Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 43

Is wikipedia a devotional compendium?
There is currently a discussion regarding the parshas of Judaism, which can be found in its most recent form at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). The essence of the discussion is, basically, about whether material which seems to be notable in terms of being significantly discussed in independent reliable sources in a seemingly general sense, but whose content is perhaps primarily, if not only, discussed significantly in sources internal to a specific religious group, should have their own articles. I believe this matter is deserving of significant discussion. As a Catholic, I know that the mass readings at every daily and Sunday mass are at least as notable, and that they are, at least in a way, discussed in exterior souurces enough to qualify as notable. There are somewhere over 800 such subjects, given daily and separate Sunday readings in the 2 year cycle of readings. And, yes, there are homiletics journals which deal with such subjects almost exclusively, more than sufficient to establish notability. I presume that there are also similar works for other Christian churches, and possibly for other religious groups as well. On the same basis, I know that there are basically more than sufficient sources which discuss, to some extent, devotional subjects like the Infant Jesus of Prague to indicate that devotions to those subjects merit a separate article based on notability. There are even multiple books and other sources on proposed series of meditations for each bead of the rosary. And there are, of course, a staggering number of homilies and other works from Christian ministers, philosophers and saints addressing these readings as well. Taken together, just for the Catholic Church, I believe that there is sufficient basis for there to be at least one thousand articles dealing with such devotional topics. I do not know, having not checked and not being an expert, on how many such articles could be created for other Christian and non-Christian groups, based on their own traditions and works about them.

That does not however necessarily mean that they should each set of Sunday or daily mass readings qualify for their own article. Ot does it? I believe that this is a significant enough matter that it deserves some attention at the policy and guideline level, and would welcome any input at the talk page discussion listed above. Also, I believe it would be very reasonable if, one way or another, this matter were addressed at a policy or guideline level, to cloarify such matters when the Catholic devotional articles, and devotional articles of other religions, are created. And, yes, they will be created. I believe personally that, if these articles are found to merit inclusion in wikipedia, that there is no reason for similar articles on Christian devotions to exist, and will explicitly request the creation of same in a future edition of the Christianity WikiProject outreach newsletter, as I have no doubt that the similar articles on readings during the services of Catholic and other Christian groups are at least as notable and important to those groups as these readings are to Judaism. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * John nobody cares if you are Catholic just as I have never said what my affiliation is it just does not matter. And by the way, there is no limit to what WP can have on it's pages, just read up on WP:NOTPAPER. IZAK (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IZAK, I have read that page, and all the others too. Selectively pointing to one page which can be seen as supporting a view is however not particularly productive. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * John it seems that nothing I say will be acknowledged by you and you will always find a way to destroy my meaning. I am getting the strong feeling it is therefore pointless for me to respond to you because you have made up your mind and that's it. As for me, believe me, I have almost never touched the subject or content of the 54 parsha articles in the 7 years they were shaping up. Just recently I added some interconnecting links and streamlined their names to all read "____ (parsha)" as some did and some didn't have that format, and fixed up their talk pages that were missing important information about Keep votes, especially one that took place in 2008 Articles for deletion/non-notable bible-division articles that was evidently overlooked by Mann jess. I have many of my own objections to them that I have never pointed out, but I also see the value of this work and that most of it can and should and could be saved using all the extant policies and guidelines in WP. You see, I don't run to policy forums and admin discussion boards to solve writing and editing challenges, instead I stick to discussions on that topic, I do NOT try to move the goal posts by trying to persuade others to expand laws here. WP has TOO many policies already that stifle creativity and stop contributors from adding content. There should be a "policy" against making new policy unless for every new policy point that's adopted an older one that is basically archaic should be dropped. But that is another discussion. In the meantime I just see you fighting this tooth and nail and the losers will be WP and its readership. Not every topic can be "un-koshered" and forced to admit what is alien to itself. In any article, the subject should be described and explained in its own context first and foremost, afterwards can be found ways to insert opposing or alternate views, and I have never stopped that from being inserted either because in editing and writing I fully adhere to WP:NPOV despite what you may think I may be saying on discussion pages where open discussion is allowed and encouraged. IZAK (talk)
 * We probably need better guidelines. See, e.g., User:Bearian/Standards. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I remember, admittedly years ago, that there were various "wikis" devoted to individual religious faiths. Such locations would be great locations in my own eyes for material of this type, which is notable but perhaps rather clearly slanted toward particular religious traditions. I do note, admittedly somewhat unhappily, that those I remember have been much less active recently, but would certainly welcome their rejuvenation and, possibly, creation of some sort of interwiki links and maybe even some form of semi-formal integration of some into the Wikimedia Foundation "sister projects." But those wikis have been apparently almost totally inactive recently, and I can understand wanting to merge a lot of their content here. And, honestly, as one of the editors trying to promote that we have articles on pretty much every subject that specialist encyclopedia and reference sources have, including those on religious subjects, I think a lot of content that some might call "religious" in nature will eventually get articles here. But even if that were done, that would still leave questions here regarding articles of these types, including those which relate to interpretation of religious texts held by more than one religious group, but which themselves as articles treat only views or statements about them from the perspective of only one or a small number of those groups which hold it as a religiously significant text. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For WP, we are generally looking for notability coming from sources independent of the topic at hand. I have no doubt that within Catholic Church, one can find numerous sources published by the Church or those of its faith to back up these specific details of the religion. But if they're not looked at by outside scholars (such as theologians), that's probably not a good sign of independence.  To compare, many popular works of fiction have numerous source books, etc. that could be secondary sources for notability, but are not independent of the work (Please note: by no means does this mean to equate religion to fiction; I'm just using it for comparison on WP articles).  So by the same metric, if the Church's own works are really the only sources for these items, then the GNG is likely failed and we shouldn't have dedicated articles for these.  Now, that said, particularly for the Catholic Church which, I hope, most of its writings are far outside of copyright, you can talk about including that material at one of the sister projects, likely Wikiversity. Unlike fiction, the theological aspects of a religion would be completely acceptable there (as opposed to shuffling that off to something like a Wikia).  We can then provide appropriate linkage from relevant articles on WP to the WIkiversity aspects. --M ASEM  (t) 23:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I more or less tend to agree with the above myself. And I admit having not thought of Wikiversity in this context. The questions, then, I guess, become questions of how much notability these devotional subjects have to display as specific subjects in their own right, and I guess what the independent reliable sources discuss about them. So, if these readings, of the parsha or the Catholic liturgical calendar, or for that matter any other regularly scheduled religious readings, are mentioned more or less in passing in broader discussion of the general subject of the readings themselves as a broader subject, would they qualify for inclusion as a separate article? For the Catholic Church, or, for that matter, the Orthodox Churches, Judaism, and other religious groups, it is fairly obvious that they will be discussed in the broadest sense by independent reliable sources about those groups. Would that then be sufficient to create articles which deal significantly, or primarily, on the religious views themselves? Again noting, this discussion was initially prompted by extant articles relating to the weekly Torah portions. So, would the nature of the material discussed in the independent reliable sources also impact the nature of the content of the article, and, again, would potentially somewhat "generic" discussion of the parsha or the mass readings effect the nature of the content of the article or articles? I can imagine very easily that this would relate to articles about devotional readings in any number of contexts, and do think some sort of explicit statement which could be pointed to for guidance would be extremely useful. John Carter (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP is intended as a comprehensive encyclopedia. The devotional activities of the major religions of the world are significant topics that might well be of interest to people outside those groups also. It would not be unreasonable to find references to a particular section of a religious text as divided up in a particular religion--it might be found for example in reading any fiction about people of that religion. In this example, the large body of fictional literature in Yiddish and Hebrew that is found in English translation refers freely and pervasively to traditional Jewish ritual practices, which were assumed to be familiar to the originally intended readership--this is also true of fiction or other imaginative works set in traditional Catholic settings, and I assume elsewhere, though I have less knowledge. A general reader should be able to come here and find out what was intended. I for example am not familiar enough with the Jewish weekly readings to know the significance of a reference to them, and will need to look it up somewhere. Obviously a specialized encyclopedia will contain yet more detail and more specific orientation, and a book on the liturgy of a particular religion yet more so, but I do not have these at hand, while I do have Wikipedia.   Were I an Orthodox Jew, i would not need WP for this material, but I certainly appreciate those who do know it presenting it here for us in appropriate summary. It's not being included here to advocate that particular religious viewpoint, but to provide information about it. As for the manner of discussion, it must take account both of the context and the likely degree of familiarity with the context by readers here. It is well to make this explicit, but that's a minor matter of wording.  DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the question here is whether the article Chayei Sarah (parsha) contains much substantive information that isn't or couldn't be included in Book of Genesis (which is a fair deal shorter), or in an article about Genesis from a Jewsish persepective. If it does, then all well and good. Sure, WP is intended as a comprehensive encyclopaedia, but that doesn't mean we need separate articles for each chapter in the Harry Potter series, for example. Formerip (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Um Former, the Bible is not Harry Potter. Please read up on weekly Torah portion and Parashah and Torah reading to understand this topic well before comparing to Harry Potter. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, IZAK, he wasn't saying it was, and I have to question whether the above is perhaps some form of straw man argument for purely emotional purposes. As I already indicated, I think it is reasonable to look at all guidelines. I agree that a short-term fad like Potter is likely to be will not compare to even Mandaeism, which has been around for hundreds of years, even if in few numbers lately. But that does not mean that material which is notable specifically within that context, or any other, but perhaps reflective of a specific POV which is not held by others, is necessarily encyclopedic. Would it be asking too much of you to stop creating straw man arguments and civilly and responsibly deal with matters of substance? John Carter (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is one of the basic questions, yes, and I acknowledge the same question would apply to readings of the various Christian churches. There are, in general, any number of articles on individual stories in the Bible. So, taking it regarding the Catholic perspective, which I know best considering I was considering going to a seminary for some time, would the material relating to the individual readings of the Bible in the daily mass services, and the commentary on them in sermons and the like, best be included there, or in the main articles on those Biblical stories or portions? I acknowledge up front that with all the books of homilies I know I could easily create articles on at least every Sunday's Bible readings. But, honestly, most of that would also relate to the articles on the stories themselves. Most, but not all. This might particularly matter for masses in the names of particular saints, given that some of those readings are related to symbolism, specific language, and other minor matters which relate directly to the saint, but might be rather insignificant to the general content and meaning of the Biblical story or portion that the reading is taken from. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The parshas are not devotional. Jewish scholarship is as close as we can get to the bedrock of the Abrahamic religions. This is potentially of interest to any reader. Editors write about what they find interesting and what they feel that the reader will find interesting. John Carter is mentioning many potential topics for articles relating to Christianity, but is there editorial interest in writing about these topics, putting aside for the moment whether or not they meet our notability requirements? I'm thinking of John Carter's suggestion of articles on the "800 such subjects, given daily and separate Sunday readings in the 2 year cycle of readings" or the "series of meditations for each bead of the rosary". My point is that we have to bear in mind what people, including both editors and readers, might be interested in reading, and what can truly be contemplated as being beneficial in all ways. Devotional articles are not the sort of material that belongs in an encyclopedia. But the articles on the parshas are not promoting Judaism. They are long-standing products of Jewish scholarship, thus they pass notability requirements. If there are comparable topics for articles hailing from the Christian sphere or the Muslim sphere then by all means they should be written. I'm not understanding why enthusiasm and diligence is being opposed in this debate. There is no reason why Wikipedia should not have as a resource material that arguably is foundational material for 3 major religions. Bus stop (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We have to be careful about the idea of what people "might be interested in reading". We are an encyclopedia, meant to summarize information; we're not a casual reading stall but a research tool. This is by no means to preclude any religious information, but the level of detail I'm seeing in some of these - with respect to the limited amount of review and analysis - is a bit of a problem. Fortunately, since copyright's not an issue, the bulk of the "recap" aspects can be pushed to a sister project, and leave the basic encyclopedic details here with links to those.  A chapter-by-chapter breakdown of the events of the Bible, for example, is not appropriate on en.wiki, but a book-by-book overview is more acceptable. --M ASEM  (t) 04:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

