources other than those cited on his page or start an entirely new debate about what "scholarship" means. As long as that isn't sorted out, there is no sense to go on debating about the "myth" word.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Ilya, but that's utter hogwash. You simply don't get to redefine "scholar" to suit your own tastes and prejudices, then assert that I have yet to find any "scholarly" reference.  You concede that Herodotus and Josephus were "scholars".  Now how about St. Isidore, Tertullian, and St. Augustine?  Do they rise to become worthy of the name "scholar" in your narrow little world?  Even though they were biblical Christian scholars?  Or do they fail your prerequisite for "scholarship", because they were preachers of faith?  What if I told you that there have been plenty of Christian scholars in every decade from Tertullian continuing up to the present?  So then, on what calendar date did Christian thinkers lose their right to be called "scholars" and get declared "non-scholars"?  Answer: They never did.  They still are scholars, no matter how snobbish you might feel toward their faith.   Actually, you probably could find a calendar date if you're talking about Enver Hoxha's Albania, where all the Seminaries were forcefully shut down, or maybe a few similarly intolerant backwaters.  But guess what: Hoxha didn't get the Seminaries outside of Albania; they are still schools, they are still schools of thought, and yes, they are still scholars.
 * I daresay there are plenty of "conservative scholars" who would assert that "liberal scholars" are not "true" scholars, and have no right to be called such, because they follow the wrong "methods". And sure enough, also plenty of "liberal scholars" who say exactly the same about "conservative scholars".  Wikipedia should not be the place to engage in this kind of partisan and pejorative game, attempting to banish or excommunicate entire significant viewpoints from consideration on the basis of their faith, though clearly there are some editors who would do so.  This has to be truly neutral ground, where ALL significant views are allowed to be described, without being trivialized by openly opinionated, militant atheists. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is not who may be called "scholar" and who may not. It's about scholarly method and intellectual rigour and unless you can create a consensus here that faith in divine revelation is part of both concepts, my point stands. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You keep shifting the issue, you just said it was who may be called "scholar", now it's something else... I can hardly keep up with your shifting definitions and redefinitions... and then you insist I "create a consensus" to prove your redefinitions as you've redefined them are wrong? I think you're full of it. Stop trying to declare theological scholars invalid; that's your prejudice, and it cannot be transposed onto our policies by any stretch. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Til, while I appreciate how frustrating it can be when you have trouble understanding what someone else is saying, please remember to AGF. Ilyacadiz is not asking for you to prove his/her points, s/he is asking for you to gain consensus for yours. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay I retract that point: the definition of scholar includes people who do not apply scholarly methods, but from the context it should be clear that when talking in this debate about scholarly sources we refer to sources that apply scholarly methods, not to sources written by people who may be called scholars, a term which has a whole range of definitions, including any pupil in any school. I do not ask to prove me wrong - I merely ask to redefine the definition of scholarly methods and intellectual rigour as defined now in Wikipedia before asking me to agree to the idea that faith in divine revelations is part of both concepts. Or am I mistaken when I understand that you wish to include faith in divine revelation as a valid basis for scholarly opinion?--Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a standard for "valid basis for scholarly opinion" as you imagine, no such litmus test that a significant opinion is required to meet to be described neutrally. It's clear that everyone has their own opinion about "myth" and there is no agreement, period.  We can describe the whole controversy from these sources.  Some opinions are indeed based on personal faith, but we are supposed to be descriptivist, not prescriptivist here.
 * Actually, most of these sources are arguing over the definition of "myth" and whether or not it it pejorative, and discussing what previous scholars in the field have opined, but it's as if you didn't read the actual argument, simply looked at the bottom, saw the word "Seminary" in the cite, and summarily yelled out "Disqualified!" Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also the WP:V and WP:RS policies are very clear on what can be used. In terms of WP:V, you are asserting that theological sources should be henceforth considered "disreputable" for theological topics, at least when it comes to defining "myth", and perhaps should take a backseat to these so-called "sociolinguists" definitions. The sources are reputable and reliable, and are not considered "extremist" or "disreputable", except by a very few sources who themselves are considered "extremist" and "disreputable". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You all missed my point, sorry to say. I wasn't talking about scholarly opinion; I was suggesting that there's no harm and a definite value in simply avoiding words that people find offensive when there are easy and readily available alternatives. sure, if some scholar uses the term 'myth' that can be used as part of a quote, but wikipedia editors don't need to use the term at all, for any reason I can see. let's not use a debate over scholarly opinion as an excuse to say things the other people find objectionable. -- Ludwigs 2 21:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your point was good, and I didn't miss it. It's the same point almost all neutral editors make at first coming into the debate. That "Myth" has definite pejorative connotations has been remarked upon by many of the published scholars in this debate, and I added several of them to my reference subpage today after you reminded me of that aspect.  But, unfortunately, you will find that the crowd of editors who want the Bible declared "myth" by wikipedia, are insistent at any cost, and simply don't care how many verifiable sources or editors or readers  find it pejorative.  And those of us who do find it so, are asked to "assume good faith" that they mean it neutrally -- even as they are allowed to use the same word in blatantly pejorative fashion on the talkpage.  It's basically just an expression of elitist scholarly scoffing -- the whole notion that wp should prescribe and proscribe popular beliefs in some kind of social engineering thought experiment, rather than be a neutral and descriptive  reference for what people actually do believe right now. It's apparent that for them, the "end" (Having wp declare Christianity and other religions a "myth") justifies any means (including redefining the semantics of words like "neutral", "reliable source" and "scholar"), because they are convinced that this opinion of theirs is a fact, and no other opinions should count.  But even so, I'm still supposed to have some "good faith" left in their "intentions". I can see no other solution for this, but arbcom.   Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * yeah, I know. one thing I've learned from my short time on Wikipedia is that scientific ideologues can be just as obnoxious as religious ideologues, and in some ways more self-righteous (since science currently has the upper hand in the metaphysical debate over the nature of reality).  plus, RIs will usually respond (at least on some minimal level) to the 'you ought to be nice to people' argument, whereas SIs seem to have no such moral grounding.  I mean, I understand.  RIs have been pushing people's buttons for so long that's it's not surprising that there's a vengeful SI reaction.  all you can do is keep explaining it and explaining it in the hope that everyone will eventually slide up a notch or two on the Kohlberg scale.   I do think an addition to the NPOV policy like the one I outlined above would be a tremendous help, though.  care to work on it with me?  we can propose it once we get it cleaned up and see how it flies. (unsigned by Ludwigs2)


 * Actually, your proposal above looks like a fine enough one to me as is- I can't come up with any amendments to that, or objections. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should clarify that this is for ideas widely held by a significant number of people today, sort of like a BLP for ideas -- with a small addition such as: "Wikipedia editors should avoid using words that have pejorative connotations to describe ideas that are widely-held today, even where the word otherwise seems to fit. Words that imply that their subject is false, wrong, bad, dirty, dumb, less-than, or even milder implications like cute, entertaining, silly, or etc. should be changed to more neutral terms that have no such connotation. In general, if the dictionary definition of a word contains a sense which would generally be viewed as insulting or dismissive, or if verifiable sources suggest that a word is insulting, dismissive, or pejorative, the word should not be considered neutral, and should be changed without further debate."

Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC) -- (I also changed 'object' to subject, and changed 'other editors complain' to 'verifiable sources suggest'; then made some more changes to the last part)


 * hmmm... I'm not sure if that 'verifiable sources suggest' change quite gets at what we want.  it seems to imply that a word is pejorative only if some authority says it's pejorative, but I think that the pejorative sense of a word is common knowledge.  I don't need to wait for an academic to tell me that that I should be insulted when someone calls me a (insert your favorite word, here).  really, I think that if there's a handful of editors saying 'hey, don't use that word, it's insulting' we should respect that.  telling them 'sorry, you don't have any right to be insulted by that word' just adds an extra insult to the insult they already feel.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just that there needs to be some kind of threshhold to stop any "handful of editors" from complaining about perfectly good words, that it can't be shown where anyone at all has ever objected to. With your wording, a very small number of editors could say "We object to the word  'Thailand' because we consider it pejorative, and it should be 'Siam', and it would have to be changed.  And then another small group could say 'No, we object to 'Siam', and find that pejorative', and quickly you run out of names to call it.  So the only reasonable threshhold seems to be verifiable sources.  If there's any real reason why anyone considers a term can have a pejorative connotation, then surely there will be verifiable references for it in print somewhere, in the vast body of available literature.  For example, as with the term "myth".    Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * After thinking about this more, I now think a revised version of Fimus' proposal above, combined with ideas from yours, comes closest to solving this problem:

"There are some words, such as 'fundamentalism' and 'myth', that have multiple meanings dependent upon their context, and are often considered 'pejorative' by many sources. These words are always acceptable to describe topics for which there is no dispute over their application. However, if there is significant and verifiable disagreement to the use of the word in the context of the topic being described, then of course, all points of view should be fully attributed to their sources."

Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Huhn, ok - I hadn't really considered people arguing over proper nouns like that, but I guess they do, don't they... I like this version, though I might want to tweak it out a bit like so:

"There are some descriptive words, such as 'fundamentalism' and 'myth', that can have different and sometimes pejorative connotations depending on their context. These words are perfectly acceptable to use when there is no dispute over their meaning and implications. However, if there is significant disagreement over the application of the word to the topic being described, then such words must be used with caution, attributing them properly to citations from verifiable sources where possible, or else replacing them with less contested terminology. Citations may contain biased or disparaging language, but wikipedia editors should take care that such language remains closely tied to the sources and does not impart a biased tone to the article as a whole."


 * added that last line just to see how it sounded - might be too heavy handed.   -- Ludwigs 2  05:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't see anything in this wording which is not being already applied to any term in any Wikipedia entry - it just gives the impression that in articles which do not include these terms, although there is a "significant disagreement over the application of a word" language doesn't need to "remain closely tied to the sources" and a "biased tone" is more acceptable. Go to Iraq War or Occupied territories and get baffled about how many people consider biased the inclusion of the word "War" or "Occupied" in a specific article (well, or go to Rockall and notice that even the term "nearest country" may be considered biased). So any reason for picking out specifically fundamentalism and myth for a wording policy/guideline which depicts common Wikipedia use as always applied? Just wondering... --Ilyacadiz (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely you don't think we should tell millions of readers in many, many countries "Wikipedia has determined that your firmly-held beliefs are 'myths', and your world-view is 'mythology'.  Too bad if you don't like that or disagree, because that is actually a "neutral fact", and not at all an opinion. Oh yeah - and all of your books that say otherwise are wrong, because they were probably written by apologists for your faith, and on that basis are therefore invalid objections that cannot be mentioned - but there's nothing at all pejorative or biased about our saying that either, because you see we really are a neutral encycopedia, and you should trust us."   As preposterous and extremist as it may seem, that is basically what has been suggested by certain extreme editors, hence the need for this discussion.

I've tweaked the proposal a bit more with Ludwig2's input to come up with this:

"There are some descriptive words, such as 'fundamentalism' and 'myth', that can have multiple, often pejorative connotations depending on their context. These words are acceptable to use without attributation only when there is no sourced dispute in the context of the topic being described. However, where there is any significant and verifiably sourced disagreement over their application in such a context, then these words should ideally be attributed to their sources, carefully explaining the nature of the dispute and all significant stances with sourced citations if possible - otherwise, these words should be replaced with less contested terminology. Citations may contain biased or disparaging language, but wikipedia editors must take care that such language remains closely tied to the sources and does not impart a biased tone to the article as a whole."

Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I continue to disagree. NPOV is about descriptive meaning. A particular source's discomfort with using myth regarding any particular story is inadmissable. "I don't like the word myth" is not a point of view on whether something is a myth. For the umpteenth time: WP:V and WP:NPOV are about what we say, not how we say it.
 * I don't believe myth should be used gratuitously. If it can be substituted for something less controversial without harming the article, it should be. But your suggestion goes too far. Would we be allowed to refer to Genesis as a creation myth anymore? Would we have to rename Christian mythology? And where else does this extend? Should evolution not be treated as fact anymore because some people in seminaries find it offensive? A spade is a spade. Ilkali (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course we could have an article "Christian mythology", but of course it would have to describe all the relevant takes on the issue, and not present only one side. But your insistence that one significant side is "inadmissible", would seem a tad extreme... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's admissable for the same reason that a reliable source not liking apples is inadmissable. It's not a slur on the source, it's just not relevant. Their claims on the ontology of religion are valuable and significant, but their personal prosaic preferences don't fall into that category. Ilkali (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? I wonder if someone else is using your computer now. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a shorthand I defined earlier in another discussion: mythA carries the academic meaning (which does not entail falseness), and mythF carries the colloquial meaning (which does).
 * The statement X is a mythA (where X is some appropriate religious story) is not an opinion or a point of view, but rather uncontested fact. Can we agree on this much? Ilkali (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No. We don;t use any kind of pseudo-logical argument to declare significant, widespread and sourced points of view "inadmissible". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you present sources for the view that, for example, Jesus' life is not a myth in the academic sense? Ilkali (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be beating a dead horse, but, yes, I can. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you haven't so far. Please do. Because the anti-myth crowd has consistently talked about multiple meanings and conflicting interpretations and now you're saying it doesn't matter; you don't think any of the meanings fit. I think that warrants a little explication. Ilkali (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Jesus might be very controversial, because for his mention in Josephus he is often considered a historic person by not faith-based scholars. So I wouldn't object to not use the word there. But try Noah instead. As for Til's former comment on my wondering, I'd just like to remember that I do not advocate any wording guideline along the lines of ""Wikipedia has determined that your firmly-held beliefs are 'myths' ". I only advocate to treat the word myth, an academic term, as any other polemical or controversial term in Wikipedia, remembering that every term in WP may be considered polemical and controversial (and challenged) depending on the subject where it is used. That many people firmly held a belief is no reason to treat this belief in any other way than other beliefs, less firmly held or held firmly by less people. Or can you suggest any way to measure from where up a belief is firm enough to be granted a specific wording guideline in Wikipedia?


