Wikipedia talk:Religion/Archive 1

Work in Progress
Please feel free to add to this page, I don't have enough time at the moment to complete it at the moment, but I thought I'd throw it out there to get some reaction and input to the ideas presented.

I feel that it is now necessary to have a policy for Wikipedia regarding religion because I have seen too many attacks, too many things tossed aside, and to many people pushed away from Wikipedia because of the success that some editors have found in "scientifically" and argumentatively beating religion to death on Wikipedia. This should not be the case. There is definitely a way to present religious material in an encyclopedic manner without filling the articles with anti-religious information and attacks in the "spirit" of being NPOV. Help me out...I'd love your input. Twunchy (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think another focus of the article ought to be the converse as well: science-based articles are primarily "in universe" as well--that is, in science-related articles, the reader generally assumes that you are speaking within the scientific universe and not some religious universe (i.e., that natural history is valid, the earth is billions of years old, there was a big bang, the earth is not flat, etc.) CO GDEN  17:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion Template and Warning Flag
One of the most important aspects of a religion article will be the creation of an informative "warning flag" for the top of the article and a good religion template so that readers (and editors) will know that the article is somewhat outside the bounds of the NPOV and verifiable source requirements. (Not far outside the bounds, but somewhat.) The wording should clearly state that the material is presented without repeated qualifiers such as "adherents believe", "believers claim", etc., but that an overall Believers claim... exists for most of the article. The template should include such information as number of adherents, region of the world where principally found or originally found (Mormonism doesn't get to claim Ukraine and Buddhism doesn't get to claim San Francisco, for example), principal deities, sacred texts, major subgroups, etc. (Taivo (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

Science and Religion
There is a subclass of religious article where "scholarly" or "scientific" disciplines are used to "prove" the truth of one or another religious belief or the provenance of some sacred text. Articles such as "creation science" or "linguistics and the Book of Mormon" fall into this category. There two serious problems with this class of articles: 1) Peer review consists only of peers who are adherents; and 2) non-adherent scholars generally don't waste any time with a subject they may consider fringe to begin with. Therefore the articles look as if they are serious science with reliable sources and without contradicting scholarly points of view. These articles also need a special warning label at the top of the page stating these two qualifications (or something similar) so that they are not considered on the same level of authority and verifiability as an article on quantum physics, for example. (Taivo (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

POV and Adherents
The current wording (as of 23 Feb 09) has a strong flavor of "Leave the Religious Articles alone if you disagree". While it is important that these articles have a certain amount of flexibility in order to present the religion's main features without getting bogged down in attacks, it is equally important that the writers of these articles also have some injunctions placed upon them. This policy should be equal parts of "When you write about your religion, don't X and do Y" and "If you disagree with someone else's religion, don't X and do Y". This should not be just an admonitory policy against opponents, but an instructive one for proponents as well. (Taivo (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Understood...this is exactly what I'm trying to do, but this is going to take some time. I think overall the balance of "power" has always been against religious articles though for the simple sake of "verifiability attacks" to kill an article and that's my tack at the moment.  See what happened to the Golden Plates when it came up for Featured article review...this would be my prime example on how to "scientifically" kill a religious article.  Ask too many "prove it" questions and then everybody jumps on the doubt bandwagon and ultimately it trashes the article. Twunchy (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The golden plates article is what I had in mind as well. That article was featured on the front page, but got un-featured because a few editors were unwilling to allow this religious article to speak "in universe" the same way an article about Force (Star Wars) might. There is one big implied assumption you make when you start reading an article about a religious topic, which is: everything you are reading is a belief, and may not necessarily be true depending on your belief system.  A religious article should make that clear, but should not be held to a much higher standard than Writing About Fiction.


 * Of course, there is one difference between religious articles and fictional-universe articles, in that opposing religious or scientific beliefs will need to be covered as well, but such coverage typically only requires the acknowledgment that opposing views exist, and an explanation of why. If there are scientific studies "disproving" something, they should be mentioned.  What is not necessary, however, is for every sentence to contain a citation to a source saying "this particular arcane point about this religious aspect of the religious universe is hogwash."  One "this is hogwash" for the entire religious universe is generally sufficient, because those saying "hogwash" don't really care about all the arcane theological details.