OBJECTION: The above "sub-title" "Is wikipedia a devotional compendium" is offensive and demeaning because we all obviously know the answer and it's no! Have no fear, NO religious reader or scholar on Earth has any desire or wishes to take what WP says about any religion's topic seriously because by now it's all been mashed up and twisted and anyone who knows the first thing about their own religion will spot a mile away that WP itself IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE for ANYTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION it's just a mish-mash of wishful objections and counter-arguments that never allow the real subject the light of day to simply describe and explain what it's all about. So WP will not only continue to lose good editors in those fields but will also lose the respect of its readership because they will know what's obvious from wasteful discussions like this that when it comes to RELIGION WP violates it's own policies of WP:NOTMADEUP and WP:NOR by supporting yet more censorship of religion's own view of itself first, which can and should be done, and lets the attacks proceed as if that's the main thing. IZAK (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC) (Comment moved down from very top of section)
 * Masem, if articles need improvement, they can be improved. IZAK (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about improvement. Let's take a completely different field like math or hard sciences.  Those fields are so self-reflective on themselves in academia that yes, it is possible to write endless detail about various theories and concepts and the like, ad infinitum.  But what is encyclopedic is what is at the surface that the average person should be able to read and understand - not necessarily walk away with full comprehension of the topic but now armed with a bunch of references should they need more - that's what a tertiary source should do.  The same should apply to religious topics - we provide the overview that every reader - regardless if they are of that religion or not, can understand the fundamentals and have references to find more info, in this case off to Wikiversity as a likely location for details beyond the encyclopedic summary.  Such articles cannot be fixed by improvement because they start at a level of detail inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This is not saying that one can only coverage an entire religion in one page, but to recognize that when a topic has potential for ad infinitum coverage backed by other sources, we still need to be careful in how to appropriately cover the topic broad enough for an encyclopedia without overwhelming it.  Again, take the case of the Bible : I can easily see each book getting an article (and they probably do) but not by chapter and certainly not be verse but with the odd exceptions (eg John 3:16). More detail that goes beyond that can be provided at Wikiversity. --M ASEM  (t) 05:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Masem, you fail to see the problem here. It is not about "providing overviews" or how much or little "detail" to put into an article. Overviews can and should be given in introductions to articles. There are some articles that do that well and some that don't, and readers are free to choose what they want to read in any case, while editors cannot have proverbial guns held to their heads and told what to write as if in grade school when it's counter to what the subject is about. It is also not about what content to put into or leave out of those articles either. The current dispute has arisen because so far one user in particular i.e. User wishes to totally uproot the articles and impose HIS own POV perspective upon them under the guise of speaking "for WP" when that is not so (just see his ongoing objections, he just does not like the Bible and what it has to say). WP has tens of thousands of articles about the important texts of various religions, and NOT every article is obliged to self-immolate and commit suicide as it were by becoming a platform for a WP version of "ecumenism" and an exercise in comparative religion as if forcing editors to literally recant the beliefs of their religion and its texts. The equivalent would be if every religion editor would ask science editors asking them to recant their beliefs and views about evolution theory before commenting in any science article and insisting that religious counter-arguments and links to every opposing view be included in those articles. It would create havoc and certainly nothing would be learned by readers accessing WP about science that way. Islam-related articles are never butchered or attacked the way Judaism articles constantly are. See for example the 114 articles at List of suras in the Quran compared to the 54 articles listed on the weekly Torah portion page, and take a look at any of them and you will see that at no time does anyone have the audacity to attack the Suras of Islam the way Mann jess is head-on confronting the parsha articles of Judaism with outrageous demands that it include way-out content that those subjects do not convey in practice when they are chanted in synagogues or studied by Jews. There is no such "rule" that every article contain information and links that contradict it, because that would just be an exercise in absurdity and self-refutation. As sadly too many Judaic articles are forced to "renounce" their own beliefs in order to become a WP article. How crazy is that? Sure carry relevant related information, but not to the point that it not just counter-balance what is being said, but overthrow and bury it entirely expecting editors to commit a form intellectual hara kiri. There is plenty of room for more divergence in the articles about a subject that has been around for over 2,000+ years, they already offer POVs from the Reform to the Orthodox to the Hasidic, and welcome improvement, but to expect that they need an approval from the 20th century on every point is absurd and unreasonable. Just COMPARE the first ten articles about the Suras of Islam with the Parshas of Judaism, and will see that the Jewish parsha articles have more variances of interpretation, but within the context of the religion itself, just as the articles about the Suras of Islam. See: 1. Bereishit vs Al-Fatiha 2. Noach vs Al-Baqara 3. Lech-Lecha vs Al Imran 4. Vayeira vs. An-Nisa 5. Chayei Sarah vs Al-Ma'ida 6. Toledot vs Al-An'am 7. Vayetze vs Al-A'raf 8. Vayishlach vs Al-Anfal 9. Vayeshev vs At-Tawba 10. Miketz vs Yunus 11. Vayigash vs Hud 12. Vayechi vs Yusuf, and there are 54 parshas vs 114 suras, you will see that there is no reason to victimize the parsha articles while not applying the same attacks on the sura articles. IZAK (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just looked over the first of both lists, and just from that both have problems from the encyclopedic viewpoint - not that neither article should be deleted, but there's far far far too much information provided in the context of being a follower of that religion. We can and should cover fundamental elements of a religion, but we need to give that in a non-denomination approach, something that the bulk of both articles appear to fail to do. I will have more later, but I do agree that a focus only on one religion's texts while ignoring others is inappropriate. --M ASEM  (t) 13:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I believe what I saw above was not an attempt to point out what is the problem, but unfortunately just an attempt to obfuscate the real question. If multiple articles which are of at best dubious encyclopedic value exist, they are not really an indication that other such articles should exist. I believe WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies in that instance? John Carter (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * John, yet again, while User is displaying loads of WP:AGF during this debate, and I have no problem with hearing him out and debating him, as he's obviously open to hearing what is being said, you are stifling discussion by trying to push me into a proverbial corner that shuts off discussion, as if you have an outcome in mind and are just going through the motions til you can get your own way. It's not just about "Other Stuff" but rather the point is that when talking of a religion and dealing with its texts in particular one cannot chop it up and then claim that somehow "chopped meat = an animal" when it does not. The Sura articles, like the parsha articles, like many articles that are battling to convey how those religions learn and teach those texts in their own context first before offering up zillions of alternate views and objections, are intellectually honest and coherent. They are not striving to become schizophrenical information. That's the point, and not your attempt to obfuscate by projecting it onto me by saying that I am "obfuscating" -- I am not "obfuscating" I am pointing out a fact, that a regurgitated censored twisted view of a subject is not the subject. Go ahead insert all the junk that you want into articles, chop away and chop up, have it your way, it will not improve the articles and it will not gain WP credibility, neither secular nor religious will accept what's written. The secular readers will never be able to make heads or tales of it because of the contradictions and criticism while the religious will know it's all fabrications of creative WP editors who are obviously out of their depth in the subject and will pity them. IZAK (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I am very impressed that Chayei Sarah (parsha) was kept on the sole basis of WP:ITSUSEFUL. It clearly falls under WP:NOTGUIDE/WP:NOTHOWTO para 6 (annotated texts) and WP:NOTPLOT. Masem makes a very good point that articles about individual parshas and daily liturgies likely lack independent sources and probably fail GNG. Looking at Chayei Sarah I see no inline citations except when referencing the bible. Verifiability is a policy, not just a guideline. Without inline citations to verifiable third-party sources regarding the interpretation and notability of the parsha, all we are left with is original research, annotated text, and plot. None of these belong on wikipedia. I want to add that I disagree with Bearian, wikipedia has very good guidelines, they are just not enforced. WP:IINFO and WP:NOTEVERYTHING are clear guidelines that should be acknowledged and accepted when multiple WP:NOT headings apply or partially address an instance of a WP:BADIDEA. Instead they are always dismissed as some WP:VAGUEWAVE. There's just too much WP:Wikilawyering, WP:Sock puppetry, and WP:Canvassing to fight back against so long as AfD's are treated like votes and Keep is a forgone conclusion of non-consensus. --Joshuaism (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Joshua: Stop the accusations. You are accusing everyone involved in the discussions as violating some form of "crime" -- not a good argument. Yup, WP has very good policies, such as WP:NOTPAPER, WP:BEBOLD, and even guidelines like WP:IGNORE, and many "stars" and rewards for hard-working editors who should not be accused of "crimes against WP" when they have given their all in a provable WP:NPOV fashion as I have over many years, in their editing to its benefit as an encyclopedia. IZAK (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just noting that the above accusation is itself a rather serious and irrelevant accusation itself. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And ironic, Izak talks about accusations and yet makes blanket statements that editors are attacking articles. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to make one quick caution: the exact wording of NOTPLOT should never apply to religious text, though the concept of recapping every part of any type of work (fiction, non-fiction, whatever) is broadly covered under WP:NOT in the first place. There are other comments I'll make later, but I wanted to be clear on NOTPLOT. --M ASEM  (t) 04:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * While I agree that recapping every part of any type of work is broadly covered under WP:NOT, you will never see this argument accepted in an AfD. That's why NOTPLOT specifically addresses religious texts, "Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents." If you are suggesting that guides on how to write a plot summary should not apply to fiction and non-fiction works where WP:COPYVIO would not apply then I am very interested in what you have to say. Of course, I'm very eager to hear your opinion on this no matter what the case, but I wouldn't state that NOTPLOT doesn't apply to religious text when NOTPLOT specifically mentions religious text. --Joshuaism (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooops, my bad - I know that we had discussed adding that text but didn't think we had consensus a while back. If its there, then that's fine, my point is still that we don't cover religion texts in high detail. --M ASEM  (t) 13:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ho-hum, a discussion of making more rules, more guidelines, extending policies etc that will choke off more contributions and then people wonder why less good editors get involved. Soon WP will just preach to itself, not reflect anything but it's own ideas of the world, violate it's own ethos and spirit by allowing non expert editors who could care less about subjects they have never edited in make decisions to choke off and shut up the contributions of ongoing hard working editors. IZAK (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And is this the editor who cautioned others about making accusations against others above? LOL. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * John, the joke is on you because instead of conducting the talks within the framework of the parshas, you have now dragged the topic to this policy discussion page, and threaten to widen it even more it seems. Nothing I say are "threats" -- you can twist words any way you want -- there is a huge problem, that WP has made itself into a medium hostile to religion by de facto expecting editors in such fields to essentially recant what they have studied about religion. IZAK (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that Wikipedia has become a too much of a devotional compendium, but for all sorts of things not just religions. People make 'contributions' to it without considering the other even more useful part of an encyclopaedia, that it inform and educate people. It is too full of devotional offerings of facts and too little readability. It is almost religious how some people pursue completeness and accuracy in articles to the point of unreadability like some religious work listing every last variant of the name of their object of devotion. Perhaps we should refer to these hard working editors as wikiacolytes. Dmcq (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So should I say Support Wikipedia is a devotional compendium as reflecting reality or Oppose as I don't think it should? The policies say they are supposed to reflect generally accepted practice and I should religiously follow them shouldn't I? Dmcq (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This conversation has officially become confusing enough for me to start a religion based on it. Darryl from Mars (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - devotional compendium
Having had a chance to look more at articles in question, what these articles are tending towards is proselytizing, and not simply summarizing the works/lessons from a secular, academic aspect, and that is something that we should be avoiding on en.wiki. Some comments to show what is good and bad here: Just like with fiction works in that we work "out of universe" and describe the work as fiction as opposed to taking the POV from the characters' involved, our articles on any religious aspects have to be written and managed in a secular way. It is important to describe how certain parts of religious text set core beliefs (Eg you have to have the story of how Moses got the Ten Commandments as part of Christianity), but when it crosses the like from the whats and the whos, into the hows and whys, that becomes a problem for us. And of course, this has to be treated without bias across the board, regardless of religion; if it is the case the Jewish Torahs are being "attacked" while the same problems exist on any Bible or Qur'an work, or the like, that's a problem. --M ASEM (t) 16:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Book of Genesis is reasonable well done in that it summarizes the work, explaining its relevance to the religions that use it. It stays very secular in its approach.
 * Genesis creation narrative has some good sections ("Composition" and "Later reinterpretations"), but the section "Exegetical points" borders on several problems. There is some valuable material in that, but much of it is too far detailed for an encyclopedia.  While the text is not proselytizing, it is bordering on that, perhaps because so much detail is given.
 * Bereishit (parsha) is really bad, specifically the "Key words" section (why is this even necessary?) and the two interpretation sections, which appear simply to reiterate in detail the events of the work. This is written as if it was proselytizing. The last para of the second interpretation section, where it says what the heart has been described doing through the holy works, is way out of control. There are still parts of this article that should be kept - the summary, the Haftarah, the "in the liturgy" section, etc, but this is exactly the problem that I think people are identifying with here; it may be well sourced to third-parties, but it is a level far beyond what an encyclopedia should be providing, particularly one that should be taking a secular viewpoint.
 * Al-Fatiha lacks some sections that would be needed to bring it up at least an encyclopedic level but I doubt there's any problem in getting this. But it is the section like "Fazilats and Virtues of Sura Al-Fatiha". It's written, again, as proselytizing, and not as a secular description of the work.
 * Masem: This is the crux of the problem, that by over-turning and making the parsha articles "secular" they will no longer be about the parshas because there is NO such thing as a "secular parsha". Readers need to know how a parsha is used in every synagogue every week year in and year out for over 2,000 years and what that parsha is about that makes it so significant that Judaism takes it so seriously? Every week at the high point of the Shabbat services, the Torah scroll is taken out of the synagogue's arc in great ceremony, and then usually seven Jews are "called up" to the bima and a designated Torah reader known as a baal koreh reads the lieteral actual words of that parsha, sung to a specific melody. That is just part of it. The weekly rabbi's sermon is almost always based on that week's parsha, and their are usually many lectures given in congregations on it. Children of all ages and adults in yeshivas and schools are taught that week's weekly parsha as taught by Judaism. So don't you see how absurd it is to try to make WP's "parsha" into something that does not exist anywhere except in the imaginations of WP editors who dive in, thinking they are doing good, but in fact are destroying the subject more by turning something that should be explained in its own terms into a "secular Frankenstein" that will simply be ignored. No Religious scholar on Earth will approve of a "secular definition" as the final word. That should be obvious, otherwise we are just like the deaf arguing with the blind and going around in circles, as John Carter cites his life stories from Catholic school, and others want to make a religious subject into a subject of skepticism and negate it. That is not the job of an encyclopedia. There have been good neutral and scholarly encyclopedias that deal with Judaism topics such as the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Judaica and WP should try to emulate them in this case. IZAK (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 'Key words' section of Bereishit (parsha) is an example of the problem. Exactly how is this section encyclopedic? Is the average reader expected to look at that and learn something? And by the way, I've edited more Sura articles than Parsha (I did remove the key words section in one Parsha but it was restored). Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On the "Key Words" section specifically, that is pretty indiscriminate, trivial, and possibly original research. Chris857 (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On a (somewhat) related note, I have on a few occasions raised the point that we are inconsistent and unfair in our treatement of honorifics, titles, prefix names, postfix names, monastic names, etc for biographical article titles in the context of figures in differing belief systems. The intent of the MOS is to avoid them except at first mention in an article, with exceptions where unavoidable to comply with COMMONNAME. To my way of thinking, the best guideline on this is wp:PBUH, which (for Islamic clerics) essentially says not to do it, and provides examples. By creating different guidelines for different religions, however, we have dug ourselves into the swamp. Surely we would do better to agree on a common guideline, applicable to all faiths' clerics, leaders, saints, and what have you. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is excellent and so far as I'm concerned is the model we should be using for all faiths. And, as I interpret is as simply following our NPOV policy, I probably at times use it unconsciously in my edits. Why would we treat one religion different than another? In the outline for guidelines that are being developed for another religion I don't recall seeing anything similar. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Are all religions the same? Why should all "honorifics, titles, prefix names, postfix names, monastic names, etc for biographical article titles in the context of figures" be treated the same? Are all religions just a variation on a theme? I am being facetious of course. Certainly there are those that reject religion almost on principle. But religions are not all the same and our aim as an encyclopedia should be to elucidate the identity of each religion treated in an article, especially if that article is one focussed on one "religion". The term "religion" itself constitutes a characterization. In many cases characterization can and should be avoided. This can benefit the conveying of information actually useful to the reader rather than repeating the mantra the reader is probably too familiar with that basically implies that religion involves belief in something not provable by science and highly unlikely anyway. These "parsha" articles, by the way, are specifically "Jewish" articles. Neutral point of view in the context of "parsha" articles does not really involve Islam or Christianity as much as it involves "Reform Judaism" and "Conservative Judaism" and "Orthodox Judaism". It seems to me that the proper context is Judaism itself vis-a-vis our policy of WP:NPOV. Much criticism has claimed that an article such as this is WP:INUNIVERSE, especially on this talk page. I think that in some ways this sort of article should be "in universe". It should take as its primary context Judaism. The reader is not here to be told that all religions are alike except for the details. That is a message that I think inevitably would come across by the implementation of much of what some argue for on this and related Talk pages. I think that a good alternative would be to allow the article to concretely present the religion for what it is. That may mean allowing experts in that religion a bit of leeway to speak from the perspective of that religion. Are "honorifics" highly regarded in that body of thought or are they easily dispensed with? Whatever the answer may be, the reader deserves to be apprised of that, and I see little harm in following whatever guideline applies in the "universe" of the body of thought being written about. We can use sources if they are available to guide us in this. Or we can allow a bit of freedom to those with a familiarity with the body of thinking in question to decide whether in a given circumstance an "honorific" warrants use. In summation, questions can and should be raised but there is something to be said for deferring to experts. Isn't the average reader interested in hearing the specific points that experts feel should be articulated? Bus stop (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unlike most works of fiction, all major religions have volumes of theology works that cover the "primary source" (the Bible, the Torah, the Qur'an) to a great degree, and very detailed analysis of much of these is possible; in essence, we can support the idea of "in-universe" coverage of a religion. The problem is that there is a point where the in-universe coverage started to become less secular and more towards teaching the faith. As an encyclopedia, we need to stop as soon as the language is no longer secular, and that starts to preclude a portion of the theology works gears towards non-secular education.  Based on the articles I'm seeing, there's still a great deal of secular information to be presented, summarizing what theological experts have published already; we just have to be aware that it very easy to slip over the secular line - just as it is the case for fiction to inject too man fandom into the articles. For example, there is no reason that in an article about the Christian concept of God not list all the known honorifics that are given in the Bible and other literature; this is secular coverage. But using these honorifics in places where they are not otherwise mentioned in context is a problem.  --M ASEM  (t) 22:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Masem—you say "Based on the articles I'm seeing, there's still a great deal of secular information to be presented, summarizing what theological experts have published already…" Would it be possible to expand on that idea? Would it be possible to give an example of that? I am hearing you making reference to "secular information to be presented, summarizing what theological experts have published already". We are talking about articles such as this and this and this—are we not? Is there any "secular information…summarizing what theological experts have published already" that you are aware of and that you feel should be added? Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a good rule of thumb - actually, maybe just an application of WP:N - would be: how many RS books, TV documentaries etc have been made about this topic from a non-religious perspective? Formerip (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See my 4 examples given above. Please note I am not saying that none of those four articles should be deleted, but that the type of content some of them present are not appropriate for a secular work like WP. --M ASEM (t) 23:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to stay out of this discussion as much as possible, but have been following along. I was surprised to find one or two tenured editors disagreeing with my assertion that religious articles should not be written "in-universe" style. I'd like to understand that position better. By analogy, we don't write Intelligent design (a FA) in wikipedia's voice from the Discovery Institute's point of view. In a similar vein, in fiction and manga, we follow WP:INUNIVERSE and clearly attribute statements from the text, writing from an outside perspective. Why are these articles different? (Please note, I'm not trying to sidetrack the discussion. I understand there are other issues at play here too... but I'd like to understand this particular line of reasoning. Thanks.)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't be; what would be "in universe" for religious articles is to write them to teach the faith; "out of universe" would be to describe the importance of the religious elements in context of the religion in a secular manner, backing up statements with cited chapter and verse, of course, just as Jess outlines for fiction. --M ASEM (t) 00:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think there exists such a things ad "Secular information, concerning what theological experts have said already." Information about religion based on theology is religious information by religious experts. Other experts can be relevant to other aspects: psychological, sociological, historical. The relations of beliefs to outside circumstances can be discussed from many perspectives. What theology does is discuss it from a religious perspective. Most students of theology study their own religion, for it is primarily they who are likely to be interested. But this is not true exclusively: Catholic theology has been studied by Protestants, if only to know enough about it to dispute it.