 * The truth is, scholars have never reached a unified agreement over whether "myth" should be defined to include all, none, or just parts of the Bible, and if just parts, which parts. You will find sources arguing   both positions, and what a "myth" really is and what it implies, for just about every part.  The academic definition of one concordance allowed for Jdg. 9:8-15, 2Kg 14:8-10 to be considered "myth", but not Genesis or Revelation. Others would disagree, some would draw the line at Gen. 11, others at Gen 17.  The POV that "myth" should be redefined so as to include the Gospels may be traced to Bultmann and Strauss.  The Bultmann-Strauss school of thought isn't universally accepted, is highly controversial, and to pretend that school of thought is incontrovertible fact and not opinion, is beyond absurd. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are very knowledgeable about that subject, that is greatly appreciated. Let's sort out where the word is controversial and where it isn't. I would agree it's controversial and best not used at the Gospels and of course not at the Song of Songs, but I would say the opposite for Gen 1. Just as we must sort out the use of the term "War" instead of "conflict" for every shooting incident from Algier to the Philippines or Colombia. We can't say that every incident including more than two people shooting each other is a war and we can't say that the word War should best be avoided overall, because its use would give warrior status to PKK, Hamas, FARC, LTTE, Baath Party, Hizbullah, GIA or whatever other fighters, who are normally described by affected governments as "terrorists" or plain criminals. To discuss the appropriate terminology for each conflict eats up a lot of energy, but I see no way around it. Nor do I see it for the Myth word. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's simple: if the controversy can be found in reliable sources for a topic, then it's controversial for that topic, thus all povs have to be attributed. If you don't believe the sources are "reliable", for purpose of verifying there indeed exists a controversy for a given topic, we should check with WP:RS/N.  Many of our best experts on interpreting the WP:RS policy read that page.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Completely okay with me. I have asked myself questions on WP:RS/N and I greatly appreciate it. I think that this is what must be done for any controversial topic and what's already being done. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, I keep trying to push this away from being a conversation about 'words': if we try to resolve the problem on the level of 'words' it's a lost cause. this is a problem of 'attitudes'.  on controversial topics you will always have editors with their own given biases, biases which they don't think are biases.  they think they each have an accurate representation of the situation, and they will cite sources that share their particular biases and use those sources to demonstrate that their biases are not biases. if you follow me...  this is all very normal and natural and human, and there's no getting around it.  what needs to be done (somehow) is reinforce the separation between the editor and the source.  this is actually easier to do when there's an active conflict (turkish and armenian editors will never agree over the term genocide, but it's such an active conflict they have to step back from it a bit and let the sources speak).  it's much harder when one side is relatively passive: Christians may be upset at having large sections of their holy books called myth, but there aren't a lot of secular scholars who will take up that particular cause. that leaves a great deal of leeway for an editor with a bias against Christianity to smack the bible around but good using reliable sources like a baseball bat.  and if you think it's bad for mainstream Christians, think about Hindus, Scientologists, Mormons, and other groups whose sacred texts are habitually written off and misinterpreted by both Christian and secular scholars.  The 'attitude' that needs to be encouraged here is that we will not malign the beliefs of others without due cause.  see what I mean?
 * Yeah, and especially considering that several sovereign UN members today officially subscribe to some these same worldviews being smugly labeled "mythology" (see State religion) - while others eg Cuba, North Korea, China etc. officially subscribe to world-views more hostile to religion - so it doesn't even seem politically neutral, nor diplomatic, to say "Such and such a country clings to myths." That's obviously just a "point-of-view", folks... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should have a couple of days off more often, as it seems that a lot more constructive debate has gone on (eventually) in my absence.
 * To clarify Ludwigs2's question - I am a bit of b) and c), but there is a d) that you didn't mention, and which I realise now doesn't properly belong in a debate over NPOV.
 * The d) 'camp' states that if a word that is ambiguous must be used then its context should clarify its meaning. Whilst this touches on NPOV, it has a broader significance and perhaps belongs in the Manual of Style (this, I suspect, has been part of Ilkali's argument). I plan to move this aspect of the debate to that section of WP and therefore shut up about it here. I have a draft proposal at User:FimusTauri/Ambiguous See also Ambiguous Words, which I present here because it touches on the draft proposed by Ludwigs2 and expanded on by him and Til.
 * I suspect that some here have assumed that I simply want the term 'myth' banned or heavily proscribed. That is not the case. With just a few seconds thought, the term can be used without reservation, simply by providing suitable context. If that is done, then the issue of NPOV will disappear. If it is made clear that scholars x,y & z consider a story a myth (or treat it as myth) then the context is clear. Surely this is the simply demand of WP:V.
 * I entered this debate at Noah's Ark. The current lead (stripped of parenthetical comment) reads
 * Noah's Ark is a large vessel featuring in the myths of Abrahamic religions. Narratives that include the Ark are found in the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an.
 * This is the result of endless debate about whether or not "myths" should be included, but I can guarantee that in the near future someone will come along and open that debate up again, in endless cycle. A simple, clear guideline can end this debate. There is no need to add the word "myth" in the lead and thus clutter it up. What is wrong with a lead that states
 * Noah's Ark is a large vessel featuring in the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an?
 * Clear, concise, half the size. It says exactly what the Ark is, doesn't demand that the reader have to work out whether or not the story is true or not, or which definition of any of the terms is being used. If they think the Bible is rubbish, they will think the Ark is; if they think the Bible is True, then so will they view the Ark. Its simple. Let the reader make up his own mind. That is true NPOV. If the editor wishes to add "myth(ology)" into the article, that's fine; just give it context and stop demanding that the lead be pointlessly cluttered up.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now created a proposal for a new policy on the use of ambiguous terms, which can be found at definition and use of ambiguous terms. Any comments welcomed there.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I keep having to bite my tongue about the modern research that suggests the flood was a real event (collapse of a land bridge into the black sea basin...) . do you mind if I edit that page?  I was thinking an addition to NPOV would be sufficient, but if you think it needs an entire separate page, I could work with that.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The current proposal
Its a bit of nightmare trying to wade through everything above. Could someone restate the current proposal.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "There are some descriptive words, such as 'fundamentalism' and 'myth', that can have multiple, often pejorative connotations depending on their context. These words are acceptable to use without attributation only when there is no sourced dispute in the context of the topic being described. However, where there is any significant and verifiably sourced disagreement over their application in such a context, then these words should ideally be attributed to their sources, carefully explaining the nature of the dispute and all significant stances with sourced citations if possible - otherwise, these words should be replaced with less contested terminology. Citations may contain biased or disparaging language, but wikipedia editors must take care that such language remains closely tied to the sources and does not impart a biased tone to the article as a whole."


 * Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems good to me, although I would remove the word "ideally" as it implies that there are situations where lack of attribution is acceptable.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One concern is weight: if the clear majority view is that a term applies, we shouldn't be framing it in a way that gives equal validity to a fringe view. There's also a specific issue with fundamentalism in that it's an accurate historical term for a specific ideology, and while modern proponents of related ideologies may dispute any use of the term, it remains legitimate in that historical context and shouldn't be presented in a "he said, she said" sort of equivalence. . . dave souza, talk 13:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is significant disagreement or controversy on a labeling, why can we not mention that there exists such disagreement? All the policies already say we can, indeed must, and that we must attribute the framing accordingly.  This just spells it out for the "but surely we don't really have to be neutral" crowd that thinks a special non-policy exception should apply to these words, to banish or render invalid, all mention of any disagreement. (And the stated views of the churches, imams etc. that consider these books canonical is not "fringe", it is widespread)  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * the 'clear majority' argument is a bit troublesome, since it leads to an odd tyranny of the majority situation. for example, a 'clear majority' of scientific anthropologists would call the the story of the resurrection of Jesus a myth (citing the close relationship the story has to the mythologies of Mithraic, Egyptian, and Babylonian faiths); almost no academics would cite the resurrection as an established fact.  however, is wikipedia prepared to tell millions upon millions of Christians that one of the central tenets of their faith is (assumedly false) myth, because a majority of scholars say it is?


 * terms like 'myth' and 'fundamentalism' often have 'hard' meanings: e.g. 'creation myth' is a term that all but the most hard-core Christians accept, and fundamentalism is a historical movement with fairly clear origins and derivations. they also tend to develop connotations (soft meanings): 'myth' has taken on the connotation of being false, like a fable; fundamentalism has taken on a connotation of being thoughtless and reactionary.  the thing we are trying to prevent here (it seems to me) is allowing the 'hard' meanings to be used as leverage for importing the pejorative 'soft' meanings into the article.  lots of people want to do that, innocently or not.  I think Til is right, that simply mentioning that the controversy exists goes a long way towards a solution, but I also think we need to encourage a bit of pro-active balancing.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I see what everyone is saying here. Would it be wrong to insert a sentence something like:
 * This should not be applied to fringe views; views which are significant, but nevertheless a minority should be given due weight?--FimusTauri (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: this is what I now propose
 * There are some descriptive words, such as fundamentalism and myth, that can have multiple, often pejorative connotations depending on their context. These words are acceptable to use without attributation only when there is no sourced dispute in the context of the topic being described. However, where there is any significant and verifiably sourced disagreement over their application in such a context, then these words should be attributed to their sources, carefully explaining the nature of the dispute and all significant stances with sourced citations if possible - otherwise, these words should be replaced with less contested terminology. This should not be applied to fringe views. Views which are significant, but nevertheless a minority should be given due weight. Citations may contain biased or disparaging language, but wikipedia editors must take care that such language remains closely tied to the sources and does not impart a biased tone to the article as a whole.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would take out the sentence with the word "fringe" as unnecessary, the following sentence is ok enough to clarify. "Fringe" is originally short for "lunatic fringe", and itself might be perceived as another example of a pejorative point of view that is rarely ever shared by those to whom it is applied.  Let us think about what a "point of view" is.  I am disturbed by the proliferation of policies regarding "fringe" here since everyone has their own perspective on what fringe is, and too many people see it as a complete loophole around NPOV.  Only yesterday I saw someone basically commented on a talkpage that "Fringe is defined as whatever I say it is, because I am the editor who recognises it when I see it."  The problem with going down this road is there are at least half a dozen such editors who esteem themselves this way, who might not all agree in all cases.  According to WP:FRINGE, even fringe theories that can be established as really existing "significantly", are allowed to be mentioned on relevant articles.  However, we have seen above that the published views of millions of Muslims, Christians and others would not even be accorded that level of respect according to some openly atheist editors who would hold them "inadmissible", despite what RS policy says on significant views.  Then if you go to the article "fringe", a disambig, the nearest link is the article "fringe science" defined there as "scientific inquiry departing significantly from mainstream theories".  But what we are seeing is this term being applied to many things that are not at all "scientific inquiry".  Then there is the whole false presumption that "science" and all other knowledge is like some kind of universal monolith where almost everyone is in universal agreement, and the few who dare disagree with "mainstream" hypotheses, deserve to be run out, tarred and feathered. Remember science is paid for by governments, and a lot of it has been spent on very silly things. It was a lot harder to maintain this useful illusion  of a monolith in the 1930s, when you had Nazi scientists, Soviet scientists, Western scientists and Chinese scientists, and each of these had their own "mainstream" and "fringe", but many of the things they were researching were almost as silly as some of the things being researched today.  And some things there is just no "monopoly of opinion" on, and never can be.  People will always disagree, and their partisans sometimes seem to fight one another on wikipedia each trying to portray themselves as "mainstream" and the others as "fringe".  But I am envisioning strict neutrality and seriously letting readers form their own opinions from the facts.   If something is patently silly, it will be apparent to most readers anyway from the facts, without having to "steer" them with additional pejorative, point-of-view language.  I would really like to see "fringe" added alongside of "myth" and "fundamentalist" as examples of what we're talking about.  But having said all that, the next sentence you added is fine. "Views which are significant, but nevertheless a minority should be given due weight."  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair comment, especially since the intention of the first sentence is subsumed in the second anyway.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with Til's assessment, and might even take it a bit further, with a revision like this (using a bordered quotation this time, for easier reading):
 * this has the following changes:
 * removed 'only' in sentance 2: seemed unnecessary.
 * removed a couple of occurrences of 'sourced' in reference to disagreements. sources may not mention any disagreement - this will usually be a disagreement between editors over different sources which use different terminology.  or over one set of sources which uses terminology that a set of editors dislikes.
 * removed the exclusion of fringe articles
 * changed the passage on weight to show that undo weight applies, but that less significant positions should not be singled out for pejorative terminology
 * plus I made some grammatical changes. basically, I think the point of this passage should be to remove pejorative phrasing except where it can be attributed to reliable sources, and I don't think there should be loopholes built into it.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * plus I made some grammatical changes. basically, I think the point of this passage should be to remove pejorative phrasing except where it can be attributed to reliable sources, and I don't think there should be loopholes built into it.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding your removal of "sourced" - I disagree with the reason. Often there will be a disagreement between editors, but if we follow policy, it's supposed to be irrelevant -- because we impassionately present both sides of views regardless of what we personally believe, which is irrelevant.  The only standard we can use to establish if there is truly disagreement about the appropriateness of a word, is if the disagreement can be verifiably sourced.  If we can't find anything in print whatsoever indicating that there is such disagreement in a specific case, a mere editor saying "I disagree" shouldn't be enough.  If it's a valid objection, it will be referenced somewhere.  This question wouldn't apply to most scriptures, since the entire concept of scriptures not being myth is easy to reference for most religions.  But for example, Prester John.  Say someone has sources describing it as mythology.  An editor objects and says "That's not a myth!"  The objection would not be valid, unless sources could be found indicating that there is some significant school of thought that specifically denies Prester John is a myth, or at least indicating that this categorization has ever been and still is disputed for any reason.  If no contradictory indications can be found whatsoever, the sources describing Prester John as a myth would win by default and would not need attributory language in the framing, regardless of a single editor's objections. Of course two contradictory sources is an example of a sourced disagreement. So I would recommend re-adding "sourced" in the places you took it out. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * my apologies; I was just providing context. I'll refactor the statement.