 * On the other hand, if there are two very similar religious traditions that disagree strongly on each of the arcane points of some vision or metaphysical structure, then the article should take time to go into detail about these differences, and cite sources to back up each of those different views. In that case, there is a real dispute about the arcane details that is more than just "the whole religious tradition is hogwash". CO GDEN  18:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in-universe (tone or context) in the current golden plates article. Its fine. Has it been revised since its front-page rejection? -- Fullstop (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Section Majority does not rule
Regarding this section, just wanted to direct your attention to No Virtual Majority, which was an unsuccessful policy proposal. Best regards —Eustress talk 18:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good to know, but I don't think this draft policy should go down that path. This is not a modification of WP:NPOV at all.  NPOV still applies in full force, even (and perhaps especially) in religion articles. The only think I see this policy doing is explaining what NPOV means in the context of "in universe" religion articles such as golden plates, Xenu, Noah's Ark, etc. CO GDEN  19:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Overarching Theme
I've tried a couple of times to craft a sentence or two about overall theme. This is basically that Wikipedia is an atlas, not a travel itinerary. We catalogue the different religions and their beliefs, we do not point in any direction. I think such a statement is important to set a tone of "We list the beliefs, we list the major criticisms, we don't debate, we don't solicit a decision". (Taivo (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Sound great, perhaps just reword what you have above, it works for me. Twunchy (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Relative or tacit
I think this wording is a bit too confusing in the "No one is "Correct"" section. I don't want to misinterpret this, so could you flesh this wording out a little more? Twunchy (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a wikilink to spirituality to help clarify. I'm trying to explain that encyclopedias just aren't capable of conveying a "spiritual" barometer of truthfulness. That's not to say that Wikipedia is atheistic and/or purely scientific but that we can only share what can be concretely verified. Kind of a hard idea to convey, so any help welcome. —Eustress talk 18:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Some doubts about this policy/guideline/essay/whatever
I haven't read the entire thing but I've scanned enough to get a gist of what the objectives are. Having worked on quite a number of religion-related articles, I fully appreciate the motivation behind this. I need some time to read this more carefully and think more about what is proposed. I can say that there is stuff that I like and some stuff that I have questions about.

A key thing to be careful of is having this proposal thingy be considered instruction creep. It would be important to explain how WP:RELIGION differs from the rest of Wikipedia policies and guidelines because people are going to want to get into your undershorts to understand exactly why yet another policy/guideline/whatever is needed.

Just at first blush, I think there are things that I don't like in the section on "Criticisms" but I'm not prepared to explain exactly why right now.

For now, I would like to comment as a first-glance reaction that the religious universe cannot be broken up into discrete chunks of Religion X, Y and Z and thus have X, Y, and Z have their own backyards to do with as they please without interference from each other. There are necessarily areas where the claims of two religions (or two sects of the same religion) overlap and conflict. Consider, for example, East-West Schism and Catholic - Orthodox theological differences. Does this proposal thingy cover those areas as well? You do mention the Great Schism in the "Criticisms"" section but only to say that it is an exception. What about Christianity and Buddhism?  What rules/guidelines apply in those situations?

--Richard (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Gauge of article
Do we have a good enough foundation on this to start spreading this project around for greater input? If not what should we add, edit, etc? Twunchy (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Per my comments above, you need to address the question of how this is not instruction creep.


 * A second read of "No proof necessary" suggests that you don't understand reliable sources and verifiability.


 * Wikipedia has never been about the truth, religious or otherwise. It's all about verifiable information that is cited to reliable sources without giving undue weight to minority positions.  So stating "Jesus is the Son of God" without sourcing is unacceptable.  Actually, it's also unacceptable to source that statement to the Gospels because Jesus never quite comes out and says exactly that.  However, it is reasonable to cite secondary sources who do make that claim and, of these, there are lots.  Religious articles do not need an exemption from WP:RS or WP:V.


 * Now for "Majority does not rule". Sorry, yes it does.  We can state that Mormons view the rest of Christianity as illegitimate, corrupt and apostate but we cannot allow that POV to outweigh the majority of Christians who view Mormons as somewhere between heretical and a cult.  Similarly with the Jehovah's Witnesses.  I think the articles on the Mormons and JWs are doing fine without this proposal thingy.


 * That's all I have for you right now. You are welcome to distribute this policy thingy to a wider audience but I would suggest that you address these issues first or you will hear them again from other editors.


 * --Richard (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is the purpose of this article to address many issues you have brought up. The whole point is to create a realm on Wikipedia where many common rules don't apply in the "traditional" Wikipedia sense. I am NOT writing this to protect any Mormon-related article from scrutiny, that is so far from my intentions that you've misread them. This is about religious articles in general. The point I'm trying to make with this policy is to stop the constant and VERY repetitious arguments of religion where dissent always has the upper hand with the "I don't believe this" and "You can't prove it," "So my "majority" rules" statements. This is why I am doing this. The purpose of creating new policy it truly to CHANGE something. You can't change something by pointing to existing rules and saying "that's against the rules."