 * Perhaps the intended meaning is that those who believe in a religion can not be unbiased about it; to the extent this is true  it is also true for those who do not believe in the religion. The same  is true about politics; it is true of any field where interpretation is needed. We therefore sometimes need to indicate the religious (or political) perspective of a particular expert, but this is often obvious.  Now, from the Orthodox Jewish perspective, the writing of anyone not an observant orthodox jew on Jewish law and jewish ritual is irrelevant, for they hold that the texts cannot be properly interpreted by anyone else. This is not the perspective of Wikipedia, or any other non-religious encyclopedia. I do not think the defenders of orthodox Judaism here are saying that WP should be otherwise; they know and say that the material in Wikipedia about Judaism is intended for the general public, not for Orthodox Jews.  .  DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * the statement that it matters "how many RS books, TV documentaries etc have been made about this topic from a non-religious perspective?" is about as logical as saying the importance of a political figure is how many major works have been written about him from a non-political perspective, or how much has been published about a musician from the POV of someone not interested in their music.


 * Nor do I think we should discuss religion is a "secular manner" -- it is perhaps a misunderstanding the secular means neutral--it does not, neutral means we consider all perspectives. "Secular" in a religious context normally means  concern for the non-religious aspects of something,  and how we can discuss religious beliefs without paying attention to their status as religious beliefs I do not know.     But I know it has been used as   code for "anti-religious" and, at this point, I'm inclined to come right out with it: such statements read to me as anti-religious prejudice.  I hope they were not intended as such. (If I am going to discuss the prejudice in discussions here, it is only fair to present my own. For anyone who may not know, I am not a believer in any form of the Jewish religion, but a person of Jewish background interested in the culture of my people. I   may not have said it before, but with respect to my own worldview I am  very definitely an atheist,  interested in both the Jewish and other religions in order to understand why people believe such things, and also from an intrinsic interest of studying complex logical systems.  To do this, I know I must first understand them on their own terms. Nobody need make such a statement of belief to participate in this or any discussion here, & I am not suggesting that others do so --I do it of my own choice in order to give perspective.)  DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is about the extent to which WP is aimed at a general readership, as opposed to providing material which is exclusively rooted in a particular belief system. So, you make a category error in your comparisons about politics and music. As an analogy, I would certainly say we should not feature an article about a political figure who had only ever been written about by her supporters.
 * What I would say is that if there is not substantial available material on a given topic which is aimed at a general readership - as opposed to being aimed at people with a specific worldview - then Wikipedia should not include an article on that topic. It should instead, where appropriate, use the sources in question to flesh out an article with a broader focus and meeting the "general readership" criterion. Formerip (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that it is possible to teach about a religion's core books and its beliefs in a secular manner - in a US state-funded college, I was in a advanced general reading course where the Bible was included among works like the Iliad, Dante's Inferno, and Shakespeare plays. It wasn't a religious class but we had to discuss the connectivity between the bible and religious beliefs, and from that, I know there are sources that are written in secular manner by theologians. I'm also sure there's historians that have taken a bent to try to match archaeological evidence with what these books describe in a very secular manner. It's not a hard style to write towards, as long as you don't try to inject the beliefs of your religion into the work. So I argue the sources are out there, we just have to be careful at selecting them and using them. --M ASEM  (t) 00:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (e-c) FWIW, I don't know of many if any editors I respect more than DGG, so at least to me is comments about a possible conflict on his part were unnecessary. The ultimate question here seems to me to be "importance" vs. "notability." I have always held myself with the belief that if something isn't notable in independent reliable sources, which would include most reference encyclopedias, they aren't notable. If it turns out I was wrong in that, then I do see more than sufficient basis for creating a godawful mess of articles from various religious perspectives, including views of the Bhagavad Gita and puranas from various notable "Hindu" perspectives. So far as I know, those articles don't exist yet either. The big question seems to me to be who decides what the "Jewish" perspective, or Catholic perspective, is? I've had discussions with Jayjg about that point before. I know many Catholic priests who have said I am just this side of outright heresy, but I consider myself Catholic, and I think my opinions are as "Catholic" as anyone else's. But, in that specific body, there is a clear official position which determines what is and is not "Catholic" according to the Catholic Church. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't in Judaism or some other religions. So, to an extent, any statements about the "Jewish" position, unless specifically sourced from independent RS's, could reasonably be considered POV pushing for the authors' own side. And, unfortunately, as has been said above, there isn't a lot of clear evidence that these particular articles have much independent, non-theological, encyclopedic content available on them. The same might be said for the mass Thomas Aquinas wrote. Despite having taken his name in confirmation, however, I have never sought to create an article on it, even though, honestly, I am sure I could get together an article which would meet WP:N for it. That seems to me to be the essential problem here. And it would hold for the articles on weekly mass readings which I have opposed when they have arisen. There seems to be little, if any, independent information on them. Basically, outside of the group in question, it seems no one knows and no one cares. I think it might make perfect sense to have Jewish views on Genesis and similar as separate articles, for instance, because I don't think they would be POV forks, rather a statement of religious views. But these articles about the parsha don't even so far as I can tell rise up to that level. They seem to be more like, well, crib notes for weekly sermons based on the mass readings. Those aren't encyclopedic articles. And, so far as I've seen, they aren't significantly discussed in independent reference sources, either. I've looked in a few. Neither, for that matter, are the individual mass readings. I can and do see some reason for them to perhaps qualify for Wikiversity or Wikibooks, but, without encyclopedic content, and I don't see any, I don't see how they qualify for articles here. I wish they did. I wish the mass readings did too. I just don't think they do.
 * Regarding what Masem said, yeah, there are academic philosophy of religion textbooks which do a great job of covering religion from an independent perspective, and I know of a few too. But, unfortunately, I don't know that they give any weight to the parsha either. Also, while I remember, I can and do think that, for instance, articles or series of articles on the Philosophy of Person X are more than justified, and have seen several such in reference books. In some cases, the material from the parsha articles might fit there. And I have no objections, FWIW, for maybe the Judaism Portal to link to a book or wikiversity site either. I'm thinking of maybe doing something similar with some of the Christian portals. So the material wouldn't necessarily be banished altogether, just, maybe, moved out from article space where, so far as I can see, they don't necessarily meet notability requirements. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