 * regarding the word 'sourced', I'm having a hard time agreeing with you, but that might be because of different contexts. when it comes to religious issues there's usually an undercurrent of circumspection (not always - for instance, I discovered the other day that scientology made it onto WP's list of pseudoscience topics, which probably pisses off a few million people...), and that circumspection will show up in sources, somewhere, who feel a guilty need to point out the problem.  but with other topics there is no such luck.  I am frankly tired of watching anti-fringe editors take articles like homeopathy, alternative medicine, and parapsychology and pack them solid with terms like 'purported', ' unverified', 'pseudoscientific', 'disputed', 'unaccepted' and etc., in a painstaking effort to make the topics look as defunct as possible.  granting that there's a point which needs to be made here - I don't want pseudoscience to be treated like fact on wikipedia any more than any other science-savvy editor - but I also don't want these articles to turn into the kinds of hack-and-slash pieces they tend towards.  the problem is that some anti-fringe editors take the lack of scientific evidence on these issues as an affirmative statement, and there's literally nothing in verifiable sources that deals with the issue sensibly.  and so we end up with a situation in which editors impose a bias in articles by making an assumption about what sources implicitly mean in their silence on an issue, and there's no way that issue can be resolved by an appeal to sources.  do you see what I'm saying? -- Ludwigs 2  22:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Only yesterday I saw someone basically commented on a talkpage that "Fringe is defined as whatever I say it is, because I am the editor who recognises it when I see it."". You mean this? Tell me, do you enjoy destroying your own credibility? Ilkali (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean I ever had credibility with you to begin with? This is all about what reliable sources say, not personality politics, Ilkali.  It matters not at all to the issues, whether or not you like me.  The issues about the reliable sources will still be the same, no matter who raises them.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an obvious problem with this proposal: editors should not be determining the "disagreements" over appropriate terms. For example, let's say a group of dedicated disbelievers in electromagnetism disputes using the term induction as being pejorative. They claim every reliable source on the matter is "biased" against their perspective. This could even become a "significant" disagreement on Wikipedia, but this should not dictate content. Content should be described using the best sources whether or not editors think they are the best sources. This can be done by considering the reviews, credentials, venues, and status of the authors of the texts. What we cannot do is give precedence to petty squabbles on Wikipedia. The current proposal can be interpreted to do just that. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We're talking about cases where the dispute is well documented outside of Wikipedia. There are reams of material discussing whether "myth" should be defined so as to include all, some, or none of the Bible, with all possible positions in the debate. It's one of the most discussed debates in all of history.  Wikipedia editors should not hide their heads in the sand and pretend that only one side of this debate is "admissible" and the others don't deserve to be mentioned neutrally.  Wikipedia taking sides will not make the other side go away.  NPOV means NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The proposal does not make it clear that it's about disputes outside of Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My version did, see above. Ludwig2 only a short while ago came up with a new wording that removed the word "sourced" in two crucial places, because he disagrees, but I agree with you that it should make this clear.  You were probably only looking at his latest version, but please read this whole subsection carefully, and you will see that is exactly what we have just been discussing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * well, my disagreement is not written in the stars. I've just seen too many examples of anti-fringe editors using sourcing arguments like this as an excuse to engage in heavy-handed smear campaigns on fringe articles. for no particularly good reason, mind you, since that approach usually does nothing more than make wikipedia look biased (I've actually run some of their edits past students of mine, just to get an innocent perspective, and found a near perfect agreement that the treatment was inappropriate.  it actually seemed to make the fringe topic seem more sympathetic to a few of them).  there's got to be some way to protect beliefs (even bad beliefs) from this kind of hammer-handed effort to make them look bad, and I think the best way to do that is to make a clear distinction between the statements of sources and the efforts of editors.  do you have a better idea? -- Ludwigs 2  02:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent for clarity) [Firstly, apologies for my silence - been in disagreement with my ISP!]

Could I suggest this, which hopefully clarifies the nature of the dispute:


 * There are some descriptive words, such as fundamentalism and myth, that can have multiple, often pejorative connotations depending on their context. These words are acceptable to use without attributation only when there is no sourced dispute in the context of the topic being described. However, where there is any significant disagreement over their application in such a context and that disagreement can be verifiably sourced, then these words must be attributed to their sources, the nature of the dispute explained and all significant stances represented with sppropriate citations - otherwise, these words should be replaced with less contested terminology. Views which are significant, but nevertheless a minority should be given due weight. Citations may contain biased or disparaging language, but wikipedia editors must take care that such language remains closely tied to the sources and does not impart a biased tone to the article as a whole.

This specifies that it is the dispute that is to be sourced. I have also removed the "if possible" and changed "should" to "must" on the grounds that, if no source can be cited, then the dispute is no longer verifiable.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent work. This proposal is clear, unambiguous and necessary for the sake of ensuring neutrality. Beginning with the Cold War, it became standard practice for Marxist-Leninist literary critics to refer to all biblical stories, in fact all modern world religions and theology in general, using the redefined term "political myth". I know it is hard for those who hold this point-of-view to acknowledge that it is a point-of-view, or to acknowledge that abundant Western theologians have rejected this definition. However, strict neutrality demands that we consider the reliable sources for all points of view that can be verified as existing, without endorsing any of them. Numerous contemporary theologians have specifically rejected Bultmann and Strauss's broadened definition of "mythology" to cover the entire Judaeo-Christian Bible in the last century, preferring to adhere to the traditional distinction outlined by Gunkel, White, etc. between polytheistic, largely allegorical nature stories, and possibly "demythologized" stories presented within a historical framework which they argue were not explicitly intended solely as allegory. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The last two sentences look like a recipe for problematic appeals to an idealised "neutrality" rather than NPOV in Wikipedia terms. "Views which are significant, but nevertheless a minority should be given due weight. Citations may contain biased or disparaging language, but wikipedia editors must take care that such language remains closely tied to the sources and does not impart a biased tone to the article as a whole." So, when promoters of pseudoscience, for example, object to that term then the overwhelming majority expert view that the subject is pseudoscience would be objected to as a "biased tone". All expert views should be given due weight, not just minority views. It's quite sufficient to say that views should be represented in compliance with WP:UNDUE, with any language seen as disparaging being appropriately attributed. Thus, sources giving an overview of contemporary theologians would be cited to explain their view opposing Bultmann and Strauss's definition of myth, and show that the theologians view was not a tiny minority viewpoint. dave souza, talk 16:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * that's a bit hyperbolic. of course, there's always going to be someone objecting to the term 'pseudoscience' (as there is always someone objecting to anything), but when the term is used by reliable sources that objection is not going to go anywhere. Terms like 'pseudoscience' are perfectly fine, but only when they are carefully attributed to statements by sources.  when the term is used by wikipedia editors as though it were an inviolable truth about the world, however, it does impart a biased tone to the article, and ought to be brought back into proper attribution.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that this proposal relates specifically to the religion section and that pseudoscience has its own section, I am not concerned about pseudoscience here. The problem with citing a definition of "myth" (which underpins the definition of "mythology") is that it would seem that the "experts" all disagree with each other. Definitions range from being so tight as to exclude much of what are conventionally regarded as myths to being so vague as to encompass just about every story that cannot be solidly grounded in historical fact. Thus, we need to find a wording here that makes it clear to WP editors that the definition they use must not be just the one that is convenient for their own purposes. They need to make it clear who uses that definition and what other definitions are used which would exclude the stories involved (and who uses that definition). Equally, where an editor would exclude a story they must also present the view that some definitions would include it. Possibly, "Views which are significant, but nevertheless a minority should be given due weight" does not express this adequately.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fimus: I have to say, this is one of the things that irks me about policy discussions on wikipedia. I agree with your response above as far as it goes, but you're addressing the symptom, not the cause of the problem.  the only reason for one to insist on calling someone else's religious belief a 'myth' is that one wants (for whatever reason) to debunk their faith as a whole.  this isn't an issue of word definitions, or even of the proper sourcing of word definitions, though both of those approaches help relieve the more obvious symptoms of the problem.  the problem here is that one editor has decided that s/he knows the truth of a matter, and is self-righteously propagandizing so that others will see the truth the way s/he does.  it's a tiny little soapbox.  I mean, any editor who wasn't on a soapbox (i.e. any editor using common sense) would give up a word like 'myth' or look for some compromise the first time anyone complained about it, because it's not important enough to make much of a fuss over.  this is why the pseudoscience stuff comes in as well, because you get the same problem there - people on both the fringe and anti-fringe sides up on their high horse about tawdry little details.  can't we find some way of defusing this soapboxing at its source, rather than getting into all this lawyery stuff about definitions?  -- Ludwigs 2  20:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

New break for easy editing
I wholly agree with what you are saying, Ludwigs2, which is why I attempted to gain a policy on the use of ambiguous words. Unfortunately, I do not think that we will ever get rid of the problem of people who wish to use WP as a soapbox for their biased viewpoint (on both sides of the various arguments), unless there is a site-wide change of policy. It does not seem that there is stomach for the wide-ranging changes that would be required, so all we can do is address the individual "symptoms" and make it as hard as possible for biased editors to push their bias. To use the Noah's Ark example (because I am very familiar with it), I believe the opening sentences could be merged into one short, succinct sentence by eliminating "myths" from it. However, editors are insisting that that word be included, despite the very many obvious (to me) reasons why its a bad idea to have that word in the opening paragraph. There is no reason to exclude the word from the article, but the editors who insist on the word will not budge, have never budged, and I suspect will never budge. In the face of such dogmatic insistance, we can only address a "symptom" by insisting the context in which the word "myth" is used sufficiently explains what is meant by that word. In some cases, this will mean that the word gets dropped. In others, it forces the editor to explain him/herself to the extent that any intended bias is nullified.

If you can see a way to push a site-wide change of policy that will be effective in removing bias, then I will support you all the way. In the meantime, I ask that you help us find a way of addressing the symptoms.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this debate STILL going?? Does the term "mythology" sit any better than "myth"? There is stuff in the wording guide that deals with this already.
 * This argument is purely along religious lines I might point out in the tried and tested "religion needs exceptions" line of argument. e.g. people might be offended, a lot of people believe something, we need to choose different language to toe the church/mosque line.
 * We aren't here as an encyclopaedia to promote religious stories that have no scientific basis (e.g.As far as evidence: Noah's ark did not happen, Jesus rising from the dead did not happen, parting of the waters did not happen etc etc) as if they are factual stories and there should be no confusion between them and ones that do have factual basis "The battle of waterloo" or "Captain cook's voyages".
 * There's an infobox to explain what the terms mean (to make sure there's ZERO ambiguity) for those who might think that a "strong positive" or "strong negative" assertion about the factual accuracy of a story is being made (to which people say "people don't read them", "that makes it jargon"). In many of these stories it would be perfectly acceptable to have them labelled as "fiction" as science has shown them to be just that (e.g. creation stories with no evidence replaced with published biology/archaeology/geology/astronomy findings that explain the universe). That would at least clear up the ambiguity that is allowed by calling the stories "mythology" (e.g. something which may or may not be based on or in part a true story). E.g. global flood simply did not happen in the time humans have been on the Earth (one end of the scale of "myth"). The story of Jesus: there's some evidence he existed, but the supernatural elements of the story lack any evidence (somewhere between part historical account and made up stuff).
 * Sure, people BELIEVE all sorts of stuff: that doesn't make it any more true. Some people (and let's be clear here: there's a handful of very religious types floating around wikipedia stifling this stuff) probably find it offensive that the bible or qur'an is described as a religious text rather than "pure word of god and source of all truth", but that doesn't change the face that these books ARE religious texts which do contain MYTHOLOGY and other religious instruction.
 * Based on all the dictionary definitions I posted up back on Noah's ark: the term mythology fits for these stories, to omit it to appease these sort of reasons is just an attempt to make the mythological seem more factual at the expense of more clear identification of such stories. NathanLee (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * geez, Nathan, I appreciate you proving my point, but you didn't need to pull out that big of a soapbox.


 * let me be clear about something: science does not reject claims because of an absence of evidence; science rejects claims when available evidence supports a different claim, and even then leaves open the possibility that the original claim might have some merit. A statement like "...religious stories that have no scientific basis..." is nothing more than meaningless drivel, which would only impress someone who doesn't understand how science actually works.  I'm not shocked that people don't know this, or that scientific reasoning gets misused on wikipedia in this way; I am shocked by the extent to which 'science' as a thing is idolatrized here (and yes, I mean that literally: that science somehow turns into some golden 'Science' idol that people make emotional appeals to).  I don't care whether you believe that Noah's ark, Jesus rising from the dead, and the parting of the red seas ever happened; I don't believe any of those myself.  but science doesn't tell us they didn't happen.  the best science can say in these situations is 'there is no evidence that those events occurred, and no mechanism currently known that explains how these events could have occurred'.  analytic, non-committal, non-judgmental - that is a scientific perspective.  what you're dishing out with this 'myth' stuff is your own belief wrapped tightly in science-colored wrappings, and as you yourself pointed out, people BELIEVE all sorts of stuff without justification.


 * you want to debunk religion, that's your business, but go do it somewhere where I don't have to watch.


 * I'm going to go look at the Noah's ark page now, because if this is the kind of reasoning that's prevalent there, someone needs to be done. -- Ludwigs 2  04:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nathan, evidently you haven't been paying much attention to the discussion. Nobody here is discussing "omitting" the word 'mythology" to "appease religious people".  What we are in fact discussing is including and citing ALL significant points of view, as already required by existing policy.  The reason we need to spell this out, is to counter a select few militantly anti-religious editors who seem to insist that reliably sourced religious points of view they don't like should be excluded or belittled as some sort of special exception to the NPOV policy.  If we are going to include the opinion of some literary critics who have categorized the Bible as mythology, we must not pretend these critics have a monopoly on opinion, or on Bible interpretations; and we must also give due weight to neutrally explaining the views of those many theologians who specifically reject this school of thought on how how to interpret scripture.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that both of the above comments adequately express the idiocy of Nathan's comment. I would only add that no-one here is trying to ban or somehow limit the use of myth(ology). Quite the contrary, if these proposals work correctly, then the word can be used in whichever article you want, just so long as it is clear who uses the term and any relevant, verifiable opposing viewpoints are given due weight. This is true neutrality. Why do you oppose that? Further, this proposal should have equal validity for the opposite side of the argument: the religious zealots will be as equally obliged to give due weight as the atheist zealots. Finally, although "myth(ology)" is the most glaring and discussed example, this should be applied to all words with a potentially ambiguous meaning in religious articles.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Having said all that, can we get back to discussing the proposal? I am not hearing any disagreement with the bulk of the current proposal, but there seems to be concerns over the last two sentences, so let me offer this :


 * There are some descriptive words, such as fundamentalism and myth, that can have multiple, often pejorative connotations depending on their context. These words are acceptable to use without attributation only when there is no sourced dispute in the context of the topic being described. However, where there is any significant disagreement over their application in such a context and that disagreement can be verifiably sourced, then these words must be attributed to their sources, the nature of the dispute explained and all significant stances represented with appropriate citations - otherwise, these words should be replaced with less contested terminology. Care should be taken not to dismiss views which are a minority, but are nevertheless significant and verifiable. As with all viewpoints, these should be included and given due weight. Whilst sources may contain biased or disparaging language, wikipedia editors must take care that such language remains closely tied to those sources and does not impart a biased tone to the article as a whole.