As for "Majority rules", the fact of that section is that "There exists no religious majority!", not that the democratic rules of Wikipedia are to be ignored. This is more akin to protecting articles from "Tyranny of the Majority". A small religion is placed at a great disadvantage simply because they are far from any majority. Let's say the "5th Episcopal Super Church of Christ, of Podunken, Nowhere" with a congregation of 75 people, has an outspoken pastor who starts creating new scripture and starts prophesying doom and gloom to the point where they attract attention. The "Majority" viewpoint would be they are a bunch of quacks. But this church deserves the opportunity to have their say on Wikipedia as much as the "Majority" has their say. This is all I'm trying to do. The problem that exists is that the "pastor" of this church wouldn't necessarily fall under the realms of a "reliable source" according to the "majority" view thereby placing UNDUE weight on the side of the Majority! I don't know if I explain this well enough, but again the purpose of trying to create a new policy is to CREATE new rules that are limited to a specific subset of articles that it applies to, not to simply perpetuate the satus quo, where the same old arguments are had ad infinitum, and we can stop arguing logical fallacies on talk pages and just write bold and brilliant articles.

I would appreciate it if you retract your statements concerning Mormonism, because this is patently not the issue at hand, and I have not advertised it as such, or even brought it up at all in this context, so, aside from my edit history and talk page, Mormonism has nothing to do with this article. Twunchy (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Twunchy. It's important to remember to assume good faith.  I mentioned Mormons and JWs because I have spent a lot of time working on those articles and so they were the examples that came to my mind.  I don't know what involvement you have had with any of the Mormon-related articles but the point is, I wasn't making any allusion to your involvement.  I was just using them as examples.


 * That said, your example of "5th Episcopal Super Church of Christ, of Podunken, Nowhere" violates WP:RS because there is no reliable source to back up the assertion that the pastor said what he said. Note that I am not challenging the truth of what the pastor said.  I am challenging the very fact that he said it.  Why?  Because I don't know for sure that this church exists, that the Pastor is really who the article says it is and that he said what the article says he said.  Proof here is absolutely necessary.  If the church or the pastor don't exist, it's a hoax.  If they do but he didn't say what the article says he said then it's a violation of WP:BLP.  Only verifiable citations to reliable sources gives me any hope of being sure that the church and pastor exist and that the pastor really said what is claimed in the article.  Even then, it is possible that the paper was the victim of a hoax.


 * The article would more likely be deleted due to lack of notability than anything else. Even if the pastor said all those things, we might not care because we don't think his little 75 person church is an encyclopedic topic. Are you proposing to make an exception to the notability guideline for very small religious groups?


 * Sorry to interject, but yes I am. I am proposing that all religions be on equal footing as to a fair article of them and their beliefs on Wikipedia. Twunchy (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, if the Philadelphia Sentinel (or whatever the local paper is called) reports that the pastor of "5th Episcopal Super Church of Christ" prophesied that the world would end on April 15, 2009, that is a reliable source that establishes the pastor said it. It might not be notable though unless it caused a run on toilet paper in Philadelphia stores that caused a 50% rise in toilet paper prices on the Eastern Seaboard.


 * In addition to working on Mormon and JW related articles, I have spent a little time sniffing around the Scientology articles. Do you feel any of these articles suffer from being "fringe" religions?  I don't think so.  I think their cases are very adequately made and I think there are plenty of "criticism" articles that present the opposite viewpoint as well.


 * I think the bottom line is that I haven't seen the problems that you describe. Maybe you could provide some diffs to show the nature of the problem you are trying to fix.  Otherwise, this proposal thingy looks like a hammer in search of a nail to hit.


 * P.S. Don't shoot the messenger. If I don't say these things, someone else will and you may as well hear it sooner rather than later.


 * --Richard (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My point again is that there are many attempts to discredit religion on Wikipedia, to some it almost seems their "mission" to shoot down articles they deem heretical. For one example, there are those that argue that anything written by a believer within a religion automatically makes that person an non-reliable source, because the assumption is made that the person cannot be "objective" about their beliefs, and and since they aren't impartial, they are POV and therefore (success!) we have eliminated a primary source for the information in an article, and so therefore we can discredit them entirely, and because of this, any secondary source that is quoting an "unreliable" primary source is also equally "unreliable"...do you see where this can go? It's the epitome of an ad hominem attack, but has been quite successful on pages I've read or been involved in editing. There is a problem, I'm trying to create a safe place on Wikipedia away from personal and religious attacks toward other Wikipedia users. Not all editors should have to also be missionaries or experts for their religion to join the fray. Twunchy (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be a fundamental and in my opinion disastrous change in Wikipedia policy. It would provide an area where we would be tossing out our basic policies on reliable and verifiable sources and would almost certainly lead to more demands that this abandonment of policy be applied to other areas. dougweller (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Two points about this issue. First, a WP:RS on a statement of belief is not something that says, "God exists because of this proof", it is something that says "Christians believe God exists".  That is a reliable source as far as religious topics go.  Second, such a source is verifiable because it is either part of a sacred text (Exo 3:14 says "I Am") or found in a secondary source (Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 3 says "Christians believe that God exists").  The problem usually arises in the criticisms of these things and in the ways that both proponents and opponents try to write the articles.  I'm not 100% convinced that this policy is workable or needed either, but my concerns are different.  I want to be sure that this policy (if adopted) doesn't give proponents free reign to push their beliefs either overtly or covertly on others.  (Taivo (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