When I want information on cultures other than my own, while information from "independent" sources is of value, I'm primarily interested what that culture has to say. If possible, I want my information in as much depth as members of that culture enjoy (Wikipedia has long gone far beyond what traditional encyclopedias cover on most topics), preferring to stop reading when I want, not when some editor not involved in developing that area thinks I've seen enough. As for who speaks for a culture, there are sources considered mainstream in most cultures. Where there are multiple viewpoints that are notable (say Sunni and Shi'a), we should, of course, cover them all, with appropriate weight. We have the same problem in the sciences. The only cutoff in my opinion should be when there are not enough good editors to keep out OR and personal opinions. That does not seem to be a problem here.--agr (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a cutoff - we are a tertiary source, and meant to summarize information, not go in full depth. Some of these articles far exceed what is encyclopedic-ly acceptable. --M ASEM  (t) 01:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a cutoff, but we are nowhere near approaching it. I think any unbiased examination will show that our coverage of religion is disproportionately shallow superficial and inadequate as compared with many other subjects, such as sports or popular music. This is a bias caused by the interests of the people who choose to come and work here. The way to correct it is the same as all other cases of systematic bias--not to restrict our coverage of foootball, but to increase our coverage of religion.


 * Masem, You must be using the terms secular and non-religious to mean objective, or neutral, or impartial, which I think are much clearer expressions  I defy you to find me a source written about theology by a theologian or anyone else in a secular manner.  You can find sources written with a indifferent or non-commited approach to the theology involved, rather than  sympathetic to it or hostile, but they won't be secular. You can talk about religious education or architecture or music or even preaching in a secular manner, without particular consideration about what the purpose is--though it's a much richer discussion if you do understand that.  I  can listen to Bach chorales as I would abstract music without paying attention to the words as meaningful, or I can listen to the text also, and know the significance for him and his intended audience.
 * There are indeed historians who try to match events described in the Bible with the archaeologic evidence. I've read many of them. They are normally written from some sort of religious perspective, though a fair-minded historian will take care to present all views, and I think there have been some cases where the individual has changed their perspective in the course of studying the material. Some such books contain a general statement of whether the facts seem to prove or disprove the beliefs of the religion. This is valid historical interpretation, of the sort we can report, but not do ourselves. I thing it fairly obvious that it is this desire, not the accidental or random choice of topic, that brings about their interest in the subject. How else can one explain the enormous number of books concentrating on the formation of Christianity? (and there are in fact discussions of this effect, at great length and detail. The early excavations in Palestine were specifically intended to find evidences for the historicity of the Bible in an increasingly non-religious age. Some later ones have had political motives.) What one does in studying, or in writing here, is to read them all, with an appropriately skeptical attitude towards any particular position   and an awareness of potential bias.
 * You write " The issue is about the extent to which WP is aimed at a general readership, as opposed to providing material ... exclusively rooted in a particular belief system." That's not the issue. The objective of Wikipedia is to write for a general readership about the particular belief system, to enable the reader to understand those whose views are rooted in that system. Just the same as if we wrote about the Tea Party. "if there is not substantial available material on a given topic which is aimed at a general readership - as opposed to being aimed at people with a specific worldview -" is not the criterion. You will find very little written about a sport music aimed at people who do not care about it. You will find some general discussions aimed at people who do not yet understand it, but even there almost everything will be written by people who do care about it. We use sources about sports aimed at sports fans to show notability. We use sources aimed at those following politics of a particular country to discuss that subject. Almost all our sources on scientific articles are aimed at people who know something about the science. There was indeed a view about 5 years ago when I joined, that sources used to show notability needed to be general magazines or newspapers. That makes for a very much abridged encyclopedia. If you use stricter rules for the sourcing on religious subjects than elsewhere, the effect if not the purpose is to avoid covering the subject, which I consider anti-religious prejudice that has no place in Wikipedia. To the extent I share that prejudice, I do what I can to avoid expressing it. I think those of the Wikipedians who are orthodox Jews writing on the subject at issue are mostly doing it to explain their beliefs, not to propagate them, any more than those working on any other issue.    I think some people working on some aspects of Judaism  have done so out of scarcely concealed anti-semitism, and I know we have deleted articles on that basis--though my position has usually been that we should rewrite them.  I know that some of the people previously working on Mormon of Jehovah's Witnesses or TM subjects have done so deliberately to promote or attack those beliefs, and I think arb com has successfully rid us of them.
 * the work itself is the best source for the plot of a fiction. To determine if a novel is worth writing about we accept reviews from specialized sources if we think them reasonably selective. The text of the Bible is the best source for what is said there. Both need interpretation, which cannot be OR, but an attempt to write it understandably is not OR.  DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that for myself, I'm not arguing for deletion of these topics. As noted, with some 19+ centuries of study, it's not a question of the importance of these elements towards human history and thus their inclusion here.  The problem that we need to focus on is the content of these articles, such as in Bereishit (parsha) the sections on "In early nonrabbinic interpretation", and "In classical rabbinic interpretation".  These are not sections designed or written for the general reader or even a student of theology, and edge on proselytizing. There might be a small amount of the details in this section appropriate for inclusion, but not in that form. The rest of the article is in generally fine shape, so it's not a notability issue, but, effectively WP:UNDUE. --M ASEM  (t) 04:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2 - devotional compendium
I would point out that the articles in question are summaries. There is quite a lot more written about these subjects, about 19 centuries worth. My big dead-tree dictionary defines "encyclopedic" as "comprehending a wide variety of information, comprehensive." And that's what we are on any number of subjects of far less cultural significance. (I won't mention the P-word). --agr (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Masem—you say "It's not a hard style to write towards, as long as you don't try to inject the beliefs of your religion into the work." John Carter brought this discussion here from the Chayei Sarah article's Talk page. Prior to that page this discussion took place at the Articles for deletion/Noach (parsha) page. You are saying that "It's not a hard style to write towards , as long as you don't try to inject the beliefs of your religion into the work". What I fail to see is where the beliefs of Judaism get injected into the articles on the weekly Torah portions. Can you show me examples of articles covering these weekly Torah portions that get "preachy", engage in proselytizing, or in other ways inject Jewish beliefs into such articles? I've been hearing about this but I don't think I've seen any concrete and specific examples. Bus stop (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The "In  Interpretation" sections of the various parsha pages that have come up. They are not written in an encyclopedic manner but instead in the style of a devote follower of the belief system.  --M ASEM  (t) 04:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you narrow your argument down to a sentence that you feel exemplifies the problem as you see it, and provide your own commentary supporting your charges? Bus stop (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because its not limited to a sentence, it these entire sections that are a problem. But to point to a specific example, the first paragraph of Bereishit (parsha) is written from the faith's point of view, and not an encyclopedic one; the details are based on how one would teach the work to students of the faith, and not from a hands-off encyclopedic POV. This is not just this one paragraph but throughout the entire section.  Now, its not that the information in general is bad: reading just that paragraph, details like "the Torah does not implore its followers to consider what existed before the creation of the world", which is a secular, factual detail from this teaching. But the approach, written as an "in-universe" non-secular language, is the problem.  --M ASEM  (t) 05:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Masem, see my comments above about the context of how parshas function in synagogues and Judaism. Parshas are part and parcel of Judaism. A parsha is a segment of Judaism's Written Torah and as such it is read VERBATIM in synagogues, and subsequently studied and taught, making the wording you are saying impossible. Thus by inserting your wording, readers would WRONGLY assume that Judaism and its texts reads and studies things that do not make any sense, are illogical, absurd, and are self-contradictory, making them look foolish and primitive. A way has to be found to allow the subject to speak in its own voice as part of describing and explaining what it does in its own terms FIRST, then go on to other views and contexts. What use would it be to describe a fish in terms of a land animal? That it does not have fur and does not walk on the Earth? Secular definitions and terms do not have the tools and means to communicate all the teachings and meanings of religious texts, especially if the first thing the secular "teacher" wants to do is to walk in and declare that what we are about to study is incorrect and unacceptable, but what can we do, it seems to be important, so let's take a look. This will not be what the religion says or wants to communicate but someone else's POV and invention that has no life except in the secular writer's mind. IZAK (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, look at the specific case of Bereishit (parsha). We do start summarizing the actual primary work in the Summary section, and here, I see no problem as appropriate encyclopedic context, but that's the actual written Torah, not how its taught. Now we get to the interpretation sections which, as it seems, are detailed studies of this specific parsha, but are written in such a convoluted, non-secular, non-encyclopedic manner to harm understanding of the material save to those that are Jewish. The fact that I just did a web search and found this nice and quick summary of the importance of this parsha to the Jewish faith (no claim if its reliable) means that the lessons of the parsha can be concisely summarized from the verbatim method that is taught in the faith.
 * Now remember, we're talking about the coverage on en.wikipedia. When you start talking about things verbatim, particularly those way out of copyright, we have other projects better suits to include the full details that can be linked to from en.wiki pages (yes, even the Torah is there at WikiSource). So no, that information doesn't have to be lost, just moved to the appropriate sister project, with general reader-appropriate summaries left in place. --M ASEM (t) 12:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Izak, you seem to be saying that primacy should go to "what the religion says or wants to communicate" as expressed by the religion itself, but I don't think this fits well with a global encyclopedia read by people of many (and wildly) differing faiths. The primary message of any religion is "this is what you should believe" and the next message is "this is how you should worship". Neither of those can be told in Wikipedia's voice - since we are made up of people of so many different belief systems, we must perforce write in the style of none. Franamax (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Basically, what some seem to think of as "the logic" of that argument is, ultimately, not logical for this site. As per policies and guidelines, we try to avoid having any articles written clearly and exclusively from an insider viewpoint. This Wikimedia Foundation entity is an encyclopedia, as per one of the five pillars. That means we try to present everything from a neutral viewpoint. Having articles which seem to be not sufficiently discussed anywhere outside of the religion to get together enough information for such an article is problematic. Other Wikimedia Foundation sites can and do contain such information, and I think this material would probably fit in very well in one or more of them, and could probably be developed even beyond its current state here. But there are matters of policy and guidelines involved here, and I think that they pretty much by definition have to take priority over any religious groups' internal views. And, because matters of policy and guidelines are involved, even if those policies and guidelines have not been specifically applied before in matters of this type, I have to say it is very reasonable to have such a broader input as can be gotten here. John Carter (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at Category:Doctrines and teachings of Jesus, which contains some 238 articles, including its four subcategories (one has a separate article for every Parable). From my sampling, they seem to all be written from a Christian perspective and have lots of material on interpretation, along with verbatim quotes as needed, which is exactly how it should be. I want to read what mainstream Christian Theologians would say about these subjects, not some watered down "encyclopedic" viewpoint.--agr (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are actually fine (the ones I spot-checked anyway). When it gets to the interpretation, it is presented in a secular manner by people both of the faith and not of the faith, using more recent works than the New Testament itself to show this. It is written with an encyclopedic audience in mind. My argument is that the parshas (or any other religious book) can also have interpretation sections that read in a similar manner without proselytizing. --M ASEM (t) 13:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Masem—you say "Now we get to the interpretation sections which, as it seems, are detailed studies of this specific parsha, but are written in such a convoluted, non-secular, non-encyclopedic manner to harm understanding of the material save to those that are Jewish." Can you give an example of a sentence or some sentences that embody this problem that you are referring to? Would you just quote the problematic sentence? Find one of the most egregious sentences, or several of the most egregious sentences, and paste them onto this discussion page, and then explain what it is about that sentence or those sentences that you find problematic. If you see what you are calling "proselytizing", by all means point that out with an enhanced degree of specificity. Bus stop (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * again, the first paragraph of "Genesis chapter 1" under Bereishit:
 * Rabbi Jonah taught in the name of Rabbi Levi that the world was created with a letter bet (the first letter in Genesis 1:1, which begins בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, bereishit bara Elohim, “In the beginning God created”) because just as the letter bet is closed at the sides but open in front, so one is not permitted to investigate what is above and what is below, what is before and what is behind. Similarly, Bar Kappara reinterpreted the words of Deuteronomy 4:32 to say, “ask not of the days past, which were before you, since the day that God created man upon the earth,” teaching that one may speculate from the day that days were created, but one should not speculate on what was before that. And one may investigate from one end of heaven to the other, but one should not investigate what was before this world. (Genesis Rabbah 1:10.) Both Rabbi Johanan and Resh Lakish compared this to a human king who instructed his servants to build a great palace upon a dunghill. They built it for him. Thereafter, the king did not wish to hear mention of the dunghill. (Babylonian Talmud Chagigah 16a.) Similarly, the Mishnah taught that one should not teach about the Creation to more than one student. (Mishnah Chagigah 2:1; Babylonian Talmud Chagigah 11b.)
 * This is a highly detailed, non-secular analysis of the text of the Torah/parsha. It is appropriate for the teachings of the faith itself, but not for an encyclopedia as it is far too details and aimed towards emphasizing the tenets of the faith, and not towards an outside comprehension. A key problem sentence (that is a problem throughout these) is the "Both Rabbi Johanan and..." simile - that's a common element of religious teachings to set religious concepts in terms of something understandable int he world, but absolutely not for an encyclopedia. The prime fact that is still encyclopedic is that the parsha does set out that those of the Jewish faith should not question what happened before Creaction, and that should be kept.  --M ASEM  (t) 14:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The text in question is actually a couple of short quote from ancient sources (~1700 years old), Genesis Rabbah and the Babylonian Talmud. They give a flavor of traditional interpretations, andy are comparable to, say quoting Hadith in articles about Islam. And what you call the "prime fact" is not a fact at all. Genesis Rabbah is not a source of leal opinions, as out article on the subject states. In my opinion, this is a good example why is better to have article written from a religion's perspective rather than summaries containg the conclusions of Wikippedia editors about what is important and what stuff means.--agr (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, as not one of the Jewish faith, I would never be so bold as to try to even condense down that material to what I see it saying. But the fact that you're telling me that what I'm reading and taking away as the primary message is wrong (a fact I do accept), tells me that this language is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. If that paragraph makes sense only to those of the faith, that's a major major problem; we write to a not-quite-so-lowest common denominator (eg roughly a high school education). I can appreciate that the teachings of the Torah are presented/written in this style; as a former Lutheran, I know what Bible study companion books are like, and they have similar voice and style.  But that's not appropriate for including on WP; the OP title of this section about "devotional compendium" is pretty much spot on the problem here, because it only serves those of the faith.  These articles should be putting the parsha in a broader context of the faith - what elements are instrumental to the faith's beliefs, etc?  Now, I would really really hope that, just as there are for the Bible from Christianity, that there are Jewish writers and academics that have written about the importance of each of the parshas to the faith in a secular manner - in other words, they know the religion and they know the respect that should be taken (as should we as Wikipedia editors), but are able to see it in a more discriminate, less faith-based light as to be able to talk about it from a higher level that we can use.  That still gives us the religious perspective, just one that is better suited for use in a broad, secular tertiary work like WP. --M ASEM  (t) 21:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Masem—you say that the "prime fact that is still encyclopedic is that the parsha does set out that those of the Jewish faith should not question what happened before Creaction". Do you have a source for that? Bus stop (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because that is what I take away from said paragraph as it is written; that is how I understand what the intent of that paragraph is. I have no idea if that is correct; Agr above suggests that's actually wrong, meaning that the way that paragraph is written is in dire shape if I (And that means anyone else not of the faith) comes to that conclusion. --M ASEM  (t) 22:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to back Masem on this, strongly. I've been reading for a few days now, but this last bit leaves me gobsmacked - "one should not speculate on what was before that" seems pretty clear but turns out to be totally wrong.(?) How am I (non-Jewish) to make sense of the article? Now admittedly, the very next paragraph has another rabbinic commentary speculating on what was before Creation, but what is the overall message? How can I, as an independent reader and thinker, gain some understanding of the practice of the Jewish religion without having to actually convert to the religion? And the article goes on and on in the same vein. It is not describing the teaching, it is delivering the teaching. And even then, I'm obviously getting it wrong. I'm not a stupid person, I should be able to read this article and tell you its essence - but I can't! Franamax (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Masem—twice you have made the same assertion. Now you are saying "I have no idea if that is correct."