How's that?--FimusTauri (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose. You're asking for citations for individual words? It's simply unworkable. Instead, we consider WP:UNDUE in deciding if something is to be classified as a myth, pseudo-science, a fact (think evolution), or whatever. If no citation is given for this, then of course you are welcome to challenge it by asking for a citation. If you feel that the chosen classification violates WP:UNDUE, then present your case on the article's talk page. If there is documented disagreement of the classification then the article may discuss the disagreement to the satisfaction of WP:UNDUE. This means that if the documented disagreement is minor or insignificant among the experts on the subject (think young earth creationism among biologists or literalism among biblical scholars), then things like the amount of article space given to, article placement of, etc., the discussion of the disagreement must satisfy WP:UNDUE.
 * I noted a repeating element to the above when typing it out, namely WP:UNDUE. It seems to me that everything is already taken care of in existing policy, so why is this necessary? If it's equivalent to, or a subset of, WP:UNDUE, we don't need it. If it introduces something new, then the FAQ is not the place to do that - consider instead WT:NPOV. Cheers, Ben (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How did we get the authority to "decide" if something is a myth, etc, when these are controversial designations in many cases, terms often used as propaganda and rhetoric, and the field of scholarship cannot even agree on the correct theological genre? This sounds like a perfect description of the "prescriptivist" concept of wikipedia that is clashing once again with the "descriptivist" view.  In fact, it seems like some editors don't even want all the sourced views to be described, because they suggest that people dissent from their prescriptions.
 * So the ultimate question is, is wp yet another vehicle designed to steer and engineer how readers are "supposed to" think, or will it instead reflect how people actually do think? I submit that the latter is the intended and ostensible use of the project, while it is greatly open to abuse in shape of the former, necessitating vigilance to ensure pov is not usurped in such a way that only one pov or school of thought gets presented.  We aren't even talking about incontestible "facts" but about a highly subjective genre, as subjective and ill-defined as you can get.  If it was truly a "fact" that has been compellingly proved to everyone's satisfaction, such as gravity, geometry, or heliocentrism, then there would not be any massive theological debate appearing in literature for centuries, a significant and continuing debate that it does no service for an encyclopedia to blindly ignore and pretend there is some imginary "unanimity". If it's controversial, we are obliged to honestly report it as such, with citations since they are readily available. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * that's... pretty good.    a little wordy (like I have any right to complain about that...) I still don't like the fact that disputes need to be verifiably sourced (I think there's room for abuse there with smallish groups that don't get their side represented in sources properly) but I don't get the sense anyone else feels that's going to be a problem, so I should probably let it go.  -- Ludwigs 2  09:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ben, I understand the nature of your opposition to this proposal and genuinely welcome your input, especially as it is your wording that I am seeking to change. Perhaps it would be a good idea if I explained why I feel there is a need for a change (and others may have their own reasons)


 * The current wording reads:
 * Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about some particular terms can be found at WP:WTA.


 * I have a big problem with "very specific meanings". There is clearly a dispute as to the definition of the words (certainly in the case of "myth") among the "experts" and this wording seems to deny that fact.
 * Whilst the second sentence is fine as it stands, it is an instruction as to how words are used by the editor and does not address how the word will be received by the reader. With the best intentions, if a person thinks "myth" means a "made up story" then they will read it to mean that without further explanation.
 * For the reason stated above, the third sentence is wholly inappropriate. Further, it precludes the views of any significant minority (say, a third, for example. If one third of academics disagree with the use of a word, the statement above precludes their viewpoint.)
 * With regard to your reference to WP:UNDUE, the current statement seems to supercede WP:UNDUE in that it denies any but the "majority viewpoint".


 * In the light of this, does anyone actually think the current wording should stand? If not, we have to work for an alternative.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't object in principle to this as a replacement specifically related to religion, but the wording appears to suggest universal application which could raise problems with fringe views. The sentences "Care should be taken not to dismiss views which are a minority, but are nevertheless significant and verifiable. As with all viewpoints, these should be included and given due weight." suggest bending over backwards to favour minority views, a better approach would be "Significant and verifiable minority views should be attributed and included in accordance with due weight." We could consider adding, after a comma, "and not treated dismissively." but that's already covered by NPOV. We may also have to be clear that extreme minority views have a limited place: it would be inappropriate for our article on the Pope to use terms preferred by the Democratic Unionist Party. . . dave souza, talk 13:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the current proposal does (correctly) allow for DUP terminology to be used in the article on the Pope - so long as it is made clear that the terminology is that of the DUP and it is used in the "Objections" section, where it is appropriate. That aside, I quite like your proposed alternative - it is more concise.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the current version does not preclude their viewpoint, the current version merely asks editors to respect the terminology used by the majority of experts. If there is another significant point of view, with respect to the experts on the subject, then this of course may be covered as I described above. Your version asks that WP:UNDUE be bypassed if there is any significant disagreement by requiring editors to attribute all views to their sources, I presume along the lines of "According to blah, x is y", or in the extreme case, asking editors to use different terminology. Essentially, your version attempts to undermine majority viewpoints, or subvert them entirely, and that will not do. Ben (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ben. I don't see any reason to change the current wording. As we know, any significant minority viewpoint will be explained and must be explained in any WP article. That is already provided for by WP policy. What we cannot do is ban a specific mainstream terminology from the lead paragraph because it might clash with a minority viewpoint explained later. There may be people who say, based on scriptures, that the sun is not a star, but we cannot ask editors to drop the sentence "the sun is a star" from the lead of Sun. To try an ambiguous wording in the lead as to satisfy both the mainstream view and the minority viewpoint is in fact against WP:UNDUE. That would get us into something like "The sun may or may not be a star, depending on your following Copernicus or the Bible". Don't think that is right. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ilyacadiz, you must be awfully jaded to think that Marxist terminology like calling the Bible "mythology" is "mainstream". It's not, by a long shot. Maybe it's "mainstream" according to the sources you read. We are neutral.  This backawards thinking being forced down wikopedians' throats is exactly why I feel the need to appeal to arbcom is unavoidable. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "Your version asks that WP:UNDUE be bypassed if there is any significant disagreement" - if it is "significant", how then can it be "undue"? The treatment of significant views and disagreements being proposed by Fimus and several other editors, is completely in line with existing policy, not a bypass of anything.  If it's not significant, it may well be undue to mention it.  The current wording that you yourself wrote, has been used in a manner incongruous with policy, to attempt to deny significant disagreement from being explained and instead endorse a disputed POV as supposedly factual and incontrovertible. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) let me try to clarify what the issue here is: or do you want the casual wikipedia reader to assume that wikipedia has an 'attitude' about certain topics? -- Ludwigs 2 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * certain words that have specialized technical usages also have pejorative implications in common language use.
 * use of these words in articles will introduce bias in some cases, because wikipedia readers are common-language-users who will recognize the pejorative implication, but not the technical use of the term
 * therefore, we are looking for something that says:
 * if the technical use is sufficiently prevalent that it can be properly sourced, it should be properly sourced so that readers can see for themselves that it is a technical term used by scholars.
 * if the technical use can not be properly sourced, the word should be changed to something more innocuous, to prevent readers from attributing the pejorative implications of the word to wikipedia


 * I should also remind everyone that the current wording was inserted without consultation or consensus. It is clear from the current discussion that such a consensus would never have been achieved.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh grow up. Throughout this massive thread you've offered many permutations of the same basic message that attempts to undermine WP:UNDUE with respect to terminology. You've consistently failed to achieve consensus for these permutations, and it has been over a month since you've started this thread. Likewise, discussions you've started at the village pump and even your own policy/guideline proposals on roughly the same topic have also failed to gain any decent level of support.
 * Til, if you're still reading this go and carry out your never ending threat of filing an ARBCOM case so we can get it out of the way. At that point I think you two will finally have exhausted every forum throughout the project and then I can take a break from arguing with both of you. Ben (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So you insert your own biased wording and expect everyone to just go along with it. I attempt to find consensus and you simply say "no, no, no". Who should grow up?--FimusTauri (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I said you've failed to find consensus, not "no, no, no". Ben (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So try helping to find a consensus. Instead of simply saying no (as you have above) to all of the proposals, offer some constructive alternatives. I am more than willing to work in good faith to find a solution that is genuinely neutral. Are you?--FimusTauri (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with the current wording, and I don't agree with your arguments against it. Ben (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hardly surprising since Ben Tillman wrote the wording in question himself, and many others disagree with it or object to it. 141.152.28.162 (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Many others are also completely in favor of it. Ilkali (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So here is the point: some favour the current wording; others don't. (It's patently obvious that you don't agree with my objections, Ben - that doesn't make them go away). Some favour my proposal (or variants thereof); others don't. In other words - there is no consensus. Not for mine - and neither for the current wording. So how about we start acting like intelligent adults and try working to find a consensus?--FimusTauri (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for your long list of proposals. You can't extend that lack of consensus to the thing you're trying to replace unless the two things are polar opposites. If that's the case, then there is no need to even entertain this discussion since the current wording just asks editors to respect the terminology used by the majority of reliable sources, and asking editors not to do that doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of being implemented no matter how many people you line up to support it. Ben (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So - as your edit comment points out - there is "no chance" of finding consensus. You cannot even see that there is no consensus for your wording, FFS!
 * Til - go to ArbCom. I will back you all the way. Ben is clearly, intransigently and dogmatically never going to offer even the slightest hint of compromise so there is no point discussing this with him further.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I intended my edit comment to mean, I had the last sentence of my last comment in mind when I wrote it - sorry. Anyway, let me know when Til files the case. Cheers, Ben (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Do you really think that's how it works? You stroll up with any arbitrary view and everybody else is obligated to meet you halfway, regardless of how bad your suggestions are? No. There's nothing wrong with the current wording. A person doesn't need to be dogmatic to think that you are wrong. Ilkali (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So we should simply accept the current wording - even though at least as many think that that is wrong? I am not asking people to simply accept my proposal - I am asking that they debate it and reach a compromise. Neither you nor Ben is allowing for compromise - you are simply expecting us to accept Ben's wording. It works both ways, you know.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If Joe wants to break all of Jim's windows, and Jim wants Joe to break none of his windows, should they seek a compromise? Would that be "acting like intelligent adults"? Take the case wherever you want, but don't impugn people for not wanting to meet halfway between a good position and an awful one. Ilkali (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't even recognise when you are expressing your own POV("awful"). How can anyone expect you to understand the way the current wording allows POV-abuse?
 * I really urge you - just this once - to actually look at the proposal and all I have had to say about it. You are clearly still stuck in this mindset that somehow I am "anti-myth". This is utter rubbish. All I am asking is that editors are instructed to use a little care in the way they use the word (not to avoid it), so that it is clear to the reader what is meant by the word. This is true neutrality. If the word is fine - there's no problem; if not - refine your wording a little for clarity. Your window analogy is wholly inappropriate.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is fully appropriate. The only issue here is that some people are trying to push their point of view onto everyone else. We (and they) all know that their religion is "The Only Correct One" and that their god is "The Only True One". It couldn't be any other way. It always has been and always will be an inherent and essential aspect of their monotheism. Since some of them have (obviously erroneously) been using the word "myth" for everone else's viewpoints, they feel the word is inappropriate for their point of view. As we (and they) all can see in the dictionaries, their point of view is duly represented, and so is everyone else's. It is a FACT that the word is perfect for the job. DVdm (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Although you carefully avoid making the direct accusation at me, the context of your comment easily lead others to yet another misunderstanding of my position. Therefore, I will state it here explicitly. I have no religion. I am not motivated by religion; further, I find it insulting when I am accused of such motivation.
 * That aside, you miss the point. I do not dispute that there are many dictionary definitions of the word that are perfectly acceptable. Unfortunately, there are many definitions that mirror the common perspective - that "myth" means made-up story. It is all very well to "use the word correctly"; it all goes to pot when we are not "seen to use the word correctly". This is where neutrality breaks down. If an article is to be read by Joe Public as saying story X is a myth, therefore story X is made up, then it matters not one jot that the editor intended something completely different. Being neutral also means being seen to be neutral. This requires very little effort on the part of editors. Unfortunately, some editors seem to think that that is too much.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not accusing anyone. There just is nothing to compromise. Everyone's point of view is represented, and if you think that Joe Public can't use his index finger to click a link to myth and read about it to learn how utterly neutral it is, then I think you painfully underestimate Joe Public. DVdm (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "I will state it here explicitly. I have no religion. I am not motivated by religion". I don't think that matters, but if it is appropriate for you to claim it, it is appropriate for me to say I don't believe it. Ilkali (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So much for good faith!--FimusTauri (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am assuming you have good faith. I am not assuming you are not a liar. Ilkali (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "You don't even recognise when you are expressing your own POV("awful")". ...am I not allowed an opinion on your proposals? Have you gotten confused here? I very deliberately expressed my opinion, because it explains my attitude toward the compromise you're calling for.
 * "You are clearly still stuck in this mindset that somehow I am "anti-myth"". Oh, stop strawmanning. Yes, I know you're not campaigning to have the word myth eradicated from Wikipedia. Nobody has said that. But you are campaigning to have legitimate and productive uses removed or saddled with unnecessary expository bloat.
 * "Your window analogy is wholly inappropriate". My window analogy is only meant to help you understand that compromise is not always a good thing. Ilkali (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems that the everyone is neglecting the fact that this is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of policy. I'll repeat what I posted before:
 * certain words that have specialized technical usages also have pejorative implications in common language use.
 * use of these words in articles will introduce bias in some cases, because wikipedia readers are common-language-users who will recognize the pejorative implication, but not the technical use of the term
 * therefore, we are looking for something that says:
 * if the technical use is sufficiently prevalent that it can be properly sourced, it should be properly sourced so that readers can see for themselves that it is a technical term used by scholars.
 * if the technical use can not be properly sourced, the word should be changed to something more innocuous, to prevent readers from attributing the pejorative implications of the word to wikipedia