Fringe theories and Religion
My greatest concern with this proposal is the generally fairly regularly noted lack of consensus of believers in a given faith regarding several issues. If we find a RS which states that "adherents of X believe Y", and another which says "adherents of X do not believe Y", which if either do we accept. Often it is the case that adherents of any given faith will have differing opinions on any given issue, but that might not be clear from any particular article discussing, for instance, ordination of women. How if at all would this proposal deal with such divisive matters? John Carter (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Its not a divisive matter if policy is adhered to. Policy (indeed one of the few foundation policies) demands that sources are fairly represented. On en.wiki, that means that if an RS source say 'X', then putting a non-RS 'Y' against it is to give 'Y' undue weight. If 'Y' were not even verifiable/sourced, it wouldn't fly at all. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the basic problem with "equal number of sources" or "equal weight". If there is a particular fact that supports X religion, then adherents of X religion will conduct "scientific" or "historical" research on that fact in order to support their religion.  There will then be apologetic sources that meet the criteria of WP:RS.  However, such points are often of no interest to scientists or historians outside that faith who automatically reject any such religious position.  They won't waste their time on research and writing that won't support their own personal quests for tenure and promotion.  Therefore, there will be no critical sources of equal weight to the apologetic sources and therefore the apologetic position seems stronger.  That's why "marginal" sources are often used in these cases just to balance out the apologetic point of view.  Look at the article Linguistics and the Book of Mormon for a clear example of this problem.  (Taivo (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC))


 * That's not how it should work. RS is not editor-defined, but what the academic community defines. Material, irrespective of whether editors think it is legitimate or not, becomes a reliable source the moment it is cited by an academic authority in that field, and/or has been published in a peer-reviewed academic resource.
 * Until such time, that material is off-limits as a source. See also the link in the title of this talk section.
 * With respect to the article 'Linguistics and the Book of Mormon',... the lead of that article is fine. That tone established there should be maintained for the rest of the article as well. I was blinded by all the blue in the references section, so I couldn't read further.
 * You are wrong in the assumption that "scientists or historians outside that faith [will] automatically reject any such religious position". Everything can be studied, and everything is. A linguist will of course not adopt linguistic theories from the Book of Mormon, but he/she may study how those theories influenced LDS vocabulary, and a philologist may study intertextuality in the Book of Mormon, and a historian may attempt to trace where JSj got his ideas from, and a sociologist may study how the LDS deals with those theories and the studies of them, and an anthropologist may study how the myth is transmitted, and so on and so forth. Those are then your reliable sources.  -- Fullstop (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * While you think this is a perfect world, Fullstop, where everything you want to know has been researched, you didn't understand what I wrote. While these topics of research are, indeed, interesting things, they are not being done because they won't get a scholar tenure or promotion credit.  I think some of these things would be very interesting to study, but it would be professional suicide for me to tackle these issues.  There simply are no non-LDS scholars doing such research.  I got a laugh when I read your statement "Those are then your reliable sources".  You simply didn't understand what I wrote earlier:  They don't exist.  Besides the tenure/promotion barrier to such studies, there is also the publication barrier.  If you think that peer-reviewed journals will publish anything, then you are mistaken.  The final arbiter is the editor of the journal, not the "peers".  If the editor thinks that a particular article is "volatile" for any reason, or if they feel it might be offensive to a particular readership, that article is not published.  In the end, it's not at all about academic freedom or curiosity, it's about money.  The journals must make money to survive, the book publishers must print books that will sell, the scholars must write things that will ensure their continuing academic appointment.  Writing pieces debunking religious topics will accomplish very few of these things.  (Taivo (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

"In-Universe"?
The page suggests " Articles are to be presented 'In-Universe' ". Emphatic NO.

If the subject of an article does not have secondary sources for it, then it does not deserve to exist. And if the subject of an article does have secondary sources for it, then these are expected to be objective, hence -- by definition -- not "In-Universe". I, for one, am sick and tired of reading articles whose reference sections consist of chapter:verse pointers to scripture and other primary sources.