 * In one post you say "the Torah does not implore its followers to consider what existed before the creation of the world."


 * In another post you say "the prime fact that is still encyclopedic is that the parsha does set out that those of the Jewish faith should not question what happened before Creaction."


 * If you "have no idea if that is correct" then why are you repeating it two times, in close succession, on this discussion page? Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, I think you're misreading Masem's comments. You might want to go back and reread them. AFAICT, he paraphrased from the article to discuss some of the content he thought was problematic. Then, editors more familiar with the subject said he had misread the article, because what he had paraphrased was not true to Jewish teaching. So, Masim suggested that, if that's true, then the article has an additional problem, in that it is incomprehensible to someone outside of the Jewish faith. He is not saying what he paraphrased was true; he's suggesting that it's written poorly and may imply something that isn't true, and that poor writing is indicative of the rest of the article too.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, Bus stop, can you respond to my question above (here)? It was directed partially at you, because that's an argument you made just above. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Jess. And please note - I'm trying to see how to improve these sections, I don't think elimination is necessary, but they cannot be presented in the style and manner as given if it leads the layperson to miss the point completely. (And certainly in no way suggesting article deletion).  Recognizing this, we can write something into NOT that we aren't a devotional compendium, just like we aren't a study guide or the Cliffs notes for non-religious works. --M ASEM  (t) 03:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Mann jess, something can be "in-universe" and unproblematic. When we read, for instance, "God directed Noah to make an ark of gopher wood and cover it with pitch inside and outside" we are not believing that God actually directed Noah to do anything of the sort. The reader is more than capable of keeping in mind that "The parshah tells the stories of the Flood and Noah’s Ark" because the article's lead alerts the reader to the likelihood that this may not be true. In reality we do not write "in-universe" or "out of universe". We employ common sense to make it clear at all times that we are reading about an old literary tradition that tells a story with its own unique character. That character would be lost if with every other sentence we posted a disclaimer that "this is not true". Instead we post unobtrusive alerts here and there to the effect that this is just a (likely fictional) story. For instance we read "The Torah writes that Noah was a righteous man…" at the beginning of the paragraph in which we read "God directed Noah to make an ark of gopher wood…" The wording "The Torah writes…" is more than sufficient to alert the average reader that what follows is likely fiction. We do not have to repeat this very often. A paragraph can begin: "Seven days before the Flood, God told Noah to go into the Ark with his household, and to take seven pairs of every clean animal and every bird, and one pair of every other animal, to keep their species alive". No reader is confusing this type of statement with literary fact. Bus stop (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have stressed (maybe not enough) that sections like Bereishit (parsha) is perfectly fine for Wikipedia - its clear its the summary of the primary source, and it is told reasonably well from secular persepctive (specifically, not putting weight on the implications of any statement made). Its the next level of synthesis given in the Interpretation sections that needs to be dealt with. --M ASEM  (t) 06:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I see what it is that's tickling Masem as a problem with the previous paragraph, cited earlier in this discussion. Essentially, it's that it makes a (very brief) disclaimer of being "in universe", but then goes on to describe "out of universe" effects ("therefore, one should not do this, or this, or question this, or think this, or..."), without any qualification that this would only be the case iff the in-universe piece were true. It just needs some toning down, and essentially to not be written or treated as though mythology would have any real-world effects. We would not put "According to ancient Greek mythology..." once in an article, and then go on to describe in essentially a "factual" tone how Odysseus killed the cyclops and what we should take from that in our real lives. Essentially, we just need to follow writing about fiction as much with mythology as any other type of it. With modern mythology, especially among the highly popular ones, that may be especially controversial, but it'll also be especially important. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And therein (I think) lies the rub. When it comes to religion, the devout are scandalized at the thought that their belief system could be compared to Greek mythology or modern F&SF worlds. Religious systems have deep meanings to their believers, so it would behoove those of us not of those beliefs to refrain from comparing them to Transformers or Pokemon. I have the vague thought that our encyclopedic intrusion on reality should be cast in different terms in religion articles. Franamax (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There is an ancient Greek context for the article. The prevailing "scientific" view at the time was that of Aristotle, who rejects the very idea of a creation. The quotations from talmudic era texts can be seen as a direct response to the Aristotle's anti-creation arguments and make much more sense in that light. I've seen that argument made with regard to another Jewish commentary on Gen. 1:1 (Rashi's). The point is that there is plenty of notable material from reliable sources on these topics and they should not be excluded as a mater of policy. Discussions of just what should be in these articles belongs on their talk pages, or maybe a project page, but not here.--agr (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, technically, the means to improve the existing language in these articles should be discussed individually on their talk pages, but this convo has highlighted that there is a persistent problem that a subset of these articles on the core works for these religions present a portion of their information as a "devotional compendium", which is just not appropriate for WP (but potentially acceptable on a sister project). It's a style and tone issue. It's something that needs to be addressed here in NOT to avoid this type of language. Aspects like the Aristrotle counterargument is good to include, but it needs to be absolutely clear and told as a matter-of-fact. Eg (not necessarily right or the best wording but the intent being there) "Teachings of the Creation from the Bereishit were constructed to counter the prevailing theories of Aristotle that claimed there was no Creation."  We're including that information, but in a hands-off approach. --M ASEM  (t) 13:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That was exactly my point as well. Not that we shouldn't include such things at all, just that we must give them due weight and attribute them appropriately, rather than stating them as fact. I see absolutely nothing wrong with saying "Theologian John Foo interpreted $TEACHING to indicate that ..." or, even, if a prevailing consensus can be sourced and substantiated, "There is a wide consensus among religious scholars of $RELIGION that $TEACHING means ...". It's just a question of not stating it like a fact. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There is one point I would like some input on, and I want everyone to know up front that this is not intended in any way shape or form as an impugning of Judaism or any other faith. Honestly, so far as I can tell, like the weekly Bible readings in the Catholic mass, combined with the sermon thereafter, these readings seem to be a form of packaging of what might be called, in other contexts, biblical criticism of a sort, or, possibly, something equivalent to perhaps the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I personally have no doubt whatsoever that we can and perhaps should have material somewhere in the Foundation that presents the various views of the various faiths in depth. However, for just about any faith, presenting it in a reasonable manner at reasonable length is probably beyond the ability of an encyclopedia. I tend to think this would require more length than any single article should have. So, I would be interested in knowing how much of the material and what kind of material the rest of you think is really required for encyclopedic description as per an encyclopedia, and how much might perhaps be better presented in a longer form discussion in one of the other WF entities. This would be useful not only for these articles, but also for articles on Biblical readings in Christian religious services, and in several cases readings of other religious texts of other faiths during their services. And, in general, this will also relate to how much content we should have on individual religious texts. I know that there are several widely different interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita among those groups which hold it as a sacred text. That being the case, what do you all think would be the best way to present the necessary encyclopedic material on that subject, as per those various interpretations, and how and where would that material best be placed, possibly including other WF entities? This would be useful to have some guidance for in terms of all faith traditions. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's two separate issues here.
 * The first issue is the amount of information. What we have here a case where not only is there plenty of source information to work from, but perhaps too much source information, simply because we're talking about some of mankind's oldest and most read works. That said, en.wiki is a tertiary source. Obviously, we're going to cover religion, the works of these religions, and in most cases, the impact and importance of the various parts of these religious texts on the faiths involved. (Eg the cruxificition of Jesus plays a huge roll in the basis of any Christianity-derived faith).  But we have to recognize that while we could keep dividing and conquering topics narrower and narrower with the volume of sources available, covering to that level of a degree moves us very far from the concept of a tertiary source.  I've been pointed out that we actually have articles on singular verses from the Bible (eg Genesis 1:2), and while I will assuredly say some do stand out as more important than just the text they say (eg Genesis 1:1, John 3:16), 99% of the verses in the Bible are just that, verses that are composed to a larger story.  I'm sure that you can take a random verse, and spend time, and find theological scholarly analysis of that verse, but again, we've dissected the problem so far that we no longer are a tertiary source. So one aspect here is to simply keep in mind what is undue weight of coverage. Religions is a critically important topic for mankind, but as a tertiary source, we're limited to what degree we cover it. That doesn't mean that there's not other WMF projects that can take up the slack for us: Wikisource already has full copies of all the major religious text (often in multiple translations), and something like Wikiversity would be a good place to discuss the meanings of individual verses, and even perhaps the means of how to understand the verses as related to the faith directly.
 * The second aspect is simply the style factor that we've been talking about above - how things like the articles on the parshas are written. No one here I think is saying we should delete the parsha articles, but we certainly need to be careful of the language used, to make it "out of universe" and less preachy and written for the general non-denominational reader. --M ASEM  (t) 19:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing that might be useful in determining what subjects should get separate articles here is what subjects get separate articles in other highly-regarded reference works. Over at the Christianity WikiProject some time ago, History2007 said that he thought any subject which was the topic of multiple, basically meaning two, significant articles in other extant academic-type reference works, like encyclopedia, would reasonably also have a separate article here. This seems to me a good rule of thumb, provided we take into account variant titles and the like. On a somewhat related point, I have earlier this week gone through the JSTOR database and e-mailed myself the citations and articles, where possible, they have which are specific individual reviews of encyclopedia-type sources. There wind up being several thousand of the reviews, probably of several thousand works. I would be more than willing to e-mail them all to anyone who sent me an e-mail with their address and a request. But I haven't yet broken them down into subject-specific groups. If topics like these have separate articles, or significant subarticles, in multiple reference, I would think they might, taking into account other factors, probably deserve separate articles here as well. Having reviewed the large but not comprehensive range of reference sources available to me here, though, these parsha readings don't have such multiple entries. But, if anyone would want to go through the list for the purpose of getting together a list of relevant encyclopedias for their WikiProjects or groups, feel free to drop me an e-mail. I have started working on the list for philosophy/religion, at User:John Carter/Religion reference, but would definitely welcome assistance for specific topics if anyone wanted to offer it. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Source texts in the public domain are welcome at Wikisource. It already has, for instance two translations of the Bhagavad Gita, several versions of the Bible, the Qur'an, in varying degrees of completeness. Outside of the Wikimedia Foundation, there are also many versions freely available at the Open Library and Project Gutenberg. I'm actually a little bit puzzled why anyone thinks we need additional places for soft-copy renderings of the same sources. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What we're talking more about is long-form doctrinal interpretations of various types. I don't think we have to look outside our current projects for that either, though&mdash;that'd be perfect for a liturgical/theological studies series at Wikiversity and/or Wikibooks. And of course, the verbatim interpretations from theologians etc., provided they're out of copyright, would certainly be a good fit at Wikisource as well. Wikipedia, as always, should have an encyclopedic overview of such topics, rather than an exhaustive listing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal
It seems to me that a lot of the disagreement comes down to minor details and, really, semantics. A lot of editors seem to support the idea as a whole, and we've discussed adding some wording to NOT to make that clear. If we were to add wording, what would it be? Just spitballing an idea to get things rolling... "Wikipedia is not a devotional compendium. Articles on religious topics should be written from an encyclopedic standpoint, summarizing the religious views in a neutral and understandable way to a reader outside of the religion. Articles should not be written in a way to teach or promote the religion to its adherents." Are there any objections to something along those lines? Thanks. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I largely agree, but let me take my own stab: "Wikipedia is not a devotional guide. While Wikipedia contains articles on religion, it is required that these articles be written from the perspective of a non-adherent of the religion, and be notable outside of it. Wikipedia articles should not promote or treat as true any religious belief." Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Very strong oppose to Seraphimblade's rewrite. The suggestion that an article be written from the perspective of a non-adherent is a blatant contradiction to NPOV, just as much as if it had read that an article be written from the perspective of an adherent." I am amazed at such a suggestion. I am   equally amazed at the suggestion that the topic be notable outside the religion--this is not the case for any other field in Wikipedia.  This is outright prejudicial treatment, which would result in a  strong negative bias to Wikipedia content.
 * "Opppose as unnecessary even Jess's proposal. That an article be understandable to a person outside the religion is already part of our standard practice for any article, and that it not be written to teach the religion to its adherents or promote it to its non-adherents (which I suppose is what was intended) is also a basic rule, for religion or any other topic. To emphasise that it applies to articles on religion is to give them undue importance.   DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed to avoid the language "from the perspective of non-adherents", since that necessitates exclusion of the faith's view. The language that jess provides ("neutral and understandable to a non-adherent") is fine.
 * We do need something, however. I can point to the sections above for the various parsha and say "I know this isn't encyclopedic", but I can't easily point to any policy that says its wrong even thhough there's agreement that it is wrong. When something is supposed to be a standard practice and yet over a wide range of articles there's a problem, that practice isn't being seen as applied to those articles, and so we need to add something.  This is not to narrow out religion however.  A "devotional compendium" is, for all purposes, a study guide for the faith.  We don't allow study guides (at least, as called out under "Textbooks and annotated texts", so it would be completely reasonable to add "devotional compendiums" in the same list, as to show no favoritism towards non-relgious topics. --M ASEM  (t) 18:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrasing is a problem. I can and do to an extent agree with DGG's objection to the phrasing "it is required that these articles be written from the perspective of a non-adherent of the religion", because that at least strongly implies POV, which is specifically that of a non-adherent. For any belief, including atheism, there will be more than one viewpoint from a non-adherent, so that doesn't really help that much. I might change the phrasing from "religion" to "belief system," which would include religion, atheism, strongly held political viewpoints (like communism, for instance), certain beliefs about subjects included as pseudoscience in various places (UFOs, Jungian psychology, ESP, certain conspiracy theories, etc.) certain fringe theories relating to race and gender, and so on. While not necessarily officially described as "religious," many of these beliefs are for all practical purposes non-different from religious belief. Masem's proposal above looks good to me, but I might maybe expand it to these other "secular faiths," if the language to do so could be arrived at. John Carter (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that "belief systems" is the better phrase. But unlike fringe science and pseudoscience, where there is an objective and widely accepted criterion to distinguish them from actual science, and therefore a reasonable basis for differential treatment as prescribed by arb com, there is not any basis for discriminating between belief systems, except by the number of their adherents & possibly the degree of their devotion. Belief systems include even a wider spectrum than you have listed: it would include political and economic systems like democracy  or free enterprise, concepts like free speech or freedom of contract, philosophies like stoicism, and broad approaches to the world such as  that of the  scientific method. For example, some of us here are every bit as firmly and dogmatically committed to freedom of expression as any Soviet-era communist was to communism or the Pope to Catholicism. We might be prepared to hear objections to it, but would be quite confident we could definitively refute them & that nothing we could foresee would shake our belief in them. All of these need writing about objectively. All of these need to be discussed as if they were not intuitively obvious, not entirely from the standpoint of a believer. The general principle of NPOV deals with all of this.  DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as I have recently argued at ArbCom, even freedom of religion and expression would be essentially nondifferent from a form of religious belief, but is still one I personally support. I have seen one reference book recently, a paperback The Watkins Dictionary of Religions and Secular Faiths, which I haven't read through very thoroughly but specifically does include communism that I remember. That's why I mentioned that one in particular. I'm not sure how highly regarded academically that work is, or if there are any similar works, but I tend to think that any proposal here should include pretty much at least everything it discusses, and, maybe, more. And I agree it is true that most of this should qualify under NPOV, at least implicitly. But the fact that something is implicit to many doesn't mean that it is implicit to all, and that seems particularly true of beliefs of a "faith" type. This might include such things as some kinds of belief in genetic superiority by race or gender, which isn't necessarily directly supported by science, but may not be obviously explicitly contradicted by it, and is something that many people of all kinds have some rather devout belief in. Sometimes, like with the Nation of Islam, that becomes directly religious, but oftentimes it is just thought of as "common knowledge." So, while most of us would agree this should be covered by NPOV, at the same time, considering that many people including at least some editors aren't themselves necessarily particularly capable of NPOV on certain matters, I don't see an objection to spelling it out clearly somewhere, if appropriate phrasing could be found. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, moving forward with that input... Wikipedia is not a devotional compendium. Articles discussing a belief system should be written from an encyclopedic standpoint, summarizing the belief in a neutral and understandable way to every reader. Articles should not be written to promote the belief, or as a study guide for its adherents. Do we have any objections to something along those lines? &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No language should be added to policy. Community opinion among editors is unanimous that Wikipedia should not be a "devotional compendium".


 * There is no need to put into policy, language that is already universally practiced at Wikipedia. This thread has as its origin this thread and the discussion found on this article's Talk page. Masem seems to feel these articles proselytize, . and John Carter seems to feel that these articles are "devotional". In my opinion these opinions are farfetched. What is called for is a documenting of charges. That should be demonstrated by means of quoting excerpts and concretely articulating the referred-to problems. Little attempt has been made to do that. A case has to be presented showing where these "parsha" articles exhibit the problems attributed to them. Masem argues in this post that "It is appropriate for the teachings of the faith itself, but not for an encyclopedia as it is far too details and aimed towards emphasizing the tenets of the faith, and not towards an outside comprehension." This is incorrect. There are no "tenets of the faith" being promoted or basically even being alluded to. These are Wikipedia articles equally of interest to any reader.


 * No language should be added to policy concerning so-called "devotional" articles. Such articles would be deleted as part of presently prevailing community sensibilities. Bus stop (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No one has talked about deletion of these articles, nor do I expect adding this will cause any such articles to be deleted. I think we all agree that we should have articles on each of the books of the Bible, the parshas, etc. It is the content of these articles that must not be made into devotional compendiums. And its clear that consensus is that some of these, like the parshas, are written inappropriately for Wikipedia because they are based on teaching the faith, not summarizing it.  --M ASEM  (t) 16:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Masem—consensus is in fact that these articles are largely written in an appropriate style. The Talk page of Chayei Sarah is not an AfD. But these arguments overlap. "Parsha" articles should not be moved off main encyclopedia space. Editor resistance to challenges to these articles has inexorably spilled over into this—a policy page. If you can't convince a consensus of editors of the validity of your opinions at article Talk pages, it would be improper for you to impose your will upon articles by means of altering policy to support your opinion. Bus stop (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The consensus above says they are not written in an appropriate style. You are twisting the discussion the wrong way.  We are saying these articles are fine as topics on WP, but should be discussed in an encyclopedic manner, not as they are presently written.  (I know this discussion started with the suggestion of deletion but I will stand behind the fact that regardless of how these are written, we should have articles about them, but we cannot leave them in the state they are presented at the time being). (And note, I never participated in the individual article talk pages.  The issue was brought here when no resolution could be made on the talk page, per appropriate at dispute resolution. As it has been shown to be a wiki-wide problem, we need to discuss it as a policy change. --M ASEM  (t) 16:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Masem—deleting and unrecognizably changing are virtually the same. Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you believe that, you probably don't want to be editing a public wiki where "unrecognizable changes" happen all the time to articles. --M ASEM (t) 17:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Alterations that render an article unrecognizable are similar to deletion in some cases. For instance above you suggest, "These articles should be putting the parsha in a broader context of the faith - what elements are instrumental to the faith's beliefs, etc?" If such an article could even be written, it would be an entirely different article. Bus stop (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But that is not deletion and if you believe that is the case, you shouldn't be working on an open wiki where this is acceptable practice. --M ASEM (t) 18:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Masem—you made a suggestion that "These articles should be putting the parsha in a broader context of the faith - what elements are instrumental to the faith's beliefs". How would that be implemented? Can you give me any concrete examples? If you are just blue-sky thinking that is one thing. But this isn't the same as a practical suggestion. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Small examples have already been given above at your request. But as a counterpoint, a functionally equivalent topic, Book of Genesis is written perfectly well, covering the context of the religious text, its likely history, and its importance to the faith - it treats the reader as non-denominational, which the current parshas do not. --M ASEM  (t) 19:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Masem—as I think you probably know, the Book of Genesis article is not an article on a "parsha". It happens to pertain equally to Christians as to Jews. You say favorably of the "Book of Genesis" article that it "treats the reader as non-denominational". I would agree that "non-denominational" is an ideal but sometimes it is not applicable. The "Book of Genesis" article happens to say:


 * "For Jews and Christians alike, the theological importance of Genesis centers on the covenants linking God to his Chosen People and the people to the Promised Land. Christianity has interpreted Genesis as the prefiguration of certain cardinal Christian beliefs, primarily the need for salvation (the hope or assurance of all Christians) and the redemptive act of Christ on the Cross as the fulfillment of covenant promises as the Son of God."