there is no issue about whether we should be allowing language that imparts an implicit bias to wikipedia articles. we should not be, period. the only issue at hand here is how we're going to word things to exclude those cases where it's a problem, but not otherwise interfere with normal article development. can we focus on that, and stop the cross-talk? -- Ludwigs 2 16:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We already have something that says:
 * "if the technical use is sufficiently prevalent that it can be properly sourced, it should be properly sourced so that readers can see for themselves that it is a technical term used by scholars."
 * "if the technical use can not be properly sourced, the word should be changed to something more innocuous, to prevent readers from attributing the pejorative implications of the word to wikipedia"
 * What we have is links in various places to myth and perhaps we can add some to the dictionaries. DVdm (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2 is correct. I repeat myself: to be genuinely neutral we have to be seen to be neutral. If the use of a word will be read in the "wrong" way then we must ensure that this does not happen. Is it really so much to ask for? (links and infoboxes etc are a red herring. Once a reader has read it the "wrong" way, is he really going to click the link just to check? After all, he knows what the the word means.)--FimusTauri (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We already are seen to be neutral through the links to myth. You understimate your Joe Public. DVdm (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See parenthetical comment above.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "there is no issue about whether we should be allowing language that imparts an implicit bias to wikipedia articles". Can you cite the section of policy that says every possible interpretation of an article (including incorrect, unintended ones) should be neutral? Ilkali (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ilkali, that's just wikilawyering. it's not humanly possible to consider 'every possible interpretation', but it is certainly possible to consider 'common and well-known' interpretations.  even my dictionary says that 'myth' means a widely held but false belief or idea or a misrepresentation of the truth - if the pejorative implication is common enough to be inscribed in the very definition of the word, I think we can safely assume that it will be a misrepresentation that is frequently made, and we can certainly compensate for that.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Ilkali, that's just wikilawyering". Your words: "this is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of policy". Now that you're asked to specify which policy, you call foul? If you're going to make that claim, I think it's entirely reasonable for me to mention that policy does not support you, either in spirit or in word. Ilkali (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. the general neutrality policy on Wikipedia is to remove bias where possible and to balance opinions where an unbiased position isn't possible.  From wp:NPOV:
 * to that extent it is incumbent on all of us to avoid introducing anything into an article that we know creates a bias in the article. now, there are a lot of tricky and difficult aspects of NPOV, but this isn't one of them.  you're suggesting that it's appropriate to use a word that has a known pejorative sense, over the objections of other editors, when there are perfectly good, non-pejorative alternatives, and (if I can judge by Noah's Ark) without even sourcing the pejorative term to any scholarly reference or allowing other terms from other references to balance it.  in short, you're suggesting that it's appropriate to introduce a bias into an article without any good reason, and that's unambiguously against core policy.  the 'wikilawyering' bit referred to that very weak argument about 'every possible interpretation'.  we're not dealing with some off-beat person who's complaining about an idiosyncratic interpretation of a word; we're dealing with a term that is clearly and demonstrably negative as defined in the language.  do you see the difference?  -- Ludwigs 2  21:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We're NOT dealing with a term that is clearly and demonstrably negative as defined in the language, and here is the proof. DVdm (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * so your argument is that the definitions "any invented story, idea, or concept" and "an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution" (points 3 and 5 on the page you linked) are considered complimentary when applied to someone's religious belief? and how about the Oxford English Dictionary definition that says "A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing"? in common language, the word 'myth' is sometimes innocuous (when it's used as a kind of literary reference - e.g. 'the myths of Hercules') but is usually slightly insulting (when it's used to imply that something is false/imaginary - e.g. 'John's mythical love life'). why are you even arguing this point? -- Ludwigs 2  22:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ==> No, that is not my argument. It is a FACT that for some people the definitions of points 3 and 5 are appropriate, whereas for others (like you) the definitions of other points are appropriate.
 * Once more, a summary of principal meanings of "Myth" as found on dictionary.reference.com:
 * from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1):
 * "A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."
 * from American Heritage Dictionary:
 * "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth."
 * from Online Etymology Dictionary:
 * "Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; they are endorsed by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion. Once this link is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale. Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the result is religious legend, not myth." (J. Simpson & S. Roud, "Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254)"
 * from Wordnet:
 * "A traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people"
 * from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
 * "A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical."
 * So take your pick and stop trying to argue where there is nothing to argue. DVdm (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "the general neutrality policy on Wikipedia is to remove bias where possible and to balance opinions where an unbiased position isn't possible". The purpose of WP:NPOV is to stop editors from using Wikipedia to express their own personal views. That's the nature of the policy, in spirit and in word. Our disagreement is about unintended meanings, which puts it outside WP:NPOV's purview. I talked about this with Fimus above, discussing the difference between ontological integrity and prosaic effectiveness.
 * "you're suggesting that it's appropriate to use a word that has a known pejorative sense, over the objections of other editors, when there are perfectly good, non-pejorative alternatives, and (if I can judge by Noah's Ark) without even sourcing the [...]". Wait right there. I've had no involvement in the Noah's Ark disagreement, so there's not much you can judge about my position from what happened there. Would you all please drop the dirty tactics and focus on what has actually been said? As for perfectly good alternatives, I disagree. Myth is the standard academic term for stories such as Noah's Ark. It conveys the most information with the fewest characters.
 * "in short, you're suggesting that it's appropriate to introduce a bias into an article". Oh, shut up. Ilkali (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * look, ilkali, I'm not trying 'dirty tactics' here - I grabbed that example because it was convenient, nothing more. sorry if it was a bad choice.
 * that being said, I have to disagree (strongly) with your distinction between 'intended' and 'unintended' meanings, for three reasons:
 * it opens a huge loophole for people to make incredibly POV statements, and then say 'oh, that's not what I meant'. it's impossible to judge someone's intentions; all we can go by is the effect that's achieved.
 * the minute that I (or anyone) points out that a word seems biased, continuing to use that word can't be anything except intentional. I mean sure, someone goes to an article, refers to something as a myth (because that's what they think it is), any bias that results from that is unintentional.  no harm, no foul.  but then another editor comes along and points out the bias; after that, it's impossible to make that same edit unintentionally, because the issue has been brought to everyone's attention.
 * NPOV isn't about editor's intentions. the point of NPOV is to make the encyclopedia neutral from the perspective of the reader.  if we have all the best intentions in the world, follow policy as best we can, write as well as we can, and still (intentionally or unintentionally) produce something that shows the reader a bias, well, too bad for us...  that has to be fixed.
 * I wish I understood the subtext here. this seems like something so simple and obvious to me that I have a very hard time understanding why anyone would disagree.  can you explain?  -- Ludwigs 2  23:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, NPOV is not about editors intentions - they're irrelevant. But it's not about the perspective of the reader either. We can't pretend to know them, or presume to guess them. Instead, the purpose of NPOV is to make the encyclopedia neutral with respect to reliable sources, and this is precisely what the current text asks editors to do. There is nothing to argue about. Ben (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, go read what I read about ontological integrity. I already answered everything you've said here and I don't want to have the same conversation twice. Ilkali (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ok - higher in the discussion here, or is it somewhere else? -- Ludwigs 2  01:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's here, on this page. Do a text search for the word ontology. Ilkali (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ontological integrity: reading what you wrote, I think what you really mean is closer to epistemological integrity. we want to cling to sources because that's the best technique of how to know things that we have. 'ontological' implies that sources are true, and that we get a better reflection of the truth of the world by using them, which really isn't correct and leans towards an NPOV problem (we're only supposed to balance prominent viewpoints under NPOV, not weigh their ontological merits).  but other than that, it's not a bad way of approaching the issues.  I mean, if you want to say that my complaint here is over a matter of poor prose (or poor presentation), ok; but it's still an NPOV issue.  how you say things is as important (if not moreso) as what you say.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "'ontological' implies that sources are true, and that we get a better reflection of the truth of the world by using them, which really isn't correct". No. We use sources to build an ontology, and we do so with various objectives in mind. Truth isn't really a useful concept here. What we hope for is a high degree of resemblence between our ontology and the world it's supposed to describe, but we achieve that indirectly. Nothing I have said pertains to weighing the "ontological merits" of viewpoints. When I talk about ontological integrity, I'm talking about the integrity (adherence to core policies) of the ontology that underlies our encyclopedia.
 * "if you want to say that my complaint here is over a matter of poor prose (or poor presentation), ok; but it's still an NPOV issue". Nope. NPOV pertains to the neutrality of the ontology. It has nothing to do with the words used to express it. Ilkali (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * well, this at least explains why we're not getting anywhere with this conversation.   you can't build an ontology; trying to build one is simply model-making.  that would be fine if we were doing research, but we're not supposed to do research on wikipedia.  it's simply not our job to make an ontology that resembles the real world; it's out job to report on the ontologies (in your sense of the term) that reliables sources have created for themselves, without prejudice or bias.  I mean, if this is what you want to do, you need to be in a philosophy department somewhere, writing your own books, so that wikipedians can quote you in articles.  this is a very intelligent comment that doesn't belong on wikipedia.  your second comment, however, is simply wrong.  if in fact that were true, then I could continue this argument referring to you with a swear word every sentence, and that would be perfectly appropriate because (as you say) the words I use to express myself have nothing to do with the neutrality of my statements.  shall we try that for a while and see how it works?  -- Ludwigs 2  04:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "you can't build an ontology". Really? Try telling that to knowledge representation experts. We're obviously using different versions of the same terminology.
 * "if in fact that were true, then I could continue this argument referring to you with a swear word every sentence, and that would be perfectly appropriate because (as you say) the words I use to express myself have nothing to do with the neutrality of my statements". I'm getting pretty tired of this. Nothing I have said implies that it would be "perfectly appropriate" to do that. Even if you'd properly understood my position, the most you could argue is that your hypothetical text wouldn't be an NPOV violation, which is very much not the same thing. Trying to win arguments by making your opponent's position look weaker than it is doesn't work. You only end up discrediting yourself.
 * Anyway, again, I've already responded to this. There are two elements: The quality and integrity (per various policies) of our underlying ontology, and the effectiveness of our prose in expressing the details of that ontology. Swear words can indicate a failure in either element. Ilkali (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (partial outdent) you're using a theoretical construct from artificial intelligence as though it supports your claims about real-world interpersonal structures? uh, no. for one, the 'ontology' of an intelligent entity (computer or otherwise) is what we colloquially call a 'Point of View', and the problem with such 'ontologies' is that they are almost never shared, and so we're back at the classic wikipedia issue.  changing terminology is not an effective way of solving problems, any more than putting down new rugs solves a cleaning problem.  I know what ontology means, and what you're talking about isn't it.
 * however, even if I work with what you're talking about, I'm not making your argument weaker - I'm showing you the weakness that's hidden in it. you're making an argument, frankly, that you just wouldn't agree to in other contexts.  for instance (and please forgive the following rudeness, which I am only raising as an example), if instead of saying that your argument was 'weak', I were to say that your argument was 'adolescent', and then follow that up with the statement that I mean 'adolescent' in the scholarly senses of Piaget and Kohlberg, who list out the hallmarks of reasoning at various stages of cognitive development, I dare say that you would be rightfully pissed off because 'adolescent reasoning' is fairly insulting in common language.  you'd no doubt get up in arms and ask me to strike the phrase, and if I refused (saying that I have applied the appropriate clinical standards and so my statement is 'ontologically' correct), you'd go through the roof.  and yet this is exactly the kind of treatment you think we should give to other people, justified in exactly the same way.  I mean sure, it's easier to diss the 2 or 3 billion Christians, Muslims, and Jews who have this story enshrined in their religious books because (you know) they're not here.  but that doesn't make it right.
 * I see this all the time: strict rationality being used as an excuse to be crusty to others. just doesn't fly with me.  real rationality has a sensitivity to context, and to its own limits. -- Ludwigs 2  18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "you're using a theoretical construct from artificial intelligence as though it supports your claims about real-world interpersonal structures?" No, I'm using useful terminology from artificial intelligence (among other disciplines) to describe the necessary elements to constructing an encyclopedia. I read through your comment and I have to ask myself: How many more times am I going to have to correct your seemingly random interpretations of my words before we get down to actually discussing the issues I raise with them? Sorry, not going to bother anymore. Ilkali (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "No, I'm using useful terminology from artificial intelligence (among other disciplines) to describe the necessary elements to constructing an encyclopedia." and you accuse me of seemingly random interpretations?
 * look, Ilkali, one of the things I've learned in academia is that if I'm not understanding what someone is saying (and vice-versa), the failure of communication is on both sides. as far as I can see, the encyclopedia is not an artificial intelligence, and the people editing it are not artificial intelligences either; I can't see how a theory from AI would mean anything here, and you're not really helping me to understand.  you have an idea here which strikes me (on first impressions, at any rate) as eminently wrong, and yet rather than explaining what it is, you criticize me when I make a guess at what it means.  add that you don't actually address the critiques I do make (re the double-standard argument, above), and I'm starting to get the sense that you have no interest in discussing the matter unless that discussion amounts to some acknowledgement that you're right.  If you don't want to discuss the issue, that's fine; but don't expect me to take what you say as 'ontologically' true.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "one of the things I've learned in academia is that if I'm not understanding what someone is saying (and vice-versa), the failure of communication is on both sides". How comforting for you.
 * "the encyclopedia is not an artificial intelligence". And given that I obviously know the encyclopedia isn't an artificial intelligence, why can't you discard that retarded interpretation of my words and try to focus on what I am saying? If you want me to clarify the terminology I'm using, I'm happy to do so (even though I already did, in my above discussion with FimusTauri). But if you bypass that step, assume I'm saying something idiotic, and then write paragraphs on why it's idiotic, I tend to get annoyed. Ilkali (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe I just did ask you to clarify (and yes, I read what you wrote above, but it doesn't seem to have helped).. why don't we start it in new section?  -- Ludwigs 2  22:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "I believe I just did ask you to clarify". No you didn't. And I'm not going to. I have finite time and sanity, and I'm not going to spend any more of either on you. Ilkali (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * lol - which only reinforces my current belief that you can't clarify your position, not without recognizing that it is logically flawed. which isn't the optimal way to end this discussion, but I'm as tired of it as you are. -- Ludwigs 2  00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The strangest thing is that after one month arguing, still neither Til, nor Ludwigs2 nor FimusTauri have come up with a single scholarly source which tells us that the word "myth" is NOT an appropriate term to describe Noah's Ark - I'm excepting of course the sources gathered by Til (hey Til, where exactly? - I can't find your section right now or am I mistaken?) because as far as I can see, they are Sunday-School preacher handbooks, and if you wish to, we can take them one by one to WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard and ask if they are considered reliable and mainstream enough to base this important claim upon. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * well, 'reliable' doesn't necessarily mean 'scholarly'. if you're asking whether any academics refer to NA as something other than a myth...  unlikely; that would be a career-ender.  I'm sure there are academics who think the story might have been based on real events (I saw an interesting thing on the history channel a while back, with academics making an argument that the Mediterranean flooded the Black Sea basin at about the correct historical time period - can't really judge the merits of that argument from a TV presentation, though).  and if you're suggesting that the idea that Noah's Ark actually existed is not a notable idea...  well that's clearly incorrect.  It may not be a right idea, but it's certainly notable.  and last time I checked, Wikipedia wasn't supposed to be the arbiter of whether an idea is right or wrong.


 * let me be frank about my motives here. what bugs me about all this is really the hubris of it.  here we are (referring to NA, though it applies to many other pages) writing an article about something that many, many (many) people take as a matter of faith.  some believe it literally, most probably don't (but it's still a big part of their religions), and here we bypass all these perfectly serviceable words like 'belief', 'article of faith', 'story', etc. and head directly for the one word in the English language  - myth - that's guaranteed to tweak a whole lot of noses.  it's an arrogant, obnoxious act.  now if it were a properly sourced and attributed statement (which in the case of NA, it isn't) that would be fine, because all those people who will think it's obnoxious and arrogant will think that the source is obnoxious and arrogant.  Academics can deal with that; they get paid to be that way.  but that's not what wikipedia is for.  Forgive me for wanting to make some guarantees that wikipedia is not more obnoxious and arrogant than it has to be given reliable sources.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "that's guaranteed to tweak a whole lot of noses. it's an arrogant, obnoxious act". Would those same people be offended to see the term applied to Greek mythology? How is that any less arrogant? Living religions don't get special treatment - that would be biased. Ilkali (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * no they wouldn't be as tweaked, and that's what makes it less arrogant. If there was still a large devotional movement around Greek deities then I'd say it would be a problem calling it a myth.  this isn't about living religions, it's about living people, who are entitled to go through their lives without having their personal beliefs snubbed by wikipedia.  aren't they?  -- Ludwigs 2  01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As you said, Wikipedia does not get into it, it is simply a reflection. Asking editors to get into it is not responsible, so we don't. If you think that is unfair, then you're welcome to start your own project. There is nothing left to discuss here though. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Ilkali (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

New break 2
"You're right, NPOV is not about editors intentions - they're irrelevant. But it's not about the perspective of the reader either. We can't pretend to know them, or presume to guess them." said Ben. Yet, on so many pages, we use the word myth and assume that the reader will either a) know what we mean or b) click a link/read an infobox. You demand we use the word "myth" and make assumptions about the reader and then have the gall to say "we can't pretend to know them" as an argument against this proposal. This is the kind of double standard that is so prevalent amongst the people that are determined to have every last story in every religious text labelled as a "myth" under the false pretext that "this is what all the scholars say". (by "false" I am referring to the attempt to claim that a majority of scholars would label the majority of religious stories as "myth")

"There is nothing left to discuss here though." Oh I am sure that that is your fervent wish, Ben, but it is so utterly wrong. The current wording has no legitimate claim to exist - you placed it there without discussion or consensus - and any editor could quite correctly simply remove it. It is patently obvious from the sheer length of this discussion that your wording does not have consensus. People may disagree with my proposal - that's fine, they are entitled to their opinion - but others also disagree with yours. Therefore, we must find a wording that will be acceptable to the majority. You may reject my wording, but how about discussing an alternative?