And, contra the premise of this page, Wikipedia does not encourage "scholarly" debate; Wikipedia is not a forum. And, there are no " fundamentally different burdens of proof ", either. The humanities -- which includes the study of religion -- is not subject to scholastic standards different from those of the sciences.

If this page intends to be useful, it should reinforce existing policies, not try to find a way to make them inapplicable. " It is therefore (proposed to be) Wikipedia policy that religious articles fall outside of the strict guidelines of verifiability " is insane. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox for divinely-inspired harbingers of the WP:TRUTH.

Irrespective of subject, in an encyclopedia I expect to see academic positions, not interpretation, least of all in-universe ones. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly would like to see "In-Universe" changed to some other phrasing. I can see, to an extent, saying that articles about subjects which are exclusively matters of religious belief might make some sense, and that might be what the phrase is intending to imply, but if true then it should be changed to something less ambiguous. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what term is used, non-objective representation doesn't belong here. Religion and nationality articles are the ones in which objectivity is most desirable, not least desirable. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * RARE is the "objective" secondary source for religious literature. Almost all are trying to make a point, either for or against a religious viewpoint.  So therefore due to your stipulations (objective secondary sources), NO religious articles would exist due to the lack of "objective" literature in religion. Twunchy (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The assumption that secondary source for religious literature are "rare" is simply not true. Every religion that has been around for a while has been studied, and re-studied, and re-re-studied. There are plenty of academic departments, journals and libraries dedicated to the subject. There is absolutely no dearth of secondary sources for religious literature. If people don't have access to secondary sources in any particular discipline, then -- by definition -- they do not have the necessary background information to write informedly about it. -- Fullstop (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not what I was saying, please go back to my previous post and read the fourth word. I'm not saying the secondary sources don't exist, it's the point that most secondary sources are from a POV, typically the sources used are from the religious POV, and that is typically from apologetic groups (usually because the critical view is simply "it didn't happen" etc.)  Those who write neutrally about a religion are hard to track down, not impossible, but if you have 35 apologetic studies to call from there would probably be 1-2 "neutral" sources to go along with them, if that, (and you have to hope they say what you need them to) and probably 35 critical studies, because the critics and apologists are all about one-upsmanship, it's a game to them almost.  And the other argument you bring up is that-"If people don't have access to secondary sources in any particular discipline, then -- by definition -- they do not have the necessary background information to write informedly about it."-this goes against the ultimate foundation of Wikipedia, that ANYONE can edit it, you don't need to be an expert on the subject, you just have to care enough to do something.  One of these arguments I'm making is that some of these articles are so disputed that when a noob walks in they get the lashing of their life for not already being on the article or knowing the discussion etc. that they never come back!  This is also unacceptable. Twunchy (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A) I read it right the first time. For me, reliable source implies objectivity.
 * B) Nope, those who write neutrally about a religion are not hard to track down. All it takes is a library card, access to a machine with access to journal databases, and interlibrary loan. Try it.
 * C) While anyone "can" edit, WP is not obliged to keep those edits.
 * D) You don't need to be an expert on the subject, but you have to be willing to educate yourself.
 * E) If a newbie gets a lashing for writing crap, then maybe he'll return to writing about Pokemon. Or, he'll shape up and come back, and then do things better. Its also perfectly acceptable for him to vanish,... on his way to founding another Conservapedia. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Religious" truth vs. "Scientific" truth
I can't know the mind of the writer of this page, as it wasn't written by me. However, I think, having read it, one of the concerns it tries to address is how to deal with religious beliefs which seem to be possibly directly contradicted by modern scientific theory. In such instance, I think it makes most sense to present the "religious" opinion primarily, if not exclusively, from an "in-universe" perspective, to allow the reader to hopefully follow the development and application of the idea. This is not to say that, in the applicable instances, it wouldn't also be proper to say in the article's lede something like, "Today, this concept is seriously disputed (maybe even disproven) by the scientific community," if that is the case. But many faiths which have most or all of their adherents prior to the Renaissance might hold such contrary beliefs, and the best way to present such content might be "in-universe", with probably a brief statement somewhere that the idea is now disputed or disproven, rather than an extensive analysis of how science disagrees with them. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Example please? Do you mean like having an article on creation, and then citing the Pope for it? Or do you mean having an article on the Church's view of creation, and then citing science in it?
 * Neither would be appropriate. But in the article on the Church's view of creation (or any article on religion) one cites scholars of religion, not scripture, just as one does not cite Aristarchus of Samos for views on the solar system. Stick to WP:RS, and a discussion of what is/isn't in-universe is moot. Wikipedia is not about the WP:TRUTH. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do understand these arguments, and one of the problems that I have run into is that on Wikipedia, there are those who crusade against religious articles because in their minds the article is not their truth, and therefore is heresy. Then they go into an article, mark it up with fact tags...hm...could that be one of the problems here?  How would you prove a religious "fact"?  That is what I'm trying to address here.  If you then provide a "reliable source" (typically from a religious POV) to "prove" the fact, then someone comes along and says the statement must be "balanced" because the source of the info is POV.  Now we search for a book to counter the "fact", but most scientists don't study religious beliefs and theory.  So you then get challenged to remove the "fact" because since the source is POV, which most religious literature is, now you must remove the "fact" because of the lack of a contrarian statement. BTW the argument that secondary sources are neutral couldn't be further from the truth in religion, because one doesn't set out to write a book about Catholicism unless you have a point to make, usually either to "prove" the religion or to attack its beliefs, rare is the book that is just "neutral".  THIS is why there needs to be a place in Wikipedia where scholarly examination and science don't clash with believers and create chaotic articles that are subject to endless bickering and debate that goes nowhere. Twunchy (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You evidently misunderstand the fact tag. It reads "citation needed", which is not a judgmental statement. Wikipedia is also not a place for "proofs". A fact tag is not demanding proof of fact. It is demanding evidence that you didn't make it up. An encyclopedia is a place where one expects to finds cold, bare, objective distillation of a subject, and you may not state something that has not been stated before.