 * The 54 "parsha" articles cannot say anything of the sort because the Weekly Torah portion is a Jewish practice but I don't believe it is a Christian practice. The 54 "parsha" articles are listed in a Table. Christianity doesn't happen to be mentioned in most of those 54 articles. But does that make them "denominational"? No—it just means that each of those articles only pertain to Judaism. Are they less comprehensible to non-Jews than Jews? I don't think so. I think the arcane language is provided for flavor and authenticity, but I could be mistaken about that. You are welcome to go to those articles and fine-tune them. But be aware that the commentary on the Torah portions at these articles is centuries old. In many instances the commentary consists of multiple interpretations of minute and seemingly insignificant passages in the Torah by several commentators perhaps separated by centuries and continents. Getting back to the core charges: how are the 54 weekly "parsha" articles found in this table "devotional"? Bus stop (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As soon as you treat the reader as denominational, you have broken NPOV. "Flavor and authenticity" from writing style has no place in an encyclopedia for general readers. The important point I use with the Book of Genesis is that it is one section of the religion's book of faith, just as any of the parshas are. They thus should have roughly similar types of content and presentation of that content (irregardless of the specific content itself).  The Book of Genesis is an excellent example of proper encyclopedic written. The parsha articles can be improved to meet that.
 * The devotional aspects have been spelled out already but again:
 * They present their beliefs as fact, when it should be stating that is it is fact that these beliefs are part of the faith. As an encyclopedia we step back and don't assuming any faith is more right than any other, and thus simply say that this is a tenet of the faith.
 * They use second person ("you"), or use the generic "one" in how one should uphold their faith per the religious text. In light of the first point, it's okay to say that "According to faith X, one should do Y every day", but we shouldn't be saying, plainly "One should do Y every day".
 * It uses a lot of metaphore and simile. I know this is part of what a lot of Christianity devotional guides turn to to make the Bible's scriptures relevant to the average person, but again, that has no place in an encyclopedia. --M ASEM (t) 12:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have requested input on this proposal at the geopolitical, ethnic, and religious diputes noticeboard and at the village pump for policy. With any luck, we might be seeing responses shortly. If there is not a clear consensus from such discussion, of course, it would always be possible to also file a request for comments as per WP:RFC. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There seems to be no actual proposal structure to this discussion anywhere, but I just want to put in that I strongly oppose expanding WP:NOT on the basis of this issue. Clearly the parsha articles have extensive issues, but they're just standard article issues, almost certainly with no bearing on article existence (it seems laughable to me to think that the parshas fail the GNG), and there is no need to amend core policy to address anything about the situation, especially since the proposed amendment seems prescriptive rather than descriptive in nature and is outright being proposed so as to push for a particular outcome in an extant content dispute. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I came here from John Carter's notice at the geopolitical noticeboard, and I've only read parts of the above discussion. I see absolutely no need to add a new part to WP:NOT to address these kinds of issues, and I agree with Chaos5023. I would rather let the existing notability guidelines and the normal editorial processes decide when to have individual articles on religious matters. Trying to establish anything here will only lead to endless arguments – as they seem already to have done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps its the confusion of what started this discussion but what we're at now is not the question whether we need guidance on the inclusion of articles on religious factors, but what the appropriate approach to content is of those articles, which is definitely, should their be guidance, covered in NOT since we have similar guidance for fiction and for scientific/academic works. That it, no one is suggesting a policy change to lead to deletion of articles, but that some classes of these articles need to have sections rewritten to meet encyclopedic standards. --M ASEM  (t) 19:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, I'd say the same thing about how the content should be dealt with, as I said about inclusion or deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The parsha articles are involved, but, at least theoretically, so are articles about the theological views of other churches/religious bodies on their liturgical readings, potential multiple spinout articles on, for instance, the unique interpretations of other religious sources, like for instance the Bhagavad Gira, as already mentioned, possibly/probably multiple articles on devotions to Our Lady of Czestochowa and numerous other religious figures and icons, untold numbers of articles on meditations on the Christian rosary, and many others. As someone who has regular access to one of the best religion libraries in the world, I have seen huge numbers of works of devotional literature on any number of topics, which could presumably spawn hundreds if not thousands of such articles. Many, if not most, of them are, basically, "repackaging" of material which might also be located elsewhere. How and when to spinout such articles, and what material to be included in the spinout articles, if they are created, seems to me to be something that we definitely could use some form of guidance on. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I attempted to make such revisions, whereby it downsized the article to about half its size with a focus only on the Judaism material (See: Noach (Parsha) New layout). But... then it was shot down by User:IZAK (See: Noach (Parsha) reverted). My point is, there isn't going to be a good compromise here because of the changes required. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  19:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I very strongly believe certain editors in wikipedia are clearly unwilling or unable to compromise on topics which they consider of significant religious importance to themselves. We could, of course, take certain problematic editors to ArbCom, to perhaps have sanctions levelled based on conduct issues, but I do honestly think we would be much better served if we had some guidelines or policies in place to prevent such editor warring by longterm POV pushers. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) John, you fail to realize there is a clear distinction between a freewheeling and frank WP:AGF discussion on a talk page and actual strict editing of articles that MUST adhere to all WP policies about content, insertion of content and manner of insertion of content.
 * 2) I object to your implied allegations. In my close to ten years as a WP editor I pride myself in NO violations of neither WP:NPOV nor of WP:EDITWARRING in articles.
 * 3) Please point to examples where you feel I have violated WP policy in ARTICLES and I will be glad to correct or explain myself.
 * 4) It is you that is constantly trying to twist this ongoing debate from a discussion about WP:CONTENT and looking for an excuse to make it into a "WP:CONDUCT" story by not taking me and others who oppose your POV seriously and by degrading everything I have to say.
 * 5) And by the way, STOP saying that when I use quotation marks ("inverted commas") it means I am "quoting" someone when I am NOT, as an expert in the English language you should well know that the use of quotation marks is ALSO OFTEN used to indicate that an expression is not literal or real but is meant to be understood as a metaphor or something similar.
 * 6) In addition, you have yet to explain how in 2008 you voted a "Weak Keep" at Articles for deletion/non-notable bible-division articles (that had all the parshas plus similar Christian texts together), while at the recent Articles for deletion/Noach (parsha) (that only had the parshas) you voted Delete. Could it be that your were more generous about Keeping because it effected Christian content? You see accusations of "POV" can be leveled both ways.
 * 7) As I have stated, you should withdraw from this discussion and in fact should never have initiated it at this, or any, policy discussion page because you are in violation of WP:INVOLVED. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IZAK, I urge you and some others in the strongest possible way to perhaps familiarize yourself with WP:TPG. Several comments on this page have I believe been rather clearly not in close adherence to them, and continued violation of conduct guidelines can and in several cases does lead to editors seeking some sort of disciplinary sanctions against those who violate them. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting us nowhere! This bickering has to stop. We are deviating from topic. Let's propose something that we can work with, better than insulting each other. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  13:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the objections raised above concerning quotation marks. The use of quotes here by IZAK is not something I approve of. I understand why the quotation marks were used but I am not accepting of the element of ambiguity introduced by the use of the quotation marks in that instance. I think that Jess was moving hastily to establish wording for insertion into policy, but there wasn't a literal "motion to close off this debate" That is where the problem arises. We should always be 100% clear upon first reading whether or not we are reading the exact words spoken by another editor. Bus stop (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose the various proposals here. Aside from the fact that "devotional compendium" is not well defined, Seraphimblade's "written from the perspective of a non-adherent of the religion" is just as non-neutral as "written from the perspective of an adherent of the religion". "Teach or promote the religion to its adherents" is also problematic - after all, one one level, at least, the job of an encyclopedia is to "teach" a religion, just as it is to teach everything else. I'm note sure what "as a study guide for its adherents" means, but I'm not convinced it's bad, either. StAnselm (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Further comment: This policy already makes it clear that Wikipedia is not for religious propaganda - that statement seems to be enough for me. StAnselm (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding user 's comments above, i.e. "I have requested input on this proposal at the geopolitical, ethnic, and religious diputes noticeboard and at the village pump for policy. With any luck, we might be seeing responses shortly. If there is not a clear consensus from such discussion, of course, it would always be possible to also file a request for comments as per WP:RFC. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)" Consequently my response on his talk page was that: Now that you are arbitrarily globalizing this debate when you don't get your way, first by taking the discussion from Talk:Chayei Sarah to the WP:NOT forum and now expanding and taking it even further by bringing it to WP:CCN and WP:VPP, threatening to go as far as WP:RFC to waste even more time in these discussions that have consistently NOT gone your way. Your moves are obvious violations of WP:POINT and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and one wonders how far you will go just to get your way... At any rate, now that you have done this, for the sake of fairness as you should have done, I have notified four major religion Wiki Projects (Christianity; Islam; Hindusim; Buddhism) and four major secular Wiki Projects (Atheism; Science; Philosophy; History) so that hopefully they can be treated equally and draw equal responses from concerned Wikipedians in a WP:NPOV fashion. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What John did is completely allowed per standard dispute resolution. If he believed that the problem was larger than one page, and affected a large subset of WP, asking at a global talk page is right in line. The selection of boards he put the notice to this on is completely reasonable without bias, though you're free to point it out to more as long as it doesn't fall into WP:CANVASS. --M ASEM (t) 13:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Some fuel for the fire
OK, so here I am, an Anglican, and I find that in the USA there are three different lectionaries Anglican churches use (the ECUSA 1928 and 1979 lectionaries, and the RCL), and the Catholics use a different one which I believe has been changed a number of times over the years, and so forth for the other churches which use a reading cycle. Maybe, in the interest of neutrality, it would make sense to have an article on each pericope of scripture, discussing its interpretation from various perspectives. And such articles could also list where the passage appeared in various reading cycles. The articles discussed here, though, fairly invite writing Pentecost 22 Year C (Revised Common Lectionary reading) and therefore Pentecost 22 Year C (Catholic lectionary reading) and so forth, and there is the potential for a lot of neutrality issues as people try to control the interpretations that appear in each article. Indeed, it's an open invitation for content forking, and I would note that there's already an issue in these articles in spelling out how all the different Jewish traditions deal with each passage. Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Mangoe—you say "…there's already an issue in these articles in spelling out how all the different Jewish traditions deal with each passage." Can you provide an example? Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Noting how there are seemingly continuous comments which seemingly only serve to raise questions which may not in all cases be relevant and not directly really adding to the conversation, I wholeheartedly agree with Mangoe that, if one set of articles on liturgical readings should exist, similar groups of articles for every other group which has regularly scheduled liturgical readings should exist as well. This would include non-Christian religions, and, presumably, all the variations within Christian religions. I think that the various Eastern Catholic churches might have different readings from the main Latin-rite Catholic services, and, of course, there are the various sets of liturgical readings done on a more or less national level as well in Catholicism, for individuals of history in a country or area. And, of course, there are all the different Anglican churches, Lutheran churches, and other churches in the world, many if not most of whom would have their own individual readings. In fact, this concern was one of my primary reasons for raising this matter in the first place. If one exists, presumably, all should exist. If we believe that they would be a form of POV fork, then, presumably, none should exist, except where perhaps they have specific individual notability. I again note that Thomas Aquinas wrote one mass. In all honesty, we could probably write a separate article on Thomas Aquinas' laundry list, given the amount of material on him. But articles of that type, which are works of individual authors, would probably be written like other book articles, which they basically are. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing to consider is how far do we need to go down in detail here. The fact there exists a reading cycle shared by a closely-related faith systems is important and we should have an article that explains how that works (I can't tell if we do or not); that article should be summarizing how that cycle came about, etc. etc.  Now the next question becomes, how much in depth to each specific reading do we go, and this is where we have to use judgement and not just rote following of WP policy. I don't know what that level, but I suspect it can't go very deep before we pass the level of UNDUE coverage.  We don't need the specifics of each reading, but just the overview of the readings, unless of course there are secondary sources that go into further detail.  I would also definitely argue that we don't need separate articles for each reading per sub-divisions of a faith.  It's very doubtful that if they are all of Christianity, that there would exist so many differences as to necessitate separate articles. Instead, such differences (if notable) should be covered in a singular article about the reading. To the non-denomination reader, that gives the most value, to understand how the passage given is considered differently by different sub-groups of the same faith. --M ASEM  (t) 15:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Masem—do you hold the opinion that Christianity and Judaism are "different sub-groups of the same faith"? Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely no. When I'm talking sub-groups, I'm saying the sub-grouping like the various Particular Churches under Catholicism; all their core beliefs are primarily the same, give or take a few differences; as I'm reading above, they would likely share the same cycle of reading series, but their message may be subtly different depending on the Church.  In contrast, while the Bible is part of the basis for both Christianity and Judaism, their methods of teaching are far far different and don't share the same type of cycle, so you'd not be able to compare anything that way. --M ASEM  (t) 16:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this conversation fixes the 54 parsha articles, when there is a consensus to keep those pages, with obviously, their leading titles. It seems that whatever is being proposed here is deviating way off into other realms.
 * What I'm ascertaining by the ideas above, is either:
 * Moving each parsha into a general reading cycle, where all of Judaism and Christian reading cycle POVs can be sub-categoried (Problem with this is, not all reading cycles cover the same areas of reading)
 * Keeping the leading titles of each Parsha, and where applicable include the Christian POV reading cycle alternative (which again, may not match)
 * Keep the Parshas as is with no inclusion of Christian POV in the article... but then to create new Christian reading cycle articles of their own.
 * All in all, this seems ridiculously too much work for any one editor to manage. Only a group of editors in the same line of thinking could pull something like this off... and where any of us stand, no one here is in agreement enough or likemindedness to accomplish what appears to be suggested.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  19:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think what you're suggesting follows. The Parshas are specifically a Jewish practice, and while parts of what literature it uses overlaps with the Christian Bible, trying to squeeze those two subjects together is nearly impossible. The Parshas should be covered strictly as a work of the Jewish faith, and the individual parshas discussed on individual articles, noting possible differences in interpretation and teaching based on the different Jewish movements.  Similarly, the Catholic reading cycles would be broken down in some way, and where noted, differences between the various Churches of Catholicism.
 * When we want to compare religions that are broadly different (compared to the Judaism Movements or Catholic Churches), the likely two places that will happen will be first in articles about religions themselves if they are from the same common history (eg Lutheranism vs Catholicism); the second place will be likely in where there are common but divergent themes, such as that of the Genesis creation narrative. But keep in mind: such comparisons need to be backed by secondary sources otherwise its original research. --M ASEM (t) 20:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So far as I can see, there is a clear and obvious encyclopedic way to deal with what Maseum says above. I have gathered together a list of the extant articles in the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which can be found at User:John Carter/Religion articles. It apparently has several articles that more or less relate to the topic of the weekly Torah reasons, and I believe that there are probably similar articles for similar liturgical readings for other faiths. Even if there aren't, however, those articles could serve as a pattern for such material from other religious groups. They include Biblical exegesis (Jewish views), Jewish domestic observances (similar Christian article could cover several related topics as well), Jewish religious year (such articles could include a list of the readings for each week, or day, for groups with a setup like the Catholic liturgical year, and Jewish worship and devotional life (several similar articles for other faiths and for religion in general). So, it might perhaps be the case that some of the content might conceivably be removed while other is expanded upon following that setup, for Judaism and other faiths, I do tend to think that articles of that sort of structure could easily cover the inherently encyclopedic material related to all such topics, and they could get further expansion as wanted and as people are willing to work on them elsewhere in the Wikimedia Foundation sites. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, you don't always need to have a separate breakout article for each; redirects to sections in larger articles allow for searching on these without creating trivially small articles for "minor" religions, furthermore not every religion will have the same equivalent types of practices (eg Salah is rather unique to Islam). That said, identifying this structure should be left to the Religion Wikiproject to determine how to organize articles to cover roughly equivalent topics in the same manner across all religions. --M ASEM (t) 20:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wholehearted agreement with Masem that, for instance Biblical exegesis (Raëlian views) and suchlike are clearly minor at best, and will almost certainly not produce enough for a single dedicated article, or possibly even enough for a decent lead section. And, even in the case of the Encyclopedia of Religion above, some of the articles, I think primarily biographical, are rather short. There are other encyclopedias as well, and in some cases we might find that other perhaps more focused reference works provide enough unique and detailed information to have enough content for a separate article. But I do think that we will almost certainly do very well if we follow the lead of the most highly regarded reference works in the appropriate fields regarding which articles to have, and, by extension, where to place content. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * John Carter—I don't see Wikipedia as being limited to the content of other encyclopedias. Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No one else does, either. But that is not even the real question. The questions to date are about the notability of the subjects unto themselves, and the content in them. And, honestly, if no one can find any encyclopedic sources for this material, and I myself have not hyet, which is remarkable in itself, there are perhaps serious questions regarding these articles. The fact that they are so important according to some, and that that importance was the reason the articles were kept, but they have not received any substantial encyclopedic coverage that I have yet found to indicate that, indicates to me rather clearly that other encyclopedias have found these topics as themselves to have rather limited encyclopedic value. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record: A large chunk of this discussion was automatically filed by a bot to: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 42. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Advertising: "Can be merged" or "should be merged"
I reverted this edit by Unscintillating, which changed "should be merged" to "can be merged" in the section on advertising and promotion. The rest of the paragraph, to my reading, is describing an article which is only a product announcement and nothing more, and it is saying that until we have encyclopedic content to flesh out an article, we should move it to a larger topic which has other encyclopedic content already. This seems reasonable to me. I can't think of an instance where we'd want a promotional advert without any encyclopedic content... except maybe for very extreme cases where we could IAR. Is there an example I'm missing? Thanks! &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nor do I agree with the edit. If we're agreed that the situation concerns 1) content that doesn't currently meet inclusion criteria, and 2) there is a valid merge/redirect target, then that situation should result in redirection or merging to the appropriate target per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw the edit, but the fact that the sentence ends in "if applicable" is already weakening the "should", and per MOSCOW, makes it a "could"/"can". I don't see it as a problem given that. --M ASEM (t) 18:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the problem is bigger than the fix I introduced. The "if applicable" refers to the existence of a merge target, not the appropriateness of the product-announcement content.  As it stands, the merger requirement is a refutation of the first sentence, "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors."  If we are required to merge all stand-alone product announcements to larger topics when they exist, how is Wikipedia not a collection of product announcements?  The merger requirement is at odds with WP:DUE, and guarantees that editors can add product announcements to articles.  FYI, this issue arose from WP:Articles for deletion/Neon Alley, which has related discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Unscintillating (I AFDed the Neon Alley article he mentions).  I think that if the "if applicable" clause is going to mean anything (and I can't tell what it is intended to mean from the way the sentence is worded), it's got to mean that the advertising and promotional material should be merged if it's encyclopedic.  I would go farther than Unscintillating here and substitute "may be merged if encyclopedic" for "should be merged" and drop the confusing "if applicable" altogether.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's stretching to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist... and actually misreading policy. If there's a RS'ed product announcement for e.g. a new smartphone model, that can certainly stand a one-sentence mention in the earlier model or the manufacturer's article. Besides, DUE requires coverage in proportion to RS coverage, so if anything is RS'ed, then excluding it from a relevant article would itself be UNDUE.  Note that press releases, as primary and non-independent sources, are not RSes and don't trigger this: it has to be e.g. industry coverage. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "so if anything is RS'ed, then excluding it from a relevant article would itself be UNDUE." - thats a bit of a stretched interpretation for blanket application to all content in all articles. Theres lots of junks that is mentioned in more than one reliable source that would still be UNDUE to add to articles. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting viewpoint, and probably not too uncommon, but unsupported by the relevant policy: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Was it published by an RS?  Must be included in proportion to its prominence.  Mind you, that's probably not what UNDUE was intended to be, but that's the way the current wording would directly apply. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * keyword: significant. just because a viewpoint exists and has appeared once or even several times does not make it significant. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that we are dealing with multiple issues. After the statement in bold, the next two sentences refer to stand-alone articles, and the last sentence is a part of content policy.  Jclemens viewpoint would have it that we don't even need the paragraph.  I may be new to Wikipedia, but I think the point of this section is that Wikipedia editors have found that product announcements are universally useless, with a few notable exceptions, as material to be included in the encyclopedia.  As I stated at the AfD, such material is inherently both ephemeral and promotional.  Product announcements are routinely posted in trade magazines, this doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs such material.  We don't have to guess about the future, we can wait for it.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, I'm sure you know this, but I want to make sure your reply isn't misunderstood. Due weight can be zero. If we have reliable sources to support a viewpoint, that doesn't necessarily compel coverage, because the prominence of the viewpoint may be so minimal that its mention would be undue. This is true for some fringe topics, as one example.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Due weight is zero if there are zero RS coverages for a matter--such as if there were only primary/self-published/promotional sources for a product announcement. If there is one RS for a matter, the DUE weight is nonzero. DUE/UNDUE is really a shortcut for "put things in articles in proportion to their RS coverage", which is why my answer hinges on the RS coverage, not on the promotional aspect of the addition. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a view circling around that William Lane Craig is an "apologist for genocide". ( Guardian (primary, original claim) Oxfordstudent (secondary), Alternet (primary & secondary) ) Where should this view go? William Lane Craig or genocide, or perhaps Richard Dawkins or Alternet? I don't think there's any doubt these sources are reliable for the claim that Dawkins (and others) have presented this view, so are we required to cover it?