I am not going to go away, and nor is this discussion.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is about time one false argument was exploded. The consistent argument used by the pro-myth lobby is that "we don't use it to mean 'untrue'". How does that explain:


 * The Christ myth theory (also known as the nonhistoricity hypothesis or Jesus myth)is the contention that Jesus did not exist as a historical person and that the story of Jesus developed as a myth among early Christians.

'did not exist' = unhistorical = 'made up'. See the article Christ myth theory. The above is the opening line of that article.

I am sure that there will be numerous excuses as to why that article is entitled to use that title. Irrelevant. The fact is that there is no consistency in the use of "myth". It is used the way the editor wants it to be used and there is, at present, no accountability. Until editors are required to explain which definition of "myth" they are using, or alter the wording to provide adequate context, we will have a situation where the word is abused and the reader is left confused by what wikipedia is trying to say. Inconsistent, ambiguous and, above all, not neutral.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If Ben and Ilkali would not purposefully blind themselves to sources that disagree with them, they might see that this very point has been widely commented on by theologians and other scholars.
 * ''"How to define "myth" is another matter altogether. While most, if not all biblical scholars would agree that the word myth may denote what produces myths, or may mean the understanding of the world that is contained in them, agreement would end as soon as these generalizations were made more specific. Some would argue that myths are produced by a pre-scientific outlook and that the world-view contained in myths must retreat as science advances. Others would regard myths as the product of a way of knowing different from science, expressing truths independently of the knowledge, or lack of it, of scientific causes." -- J.W. Rogerson, "Slippery Words:Myth"
 * "In using the terms myth and mythical in relation to Genesis, we encounter greater misgivings. Not only do the terms have unsavory connotations in popular usage, but an impressive array of biblical scholars have argued that both myth and mythical modes of thought are absent from the Bible." - The Meaning of Creation by Conrad Hyers, 1984, p. 99.
 * "There has been in recent times a broadening of the understanding of myth; the scope of the adjective "mythical" now knows no limits (besides, there is often no clear distinction between "mythical" and "mythological".) Further, the alternative which would describe reality either as myth or history is questionable..." [lengthy discussion follows of history of the term and its various newer, nebulous meanings]... "It follows that the patriarchal stories have no relation to myth in the proper sense of the word. There can be only points of contact where folk stories are designated as "myths" or where an older form lies behind the myth." -- Genesis 12-36, Claus Westermann, 1995, p. 54.
 * ''"Myth, Mythology. In popular usage the term myth connotes something untrue, unimaginable, or unbelievable; or, in older parlance, "a purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons or events" (OED). (Deferring to this usage and to the Christian religion, standard Western encyclopedias of mythology omit from their discussion any reference to the narratives of the Bible.) However, in the realm of biblical studies and theology, just as in contemporary anthropology, philosophy, and literature, the term myth is often used in a less pejorative fashion to describe an important if provisional way of perceiving and expressing truth. There is, however, no agreed-on definition, whether in terms of its form (that is, its relationship to fairy-tales, legends, tales, epics etc.), or in terms of its content and function. Hermann Gunkel defined myth as a story involving at least two gods and on this basis denied that the OT contains true myths but at most, "faded out" myths or "mythic torsos"... -- Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Richard N. Soulen, 2001, p. 115.
 * "...The great diversity of the scholarly works on myth shows that, although being one of the most studied subjects in the history of the social sciences and the humanities, it has not yet been entirely understood. At the crux of this confusion is the simple and straightforward question of whether or not the storyline content of myth has any basis in historical events and processes. A disdainful view of myth is easily demonstrated by a simple citation analysis of the editorial use of the term 'myth'... in the generally well-respected journals Nature and Science during the ten-year publication period of 1996 through 2005... The few times that 'myth' is used are virtually always in a pejorative sense, such as "time to bury misleading myth"..." -- Myth and Geology, 2007, p. 10, session held at the 32nd International Geological Congress in Florence, Italy, in August 2004.
 * I have made a huge collection from many authors demonstrating how vast the actual opposition is among the public, here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "...purposefully blind themselves to sources that disagree with them...". How do those references disagree with me? Ilkali (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "...I have made a huge collection from many authors..." ==> You mean you have made a huge collection from many preachers demonstrating how vast the actual opposition is among preachers. Remainder unread. DVdm (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, numerous theologians have raised objections to the theological classification of a theological story, made by certain literary critics.  Are you still pretending this viewpoint is not at all relevant or significant to a theological article? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you still beating your wife? DVdm (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (DVDm is right: Til is here pretending that we pretend something we never pretended). Let's look at the sources: J.W. Rogerson, "Slippery Words:Myth", does not say anything we wouldn't all agree with, nothing to do with a demonstration that Noah's Ark is not a myth. Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation, is a Presbyterian minister and I doubt he would pass WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard as a RS for a fact, although of course he would be very good RS for an opinion, which is not the same. Besides, he does not say that Genesis or Noah's Ark are not myths (at least not in the sentence cited, he just says, not giving any name, that "an impressive array of biblical scholars have argued that both myth and mythical modes of thought are absent from the Bible." Claus Westermann seems to refer to a very specific interpretation of the word "myth", because, if I understand this shortened quote rightly, they are not folktales but authored by somebody. Or maybe because he used the specific interpretation of myth as "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form" and thinks that it applies to Genesis but not to the patriarchal stories. Or maybe in German the word myth is just used in a slightly different way. Nothing to derive from a general prohibition of applying the term in a broad sense. Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, may be very correct if he says that "Deferring (...) to the Christian religion, standard Western encyclopedias of mythology omit from their discussion any reference to the narratives of the Bible", but I'm not sure this deference to a specific faith is a correct way to treat a subject in an international encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Than he adds explicitly: "However, in the realm of biblical studies and theology, just as in contemporary anthropology, philosophy, and literature, the term myth is often used in a less pejorative fashion to describe an important if provisional way of perceiving and expressing truth". Why not do exactly that? His reference to Hermann Gunkel is interesting, but so far it seems to be the only scholar insisting that a myth is "a story involving at least two gods" - that may be a good addenda to myth but it's certainly not a general rule and not presented as such by Soulen. The Myth and Geology session does not tell anything new: "whether or not the storyline content of myth has any basis in historical events and processes" is something we don't know and do not claim to know when talking about Noah's Ark (I think it has a very good basis, but that's my opinion). And Nature and Science are not journals about philosophical and historical issues such as sacred texts but about Nature and Science... you can't ask Nature and Science to take into account myths when studying the life of arachnidae or the origin of diamonds. It's not their subject. Any more sources? --Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice, but we don't really need sources. For every source you provide I'm sure he can produce two ten preachers. All we really need is some way to force a certain kind of people to understand what what dictionaries actually are. I propose we shift the focus. DVdm (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. Note that all these quotes are obviously presented as evidence of a significant opinion.
 * ''"In these four NT passages one encounters myth in its best-known definition. What is mythical is not true. What is true is not mythical. If one is told that the flood of Noah's day is a myth, or that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a myth, the hearer will assume that what is meant is that these two events are really fictitious narratives, invented stories... The reason why the stories of Gen. 1-11 in particular are often labeled as myth is that they reflect a prescientific or nonscientific worldview... Myth is not only a figurative expression of truth, but a false expression of truth as well. In this definition, myth becomes, essentially, any story about God or gods or any kind of supernatural powers... The above definition of myth has at least three problems. First, it is so broad in its definition that it reduces any kind of theistic statement to a mythical statement. Second, it suggests that such stories about God(s) reflect a naive concept of truth which science has dismantled. Third, such a definition of myth does not grow out of a study of mythology but from the opposition of myth to science. Bultmann did not arrive at the above definition by probing the myths of oriental and classical literature. He has given us a rationalistic, philosophical definition of myth rather than a phenomenological one. Many scholars would be content to interpret the Creation story or the Fall as neither history nor myth. It is not history, according to them, in the sense that Gen. 1-2 or Gen. 3 describes past events that actually happened. But neither are they myths, at least in the historical-philosophical definition of myth. The truth is that scholars disagree about the definition of the word. One recent writer (G. B. Caird) has isolated nine definitions of myth and another [J. W. Rogerson] documents twelve aspects of myth. This proliferation of definitions of myth is the reason why one scholar would look at Gen. 1-11 and say it is free of myth, while another scholar would look at Gen 1-11 and pronounce it entirely mythical." -- The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (part of The New International Commentary on the Old Testament) by Victor P. Hamilton, 1990, p. 56-58.
 * Here are extracts from the very relevant discussion God Who Speaks and Shows: Preliminary Considerations by Carl F. H. Henry, 1999, Chapter 3. [NOTE: Several other scholars who have deplored the confusion of "myth" with "scripture" are also peer-reviewed there, and he discusses the entire issue at length from all angles, but it would take up too much space to quote the whole chapter.]
 * ''"As Giovanni Miegge emphasizes, "the supposed neutrality of those who offer only a formal definition of myth itself conceals a presupposition, and... this involves bringing Christian faith down to a level of pagan forms of worship, treating one as commensurable with the other. This is exactly what the New Testament itself refuses to do." (Gospel and Myth in the Thought of Rudolf Bultmann, p. 101)... Many scholars deplore the ascription of mythical language to Scripture as entirely unjustifiable and arbitrary. G. Ernest Wright observes that "the absence of the modern scientific view of the universe scarcely makes the literature in itself mythology." (God Who Acts p. 128). Wright stresses that myth is characteristic of the polytheistic, and of nature-worship religions in which man, nature and the gods blend into a single continuum; it is not, he insists, aptly descriptive of biblical religion (p. 125)... "Since pagan god-stories concern not history but nature", writes James I. Packer, "and since Scripture recounts nothing of Yahweh like the celestial goings-on of these god-stories, it seems clearer and sounder to follow Scripture's own usage and reject myth as a non-Biblical category."... The classic treatment of the New Testament attitude is Gustav Stahlin's essay on muthos in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Stahlin here emphasizes the evident New Testament disdain for myth. The Bible approves no role whatever for myth, whether as symbolic or parabolic or as direct impartation of religious truths.... "No matter how the term is understood, and no matter how it is extended", Stahlin writes, the concept of myth involves "an inherent antithesis to truth and reality which is quite intolerable on NT soil."... Philip E. Hughes emphasizes the incompatibility of myth with the biblical emphasis on historical and rational revelation. The use of myth in the framework of untruth or unfactuality in contrast to the truths of the Christian revelation "is in complete harmony with the term which from the time of Pindar onwards always bears the sense of what is fictitious, as opposed to the term logos, which indicated what was true and historical.... The Christ of the Bible is The Logos, not a mythos."... If the category of myth is a form of expression for events occurring outside the limits of human history, then to apply the term to the Word made flesh inverts not simply the traditional sense of the term, but all linguistic usage as well, and all customary linguistic associations and implications. The notion of myth is not native to the Bible, and those who seek to superimpose the concept upon revealed religion are motivated neither by biblical precedent nor by any indirect encouragement that Scripture supplies... The term myth has therefore acquired a bewildering ambiguity of connotation with respect to religious thought. It has, in fact, become a "tramp" word of uncertain identity and even contradictory nuances...     When a scholar insists, as Bultmann does, on religious myth as a basic comprehensive category beyond cognitive knowledge and truth, and then deplores particular elements as prescientific and therefore fanciful and outmoded in contrast to modern knowledge, and moreover insists on the actual ontological reality of what transcends the experient although it is cognitively inaccessible, he obviously weights the discussion of religious myth with multiplied confusion. Bultmann is, in fact, triple-minded about myth... Bultmann thus violates his primary definition of myth...    Bernard Ramm has recently proposed an evangelical redefinition and relocation of the concept of myth. He... laments the fact that Strauss and Bultmann have given the concept of myth a bad name in the theological arena..."''
 * Don't you get it yet? It doesn't matter how many sources for this significant opinion are presented.  If you're dead-set in your POV, then you will see your POV as trumping every last one of these sources -- even if there's a thousand of 'em. And your POV is capable of brushing aside all these sources as if they didn't matter to the question. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You get it? If the argument is that we "the supposed neutrality of those who offer only a formal definition of myth" bring "Christian faith down to a level of pagan forms of worship, treating one as commensurable with the other", than you should first write a general Policy FAQ on WP which says that Christian faith should not be handled by editors as commensurable with other faiths. I suggest you go ahead and do that. If it's accepted, I agree to all the rest. And that "this is exactly what the New Testament itself refuses to do" is nice, but what the New Testament itself says about itself is not relevant, as it is not relevant for the Human Rights Standard of the Myanmar Junta what its top general himself says about respecting Human Rights. Any scholar which writes that the New Testament contains no myths because it says so itself would fail to pass a RS test, I think.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And every preacher "who writes that the New Testament contains no myths because it says so itself" passes the monotheism test. We constantly seem to forget that Christian faith differs from all other faiths (and, of course, lacks thereof) in the sense that, by its very own definition, it is True and all the others are of course False. This is beyond discussion. DVdm (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Its a matter of policy
There have been several requests over the course of this discussion to cite relevent policy, so this I will now do. I would ask editors to note that the whole purpose of this discussion was to word the relevent section of the FAQ in such a way as to reinforce policy and eliminate the POV-violations that are becoming increasingly prevalent. I should also make it clear that I am talking about NPOV - not WP:V or WP:RS - whilst those are both applicable, they do not have priority over NPOV.