 * Real academics are not interested in soapboxing either; their job and interest is to further knowledge (scientia "science"), not further an agenda, which would ruin their academic reputation. Every facet of religion, like every facet of everything else, can be/has been described and discussed in rational terms. The study/knowledge of X does not entail an endorsement or rejection of X. (The reverse is also true) -- Fullstop (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. Yes there are rational studies out there on religion, but look at an apologetic's study and it may indeed be rational and some do cover evidence to the contrary, but there are editors on Wikipedia that say if you include a statement by an apologetic, you must "balance" it with an equal "POV".  Just imagine this scenario:  "Catholics believe the Bible to be the literal word of God, but critics have argued against the authenticity of the Bible.  Catholics believe in a separate race of supreme beings known as Angels, though scientific studies have yet to prove the existence of Angels."  This example may be a bit harsh but there are articles where people demand this for "balance."  How do you propose to deal with this because this is actually the definition of how to be literally NPOV. Twunchy (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, in this case it is literally "such-pathetic-prose-that-its-begging-to-be-tagged". On what authority did the editor make those wide-sweeping claims about what is going on in the minds of several hundred million people? Did he/she suppose that all those people are dumb androids all running the same program? Its not surprising that people get cheezed off at such craziness.
 * Indeed, although only an example, it is a supposition riddled with systemic bias. The proper way to "deal with it" is to ensure that such insanity doesn't appear to begin with (see next point). Another way: "Catholics believe in a separate race of supreme beings known as Angels, but the strength of this conviction varies with age, culture, tradition, and region." Voila! Balanced.
 * Write properly to begin with, and the problem doesn't even appear. For example: "Immediately following the 1st century Apostolic Constitution, the Church's position on Angels was one of ... This has varied ... The present position is ...". Voila! Balanced. Scientifically. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can tell from your comments, Fullstop, that you're only considering issues related to mainstream religions and have never worked with articles related to fringe religions. It is true that nearly every issue of mainstream religions has been discussed by fairly neutral sources ad nauseum for the past 20 centuries or more, but the same is not true for most of the newer fringe religions.  Dip your toe into anything related to Mormonism, for example, and you will soon find that neutral sources, or sources that are interpreted as neutral by both critics and apologists alike, are virtually non-existent.  Go ahead, use your library card and interlibrary loan and you will find that there is a glaring absence of neutral, scholarly work out there.  (I find your continued inference that Twunchy and I are ignorant of Mr. Carnegie's contribution to American society somewhat insulting.  I have retrieved books through interlibrary loan from the National Library of the Republic of Chad, the British Museum, and the Australian National University's library, so I am quite familiar with the process, thank you.)  There just hasn't been time for these new 19th and 20th century American religions to develop a tradition of neutral scholarship--they've been too busy training missionaries and galvanizing the faithful.  I'm not completely convinced that this policy is the best route to travel, but your grandstanding and belief in the absolute nature of Wikipedia policy is a "religion" in its own right and isn't really helpful to the discussion.  I am assuming good faith on your part, but rather than repeating your view of the absolutist nature of Wikipedia policy, try to find a way to address Twunchy's concerns in a more helpful and empathetic manner.  There is common ground and understanding to be found, but you must be willing to look for it.  (Taivo (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Whoa! The page under discussion is titled Wikipedia:Religion, not Wikipedia:Mormonism (to use your own example). Nor is there any hint that it is limited to the latter. It also does not suggest that articles on (what you call) "newer fringe religions" must be exempted from policy, but rather that articles on all religions must be exempted from policy. Indeed, Twunchy's last example was related to Catholicism, and somewhere on this page someone took umbrage at discussion turning to one on LDS. So, excuse me if I demand academic rigor for Religion. If the page is supposed to be for something else, then please make that clear from the outset, and clarify exactly what the scope is.
 * With " There just hasn't been time for these new 19th and 20th century American religions to develop a tradition of neutral scholarship ... ", you have again supposed that scholarship comes exclusively from within. That is not so. And, the implied supposition that followers of a religion cannot also be good academics is also false. Example in point, Richard Bushman and the authors of many entries in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
 * The concerns presuppose that when someone else bends the rules, then another bend in the rule must be made to counter them. That is not so, and triggers a competition of who can bend more. No matter how you cut it, you will lose, because by bending yourself, you A) acknowledge your opponent's bend, thus conceding its validity B) you revoke your own right to play by the rules.
 * Moreover, if you have a concrete problem, and you are looking for a concrete solution, then TELL ME ABOUT IT, and don't beat about the bush with "examples" that may or may not be what is bothering you. I can't read anyone's mind, and it seems that even my basic assumptions are incorrect since I am now told that the page is not about what it seemed to be about. In short: I cannot address concerns that I do not know about. I need to know precisely what motivated the construction of this page, and what (sort of) problem it intends to solve by it. Send mail if you don't want to do it in public. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement
Wikipedia seems to be good at generating more & more policies & guidelines, but not at enforcing them. My experience of placing & responding to RfCs, which are supposed to be the ultimate weapon in content disputes, is that hardly anyone responds. This leaves the article sto be fought out among those committed to working on them. Unless the propagandists are heavily outnumbered by neutral editors, which is rarely true for religion articles, there seems to be no procedure for enforcing NPOV. I've pointed this out in a number of fora (see my user page for links) & nobody has pointed out an answer. Peter jackson (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a constructive way forward
If you suffer personal attacks or stress because of editing Wikipedia articles on religion that make you feel that the integrity of Wikipedia should be compromised rather than risk further offense, it might be an sign that you should stop editing those articles. Most modern Western Christians will take criticism of minor aspects of the historical accuracy of the Bible in stride. Why not do the same?