The relevent policies state:

From WP:NPOV:


 * Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.
 * Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves
 * The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view

From WP:MORALIZE:


 * Just as, with regard to Saddam Hussein, "You won't even need to say he was evil", it is equally true that, with regard to religious stories "You do not need to say they are myths."
 * Let the facts speak for themselves.

Most significantly, consider the following statements from previous ArbCom decisions:


 * The Wikipedia policy of editing from a neutral point of view, a central and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia, applies to situations where there are conflicting viewpoints and contemplates that significant viewpoints regarding such situations all be included in as fair a manner as possible.
 * No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates.
 * The Wikipedia policy of editing from a neutral point of view, a central and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia, applies to situations where there are conflicting viewpoints and contemplates that significant viewpoints regarding such situations all be included in as fair a manner as possible.

To simply state "Jesus is a myth" or "Noah's Ark is a myth" etc violates all of the above.

Editors can avoid these violations by simply clarifying what is meant by the use of the word and ensuring such use is tied to source. It is a simple guideline that merely asks editors to adhere to NPOV policy.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All of these policy quotations only apply if myth is used in the sense that entails falseness. Reusing the terminology I defined earlier: "Noah's Ark is a mythA" is not an opinion. It is impartial, and neither endorses nor rejects a particular point of view. It does not moralize, and it is a fact that speaks for itself. It is an uncontroversial and neutral statement, as much so as any other classification on Wikipedia (such as "The apple is the pomaceous fruit of the apple tree"). It does not violate any policies. The statement "Noah's Ark is a mythF" is problematic, but we don't make that statement. We use the academic terminology by default.
 * Your contention is that people will interpret the sentence as the latter, and that therefore there will be a perceived non-neutrality (which isn't actually covered under policy). So then how do you explain reverting removal of the word from some articles or arguing in favor of the term "creation myth". A quick glance at the Creation myth talk page will show that a lot of people have problems with their own beliefs being classified in this way. How do you draw the line that says "Genesis is a creation myth" is okay but "Noak's Ark is a myth" is not? Ilkali (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As I have said elsewhere, the debate over whether a biblical story is a myth grows less contentious the further back in "time" you go. It seems to me (from reading various sources) that there is little (not 'no') contention about the creation story (which generally is taken to include the Eden story), and the term "Creation Myth" is commonly applied to the biblical story. From that point on, the number of scholars applying the term decreases as the text moves forward in time. I expect Til and some others would disagree with this assessment and that the term should not be applied even to the creation story - that is not a real concern. The general principle here is that there is opposition to the use of the term in later stories and that opposition grows stronger the further forward in time we move. I notice you do not address the issue of saying "Jesus is a myth". Yet, despite the general consensus that Jesus was a real person, there are wikipedia articles that insist on applying the term to him and the stories around him. The question of "where we draw the line" is highly relevant. If Jesus should not be called a myth and the various kings of the divided and united monarchies are not myths, should Moses be branded a myth? If not him, how about Abraham? And so on. This is the crux of my problem with the current policy. There is no clear guideline as to what can properly be labelled "myth"; there is also no clear definition of the term (you can quote as many dictionaries as you like - setting aside the fact that there are multiple definitions, just take a look at the Mythology and Christian mythology pages which offer wildly different definitions to the dictionaries). So long as there is so much ambiguity inherent in the term it is simply not possible to use it neutrally without some clarification.
 * There are more issues involved here, as well. I am sure Til can give a more reasoned argument why you cannot compare using 'myth' to 'pomaceous fruit'. Suffice to say that that ignores opposing opinion.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "I notice you do not address the issue of saying "Jesus is a myth"". It's an incoherent statement; myths are stories, not characters. I would, however, say that the story of Jesus is mythical.
 * You're asking for a "clear guideline as to what can properly be labelled "myth"", but you haven't offered one. All of your suggested wordings are terminally unclear because they give no reliable, objective method by which to draw the line. As you say, different people would draw it in different places. Saying "be careful about how you use this word" is useless; every person, regardless of where he draws that line, thinks he's being careful. What's your argument against the idea that the term creation myth should not be used with respect to Genesis? Can't that same argument be used against your own position? Ilkali (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The requested policy is not "to be careful". Please bear in mind that the latest version of the proposal is more the work of Til and Ludwigs2. I would like the proposal to ask that editors make it clear through context what they mean by the use of the word. In that way, there is no need to draw a line. If an editor means "a sacred story" then no-one is likely to contend the use of the word, so is it so much to ask that they ensure the reader knows that that is what they mean? It is not simply a matter of semantics. Clarity ensures neutrality.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll add, re this: "All of your suggested wordings are terminally unclear because they give no reliable, objective method by which to draw the line." In fact, I have suggested (several times) how to draw the line. if you are using a given terminology, and the following conditions apply:
 * reliable sources disagree on the use of the terminology, or do not use the terminology as a relatively uniform standard
 * e.g. 'creation myth' is a common, standard term, whereas myth applied to 'Noah's ark' is less common, disputed, and only appears in certain kinds of sources
 * the term has a noteworthy and common pejorative sense
 * e.g. common pejorative meanings are present in the term's dictionary definition, or other reliable sources note that the term is pejorative
 * other equivalent words are available which do not carry that same pejorative sense
 * e.g. for myth - belief, story, and etc.
 * then you should change the word.
 * I mean, really, any editor with common sense would do this as a normal part of the consensus process for a page: s/he would see that other editors are objecting to a perceived bias and address the issue (either by providing sources that justify the POV unambiguously or by rewording things as a concession to the perceived bias). your entire argument here strikes me as an unfortunate form of legalism, so much so that I feel the need to remind you that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  We do not promote tight and strict interpretations of policy against the interests of the encyclopedia or greater community.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

guys, at this point it must be clear that there is never any sort of consensus for "policy" in this. Things will just remain the way they have always been, namely: articles will use exactly the  terminology found to be used in the best academic sources on the subject at hand. It's really that simple. If academic discourse takes place in terms of "myth", we will talk about "myth". If it doesn't, we won't. --dab (𒁳) 18:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * dab: the problem is, that's not the case. the primary example in my mind is Noah's Ark, in which the first sentence is "Noah's Ark is a large vessel featured in the myths...", with a supercilious footnote claiming that this is the standard academic use.  however, no one has provided a cite that says it's the standard academic use (and in fact, I've never heard it referred to that way in academia, though it's not really something I look at much), and the test edit I made (replacing the word 'myth' with the word 'belief') was immediately reverted with out any credible explanation.  I wouldn't object if this were really the  "terminology found to be used in the best academic sources", but there's no evidence of that, no discussion of the matter, and low-grade edit-warring to keep the current terminology in place.  how would you deal with an issue like that?  -- Ludwigs 2  18:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He already answered your question: If academic discourse takes place in terms of "myth", we will talk about "myth". If it doesn't, we won't. Check the archives for those sources if you want. Also, the footnote was put there by Til. I really don't think it should be there, readers can just as easily click the word myth, and it seems like a disclaimer. However, it calmed Til down, so I can live with it. Ben (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be important to realize that the consensus on that article was always against using any form of "myth" in the lead sentence until about November, 2008. I should know. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ben - I shouldn't need to check the archives (because an average reader won't even know how to do that). if there is a source that says NA is universally considered a myth, it should be in the article, with a footnote, for anyone to examine.  so, since you know where they are in the archives, please make a proper citation.  if you can't find one  in the next couple of days, I'll replace the word with 'belief'.  fair enough?  I'll go add a fact tag to it in the meantime.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * P.s. I'll note that the 'fact' tag I added was reverted within 15 minutes, with a vaguely insulting edit summary. pretty much as I expected.  dab - you still want to hold on to your assumptions about how the system works?    -- Ludwigs 2  21:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We all silently agreed to stop messing with the article until Fimus went through with his Village Pump discussion. You can note this in the second last discussion on the talk page. Unfortunately, Fimus didn't get the answer he wanted there, so he has begun campaigning across Wikipedia in the hopes of finding some enclave that does support him. When he gives that up I'll be tidying the article up quite a bit, but until then it's best if you leave the article alone. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, I will. it's really not that big an issue for me (a matter of principle more than a matter of particular interest).  I'd like your word, however, that when you do get around to tidying the article, you'll give this matter some thought.  we really shouldn't be using a commonly pejorative term without proper attribution.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm always thinking about quality citations, and I assure you I won't stop doing that when I start tweaking the article. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Its about time I debunked one claim that Ben keeps making; i.e. that I didn't get the answer I wanted (at whatever forum). The fact is, Ben, that I got NO answer, because the debate is continually stifled by people such as yourself who clearly do not understand that there is an issue to be resolved. All I have been trying to do is to get the debate widened to see what the consensus of the wider community is, but every time I attempt that, YOU (and others like you) kill the debate off before it gets anywhere. You are trying to do the same here. I have repeatedly asked that editors such as yourself engage in debate - all I am seeing is "there is no debate". It is not that I am not getting the "right" answer - I have said before that I will accept consensus - but you are making achieving consensus impossible. This is why I have widened the debate to other forums. It is also why I have begun the steps towards taking this to ArbCom (which requires me to attempt to get the relevant Project involved). I do not want to go to ArbCom, but your stubborn refusal to engage in debate (or to acknowledge that there is a debate) is forcing this issue.


 * In answer to Dab's point: I do not disagree with what you are saying. Again, I will make it clear that I am not somehow opposed to using the word myth. The issue is this: in the sources, it is (usually) clear what is meant by the term "myth"; in the wikipedia article it (usually) isn't - or does not become clear until later in the article. Unless editors use the same clarity of meaning as is found in the sources, then they are not correctly citing those sources. Unfortunately, some editors do not understand this distinction; hence, I feel the need for some sort of policy/guideline to ensure that such editors do not inadvertently misuse the term.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Time to define the problem
We are told that "myth" is (except in specific circumstances) always used in its "academic sense" on wikipedia. I think it is about time that those who claim this actually tell us which definition of the term this is intended to refer. I have been looking around to try and find out which definition they are actually referring to and the results are somewhat confusing. So, here is a list of definitions that I have found in various articles. Could someone please tell me, definitively, which definition we are supposed to be assuming?


 * 1) From infobox on Christian mythology: In its academic sense, the word myth means "a traditional story", especially one that is held as sacred or important in a specific culture.
 * 2) From infobox on Islamic mythology and Hindu mythology and Greek mythology and Roman mythology: In an academic context, the word "myth" refers to any sacred and traditional narrative.
 * 3) From Islamic mythology: For scholars in religious studies, myths are stories whose main characters are gods or demigods
 * 4) From Chinese mythology: Chinese mythology is a collection of cultural history, folktales, and religions that have been passed down in oral or written are several aspects to Chinese mythology, including creation myths and legends and myths concerning the founding of Chinese culture and the Chinese state. Like most mythologies, some people believed it to be, at least in part, a factual recording of history.
 * 5) From Persian mythology: Persian myths are traditional tales and stories of ancient origin, some involving extraordinary or supernatural beings. Drawn from the legendary past of Iran, they reflect the attitudes of the society to which they first belonged - attitudes towards the confrontation of good and evil, the actions of the gods, yazats (lesser gods), and the exploits of heroes and fabulous creatures.
 * 6) From Religion and mythology: Religion and mythology differ, but have overlapping aspects. Both terms refer to systems of concepts that are of high importance to a certain community, making statements concerning the supernatural or sacred. Generally, mythology is considered one component or aspect of religion. Religion is the broader term: besides mythological aspects, it includes aspects of ritual, morality, theology, and mystical experience. A given mythology is almost always associated with a certain religion, such as Greek mythology with Ancient Greek religion. Disconnected from its religious system, a myth may lose its immediate relevance to the community and evolve—away from sacred importance—into a legend or folktale.
 * 7) From Mythology: The word mythology (from the Greek μυθολογία mythología, meaning "a story-telling, a legendary lore") refers to a body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity.
 * 8) From Mythology, quoting the OED: "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces or creatures, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon"
 * 9) From Mythology, quoting the OED: "As a mass noun: such stories collectively or as a genre."
 * 10) From Mythology, quoting the OED: “A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief".
 * 11) From Mythology, quoting the OED: "A person or thing held in awe or generally referred to with near reverential admiration on the basis of popularly repeated stories (whether real or fictitious)."
 * 12) From Mythology, quoting the OED: "A popular conception of a person or thing which exaggerates or idealizes the truth."
 * 13) From Mythology: In one of the broadest senses of the word, a myth is a traditional story.
 * 14) From Mythology: in folkloristics, a myth is traditionally defined as "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form"
 * 15) From Mythology: the classicist Richard Buxton defines a myth simply as a "socially powerful traditional story"
 * 16) From Mythology: myths – stories traditionally considered true and sacred, set in the remote past, in another world or an earlier stage of this world, whose main characters are non-human
 * 17) Posted on this page, from Random House: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
 * 18) Posted on this page, from American Heritage Dictionary: A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
 * 19) Posted on this page, from Websters: A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical.
 * 20) Posted on this page, from WordNet: a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people

Given time and patience I could probably find dozens more. The above is the result of a very brief search.

Now. Which of the above definitions is the one we should "assume" applies in wikipedia articles (given no other explanation)?--FimusTauri (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The one used by reliable sources on the respective topic. Differences in definitions can be, and are, discussed in the mythology article. It's time to send this dead horse to the glue factory. I'll be archiving this thread soon. Ben (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That utterly dodges the question. Ben, you have stated there is nothing to discuss. I am trying to explain that is not true. You expect us to assume an academic meaning. Which meaning? If the meaning changes with context, then how can we know what to assume. With so many differing definitions "myth" amounts to a weasel word. Therefore, we need to know which definition we should assume when the word is used without further explanation.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the issue that requires the debate that some editors are denying exists. The word has countless definitions. There are twenty above and there are numerous others around Wikipedia alone. The experts define the word differently dependent upon the context in which they use it. We are expected to allow the word to be used in wikipedia articles because "the experts use it", yet we are not told how the experts use it; we are not told which definition we are expected to assume. The definitions above vary so wildly as to include some, none or all Bible stories.

The plain fact is that certain editors refuse to be pinned down to a particular definition because, as soon as they do, two issues will arise: firstly, no matter how well sourced their definition is, there will be countless other sources with other definitions that outweigh them; secondly, it will take a very short amount of time to find countless wikipedia articles in which the word is used in a way that does not conform to the definition proffered.

So long as the definition is left "open-ended", editors can insert "myth" and cite a source that uses it; yet, in some other article, the word will be used with a different definition (equally well sourced). Yet we are told that the word is being used in the "academic sense". This is using "myth" as a weasel word, allowing the editor to use the word to mean whatever he feels is appropriate, which can never be neutral. True academics will either stick to words that are clearly defined or they will ensure the reader understands the intended meaning. At the very least they will be consistent in the use of the word. If wikipedia is to allow the word, then it must be used consistently and be clearly defined.