I see the section titled 'Religion is not fringe' as particularly poor. Most 'fringe' concepts are 'belief systems' first and 'theories' second. Should a new group using a device as useful as Scientology's E-meter be excused neutral coverage of such a concept within their belief system only if they claim religious motivation? If so, why should they have to do so? If not, why have neutrality and verifibility policies at all? Nevard (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, poor implementation
We should have a set of standards for all articles. To this end Scientific standards is a similar proposal. Problematically, this proposal does not recognize that different issues require different sources.

To illustrate: the claims of the LDS church that there were Semitic tribes living in the New World are scientific claims. These claims are false. This must be made abundantly clear per WP:MAINSTREAM. The claims of the LDS church that after death the righteous become gods themselves are theological. The best sources in those situations are theological sources. Right now this proposal does not address this properly.

Undue focus on science is unwarranted as well. Certain religious dictates conflict not only with science but also philosophy and art. Demanding that the "religious perspective" is the only one that works is a statement tantamount to saying that religious sources are the most reliable. This is plainly not the consensus in the academic community.

The way articles on religion should be written in Wikipedia is the same way that they are written from any other mainstream encyclopedia. The best sources are those scholars of religion who study religion academically. The articles should reflect that kind of dispassionate analysis and reporting.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This has always been one of my biggest concerns in the religious article arena--separating theological claims, which are not subject to proof, from scientific/historical claims, which are. I am still concerned about the validity of this policy for that very reason.  Theological claims must be respected, but scientific/historical claims made within a religious tradition are almost always WP:Fringe.  The problem with dealing with fringe, however, is that of finding reliable sources that actually deal with fringe in a scientific/historical manner, especially with the minutiae that fringe writers often cite and find fringe scientists/historians who have ready quotes and "research".  It's always possible to use non-fringe sources in a general sense, but then we walk the narrow line of violating WP:OR or WP:Syn.  (Taivo (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC))


 * There are many problematic areas, but I made slight changes to Fringe in the Criticisms section. That actually needs to be reworked further, or removed entirely. WP:Fringe is entirely applicable to the origins of scripture. The point we should be making is that within the theology of a particular religion, claims will be mainstream and thus not violate WP:Fringe, even if they would violate it outside that theology. However, there are many theological claims in any religion which are considered fringe even in the context of that religion, so we still have to follow WP:Fringe. kwami (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations from a wikiholidayer on a great policy proposal
I have edited very, very lightly in the past two (make that three since April 2006) years. But I'd like to give my compliments to the group. This is well thought out and should be very useful. I can see that it could occasion severe pruning of some of the areas of Wikipedia, but that pain would be a good thing. Tom Haws (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on God as the Devil
Please let me know if this is not the right place to post this request or if you suggest other places to post it. I am posting this request on the talk pages for WikiProject Religion and  Religion.

I have started an article called God as the Devil. This is obviously contentious, but it is based on valid references over a span of 2,000 years. I seek constructive criticism and edits to improve the article to present its information with utmost integrity.

Please give me your feedback on the talk page for the article or via edits to the article. Thank you.


 * -- WagePeace (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A specific area of this new article is being disputed; as to whether a number of quotoations should or should not be included. Please see Talk:God_as_the_Devil; it would be great to get input from some more people on the matter. Many thanks, --  Chzz  ►  01:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles should present the relevant religious perspective
The heading Articles are to be presented from religious perspective and section as written appeared to conflict with WP:NPOV by effectively taking sides, while automatically assuming that this would not be a form of endorsement. I've therefore changed the heading to Articles should present the relevant religious perspective and have revised the first paragraph accordingly: "It is (proposed to be) Wikipedia's stance that religious articles should be written to present the viewpoint of the religion and its followers, while making it clear that this is their perspective and that this is not a form of endorsement of any belief system. Wikipedia makes no statements for or against any religion."

As the diff shows, I've also tweaked the last paragraph. . dave souza, talk 09:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine by me! I'm glad you understand what is being presented here, and your wording is better than mine. Twunchy (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No Proof?
''Therefore, when no proof is possible, credence is given to the religious viewpoint over dissent. This is not a carte blanche statement to allow peacock articles or articles designed to proselyte, but to encourage scholarly, rather than personal, articles and statements.''

The problem with this statement, which seems to be the underlying principle of this proposal, is that yes, we can in fact have proof of almost any religious tenet on wikipedia - in just the same way as we would any other theory/idea. That is, we can prove that "Scholarly community X says ..." or that "Religious community X believes ...". It is not, nor has it ever been, our mandate to prove whether the tenets of those scholars or faith communities are true. This is exactly the same as Wikipedia's approach to any other body of knowledge. To go to the basic, even our statement that the earth is round is tied to a citation. Wikipedia has no opinions - it is a tertiary source which cites the opinions, theories, and tenets of others. This is true in the area of religion as it is in any other area. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  16:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If this statement is meant to give an exemption to religious articles from our other articles, it doesn't belong here. If it isn't, then what is it saying that isn't already in policy? Can anyone give some examples of where credence would be given "to the religious viewpoint over dissent"? I can see this as causing great problems. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion religious articles are about beliefs. The proof should not be needed for beliefs, which are uncertain, but rather the claim that someone believes in this, which is certanly either true or false. Since most religious claims are unproovable but also undebunkable, it would compromise Wikipedia seriously if all beliefs were taken because we don't know whether they're real. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To make it clearer, in the article about Jesus, as long as it is clearly stated that it is a belief instead of a fact, no proof would be needed. But when we are discussing Jesus as a historical character, proof would be needed. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course you need proof. You don't need to prove anything about Jesus but you need to provide a reference proving that the belief exists.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  05:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Fringe?
The fringe section seems to imply that no religions can be called fringe religions. Am I reading this correctly? Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I think you might be right. It does seem to be speaking about articles on the religious group per se, rather than about content regarding that group within broader articles. I have to disagree with the phrasing there in general though. By the way it is currently phrased, even some "religious groups" which haven't yet passed WP:NOTABILITY criteria might have to be treated as non-"fringe" in wikipedia, and that could be very troubling indeed. I say this because I have known of AfDs about churches which haven't passed notability guidelines, but which at least claim to have the ten or so members explicitly stated in the page as being sufficient for inclusion. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC input sought
There is an RfC going on right now regarding the Dorje Shugden article that relates directly to the issues that are discussed in the proposed guidelines page here- specifically how to depict an entity whose status is disputed between two factions of a religious tradition. Some help input from individuals broadly familiar with these sorts of issues on WP would be very helpful. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"[A]rgument from silence" is ... in opposition to the logical fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Who told you that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? This idea has been heavily promoted by Kenneth Kitchen, but only because he's promoting claims which are well outside the mainstream of modern scholarly biblical criticism and needs to produce a defense against claims that he has no evidence to back those claims. (No archaeological evidence for the Exodus, for example). In everyday life we all accept that the absence of evidence for the existence of leprechauns means that they probably don't exist. PiCo (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)