The simple solution: provide context. Make it clear from the outset which definition is being applied.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ... "Make it clear from the outset which definition is being applied" ==> Good idea. Make it clear from the outset that your faith is based on historical truth, whereas theirs is based on fantasy. DVdm (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * DVdm - was that comment supposed to make sense? because if so...  -- Ludwigs 2  23:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * With reference to archiving. I have no objection to seeing the majority of this discussion placed into the archive. My strong objection is to seeing it all dumped there in an effort to stifle the debate.
 * DVdm - please try debating the issue rather than making false assertions about the person.
 * Finally, I see that nobody is attempting to counter my arguments above. Thus far, the only reason put forth for including "myth" in religious articles without qualification is that "the experts use the word". My comments above have clearly debunked the idea that that is a valid argument. While I do not dispute that experts use the word, there are so many different definitions that wp editors cannot simply use it without making it clear which definition is intended.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is because there is nothing to debate and there are no arguments to be countered. And yes, as I said, wp editors must make it clear that they use the definition that emphasises that their faith is based on historical truth, whereas other's is based on fantasy. DVdm (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fimus, you need to stop deluding yourself and you need to stop wasting everyone's time. First, you haven't debunked anything. I doubt there is a single word in the English language that has a universally agreed upon definition, and the lack of that is not the definition of a weasel word. Myth is no exception. Theory is no exception (see General relativity and countless other articles using the term). Vector is no exception, yet countless Wikipedia articles use that term without defining it in every instance. And so on. It is simply not necessary to include precise definitions of every term used in every article, and no policy or guideline will ever require that. Instead, precise definitions and discussions of them are reserved for dictionaries or articles devoted to the terminology. The wonders of the Wiki software allow us to link terms to these articles for the curious reader. I've given these examples and discussed all of this before, which brings me to my second point.
 * No-one is trying to stifle your debate, as you so pathetically asserted in your AN/I thread against me. There is over 300KB of debate here and who knows how much elsewhere. There is only so many times you can reasonably expect people to repeat the same arguments for you before they decide you're refusing to get the point, or are incapable of getting it, at which point (careful, I've used the word 'point' twice here, can you cope with that?) they'll quite reasonably refuse to, or at the very least be reluctant to, debate any longer. Ben (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * sorry Ben: the problem is not going to go away (on the talk page or in articles) just because you don't see it. -- Ludwigs 2  18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, a problem won't appear by throwing every forum, policy and guideline in the air in the hope that something sticks. You only need look through this thread to see exactly that happening as Fimus changes his position every subsection or so. We're up to Weasel Words now, and there is an off-wiki tipping comp on what policy or guideline he cites next. Did you want in? Ben (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has ALREADY bent over backwards -- more than it neds to by any sane measure -- to try to avoid upsetting the people who don't understand what the words myth and mythology mean by spelling it out in articles unrelated to those terms. All anyone has to do is actually look at the mythology article and educate themselves. Instead we have people whining because they don't want to even be offended by their picking and choosing of non-academic definitions. It's like someone being offended at the use of the word "picnic" because they falsely think it refers to people picking which black person to hang or freaking out over "niggardly" or whatnot. Tis is an encyclopedia, a place for educating people, not for bowing down to self-involved purposeful ignorance. There is no problem other than certain people choosing to be offended for no good reason. If someone wants to go out of their way to find something to be upset about they will rationalize one up no matter what we do. They're just that way. That's not our problem, and all we can do is ignore them. DreamGuy (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "... choosing to be offended for no good reason" ==> Well, they think it is a perfectly good reason. And of course, as I already said elsewhere, they severely underestimate the Joe Avery Of Their Imagination by thinking he is utterly uncapable of actually reading and understanding these myth and mythology articles. DVdm (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your empty rhetoric in favour of ignoring theologians' published objections to defining scriptures as "mythology" defies all reason. Thus it appears an arb-com mediated solution is unavoidable so that anti-religious bigots on wikipedia cannot drop polemic terms like "mythology" anywhere they feel like it, and pretend it is perfectly "neutral". It takes sheer hypocrisy to pretend this is neutral. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You want to know what "sheer hypocrisy" really is? All the people who manage to be offended when the term "myth" is used for Judeo-Christian beliefs but have no qualms about it being used on articles about other religions. It has been long established here that NPOV means we do not cave into people who are offended that their own religious beliefs do not get special treatment. The vast majority of the people I've ever seen try to raise a complaint about this term were pushing their own religious beliefs onto articles.
 * But the thing is, the academics who use the term do not mean it as an insult. They are just describing a very specific kind of story: one with religious significance, some sort of supernatural element, typically describing the origins of he world or specific religious traditions. It treats all religious beliefs equally and makes no judgments on whether those beliefs are true or false. The reason anybody ever got the idea in the irst place that it was an insult was that they heard the term used for other culture beliefs and assumed that their own beliefs were somehow superior. We cannot endorse that kind of bigotry here. DreamGuy (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And no, if anyone thinks the debate is "going away" just because you tell it to, don't try holding your breath. The debate is referenced, it isn't going away, hasn't for centuries, isn't about to, isn't likely to, and we're obliged not to ignore it or be prejudiced to only one side of the debate. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we certainly ignore the people who are offended over the use of the term "evolution" to describe documented changes in species, and we ignore the people who don't want their pseudoscientific beliefs to be labeled as pseudoscience. It's not a question of sides of the debate, it's a question of whether we should give WP:UNDUE weight to religious people offended out of their own ignorance and slant coverage of topics just so they don't see a word they've misapplied used to describe their own beliefs. NPOV has been around for a long time, and you don't get to rewrite it to support your own bias just because you're offended that other people aren't biased in your favor. DreamGuy (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "anti-religious bigots"? DVdm (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a personal attack to me. Ben (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User warned here. DVdm (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, yes, the personal attack thing. why is it that some wikipedians think that they can substitute an invalid accusation for a valid argument?  oh, that's right, because they can get away with it.  silly me...    -- Ludwigs 2  19:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, he quickly erased the warning - just as I had expected. I should have predicted it ;-) DVdm (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's his super patented Til trick - check his talk page history to see other such warnings removed. Ben (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * you know, I'm not Fimus, and my issue here is somewhat different. I don't care if the word Myth gets used, so long as that word is properly attributed to a source.  if it's attributed to a source, no one will be confused about what it means, because they can look at the source to see how the source uses it.  if it's not attributed to a source, it will be attributed to wikipedia and its editors, and then people can and will (justifiably) say 'wikipedia and its editors think our religion is a myth; wikipedia is biased and untrustworthy.'  this is not rocket science.  if some people are going to be insulted by a word (which with a word like 'myth' is effectively unavoidable), let them get insulted by reliable sources, not by wikipedia.  and if we can't find a reliable source for them to be insulted by, why are we insulting them ourselves?  -- Ludwigs 2  19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs, no-one here is suggesting we shouldn't cite a classification if it's challenged. That position is completely consistent with Wikipedia's policies and most editors here. I already explained why Noah's Ark did not have a citation added just yet, and you seemed happy with it. Other than that you are free to ask for a cite for any (non-trivial) information given in articles. Are you ok with this? Is this your only concern? Ben (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly... It's as if they are afraid to say "This is a myth according to x" because they don't want the credibility of x to be questioned... Therefore they want to state as if uncontestable and uncontested "truth", "This is a myth". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't what Ludwigs was suggesting (I don't think). If all Ludwigs feels is fair is a citation, then he is in fact in complete agreement with everyone else here. Ben (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "All" he feels fair is a citation, as opposed to what? Full attributory language required by WP:NPOV? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever he wants. I'm sure he can clarify his own position. Ben (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * personally, I am trying very hard not to attribute motivations to other editors (not that I'm completely succeeding, mind you, for which I apologize). I think that is one of the failing points of this discussion.  it's difficult not to do that, mind you, because it's a subtle issue, and it's not always easy to distinguish when editors push a point because they think it's correct (according to wikipedia standards) and when they push a point because they think it's correct (according to their own internal metric).  to the specific use on NA - Ben: I accepted your explanation that you wanted to let things cool a bit and then do some revisions.  I'd personally be satisfied if the use of the term myth were properly attributed, yes (what I suspect will happen in that case is what ought to happen: that someone else will provide a source who says the term myth is inappropriate, and the conversation will shift to one of how to weigh the sources properly in the article).  the problem of using 'myth' without attribution is pretty much as Til suggests - without attribution, it presents itself as a universally accepted truth, and becomes much harder to balance through reliable sources.  this is why I also think there should be some language about this in policy, because I think this is a common problem - where editors take a term that has a real presence in scholarly work, but make (implicitly) the somewhat questionable induction that it is a universally accepted term in the scholarly world.  sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, and we can only know which with the correct kinds of attribution.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about apologising for attributing motivations to other editors, if I cared at all I'd have said something in the AN/I thread where you were pushing the limits, if not breaking them. The question is simple: If myth can be demonstrated to be a mainstream term and we can cite usage of the term in particular instances (say Noah's Ark for arguments sake), would you be satisfied with a cite attached to the term in the first instance of its usage in the Noah's Ark article (outside of the lead by convention), and a discussion of its mainstream position in the mythology article, again supported with citations? If so, we are in fact in complete agreement, if you require more than this for any particular term, then it's likely we're in disagreement. Please keep responses clear and to the point. Ben (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The term myth is already fully explained at the mythology article, and the first use of it on any other article will link to that article, where all the documentation in the world already exists. If there were no link there, then the complainers would have a legitimate complaint. If any article uses the term but doesn't link to the article, add the link. Any potential problem is automatically solved at that point. The rest is just gnashing of teeth to try to push their own opinion onto articles, which is absolutely forbidden here per NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ben: I'd be satisfied with a citation in the lead which shows that the term is a mainstream use with respect to that topic. note the clarifications in italics.  the second point shouldn't be problematical: I don't think many people are given to that kind of overgeneralization.  the 'in the lead' part is needed, however.  for one, I've never heard of that particular convention, and if it actually exists it doesn't seem to be applied on many articles (damned if I haven't seen some fringe articles that have fifteen or twenty referenced refutations in the lead). more importantly, though, we need to attribute the use of this word as soon as it appears to deflect the impression that wikipedia is taking a moral or philosophical stand on the reality of the topic.  putting it off to the first use in the body of the article is too late; the damage will have been done.
 * DreamGuy: the point here is to avoid treating 'myth' (and similar terms) as though they have uniform and well-defined meanings across every topic. the discussion of what the term 'myth' means with respect to article A is part of article A, not part of any general discussion of the word 'myth'.  you're making that 'questionable inference' I mentioned above, assuming that every scholar is going to use the word myth to mean exactly the same thing in every discussion on every topic, and that everyone else will recognize it that way.  that's not even remotely reasonable.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems you don't know what you're talking about. The discussion of what the term 'theory' means with respect to general relativity is a part of general relativity? Wikipedia is doing damage? Give me a break. Your responses are only getting more convoluted and absurd, and as a result I'm convinced that common ground between us is a moving target. I won't waste my time trying to find it again. Instead, my opinion remains that the current FAQ text is fine as is, Fimus' proposal is not an improvement in any way and this 'debate' is way past its use by date. Ben (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * oh, heavens, that's an absurd response. I can't believe you offered it as a serious position.
 * no one objects to the term 'theory' with respect to general relativity. for heaven's sake, the guy who created it called it a theory.
 * no one objects to the term theory in general: to the extent that meaning of the word 'theory' is ambiguous, none of the meanings are particularly pejorative.
 * if there was a pejorative sense to the word theory (i.e., assume it implied an idea that was fanciful but dumb), everyone would be very careful to disambiguate its use on the General Relativity article because no one would want to call general relativity fanciful but dumb.
 * give me a break, dude. -- Ludwigs 2  00:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet another break for easier editing
For the sake of clarity and for the sake of allowing reasoned debate can I ask that editors stop attempting to attribute motives to each other (and, despite my best intentions, I also am guilty of this). It is not helping in any way. Whether anyone is religiously-motivated or anti-religious is irrelevant to the debate.

DreamGuy: You say that readers need only look to the mythology article for a definition. Unfortunately, that article gives us numerous definitions which are in some instances mutually exclusive. If you are willing to tidy that article up and provide a definitive meaning (appropriately cited) then maybe that argument could begin to stack up. And wikipedia is not a "place for educating people" - it is a place for providing information that allows them to educate themselves (see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK).

Ludwigs2: No, you're not me, but our positions are a lot closer than you seem to realise. If a word is properly attributed to source then its meaning must be made clear.

Yet again, we have editors trying to claim that, because the sources use the word, we can use the word. That, under normal circumstances would be perfectly true and acceptable. Unfortunately, this isnt a normal corcumstance. "Myth" has a plethora of different meanings, and where one of these meanings would include stories x, y and z, another might only include x and y and another would exclude all three.

Let me offer an example:
 * From the definition in Mythology - "a body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity." According to this definition, most of the stories in, for example, the Bible would be included. On the other hand George and the Dragon would be excluded on the grounds that no-one believes it to be true.
 * From the OED - "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces or creatures, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon". According to this definition, the parables of Jesus would be included (but they would be excluded from the definition above). The whole of the "period of the prophets" (excepting some individual stories) would be excluded, but which would be included in the definition above.
 * From numerous "infoboxes" - "In an academic context, the word "myth" refers to any sacred and traditional narrative." This excludes almost every story outside of canon, since it requires it be "sacred".

There are definitions that demand the story involve god(s), definitions that exclude god(s). There are definitions that demand an explanation of natural events and definitions that make no such demand. There are definitions that demand a story be held as true and those that don't. Some definitions require "sacred", some don't. Etc etc ad nauseum.

In short. We are told to expect a particular definition, but no-one will tell us what that definition is (and don't say "go to the Mythology article" - at best that provides us with a vague set of mutually exclusive definitions and certainly does not tell us which one to expect when we see the words myth/mythology used in other articles).

So long as we do not (and can not) know which definition is meant, the inclusion of the word is a clear violation of WP:WEASEL: If we do not what a word means, we do not know what opinion is being expressed and if we do not know what the opinion is then we cannot ascribe it to source.
 * "Weasel words are generally considered to be words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. They give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed."

Ben: this is not 'shifting position'. I still stick by all of the other reasons I have offered. This just yet another good reason why including myth without some sort explanation is wrong. It is not neutral, and can never be neutral.

The current wording is wholly inadequate. It allows editors to use the word freely without ever explaining what they (or, more accurately, their sources) mean by the word.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning to understand some of Ben's difficulties here...
 * "Editors should take care to explain what is meant by the term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader."

Where did that come from? It was one of the phrases edited out of the NPOV/FAQ by Ben. Funny how it says pretty much what I have been asking for all along (albeit I believe it applies to any potentially ambiguous term and not only to "fundamentalism" as in the quote above).--FimusTauri (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom
To all interested parties: see Requests for arbitration --FimusTauri (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)