 * BLP issues aside, tons of articles get printed in scholarly journals all the time (like that a particular drug treatment is effective at curing a particular condition), which don't deserve mention here, because their significance in the literature is so minimal. We have this issue all the time in controversial subjects, such as religion, politics, and alt med. Verifiability and due weight are different things. We don't have to deem the source unreliable to determine it isn't significant, and if its relative significance is zero, then WP:Due indicates its weight should be zero. "Significant" is the key word here. Not every publication in an RS is significant, nor every view presented in a significant publication.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Significance is measured by relative frequency of appearance in RS'es, not subjective editor viewpoints. RS prevalence == significance. It's really as simple as that. Jclemens (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Craig/Dawkins matter above, I think maybe BLP takes priority there. One of the big problems we have is the fact that some subjects are written about so regularly that even basically trivial material regarding other subjects qualifies as notable for them. I cringe to think of all the articles about Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, or, for that matter, Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson which we could have around here. Thankfully, some of the material regarding the latter two is also addressed by BLP, but, so far as I can tell, at least theoretically, maybe we could/should have perhaps hundreds of articles on those individuals. In a lot of cases, the encyclopedic content isn't much ("Tom went on a cruise with his then-wife on days x-y" effectively summarizes several articles I know of regarding one such cruise, for instance), but for others, yeah, the real possibility of spinout, even regarding some really loony-toons crazy ideas, is a real possibility. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens, I didn't say anything was based on "subjective editor viewpoints"; I said that the significance of a source (and viewpoint) matters. Above, you seemed to say that if a viewpoint is printed in a RS even once, then we are required to cover it somewhere. That's not true. There are viewpoints expressed in multiple reliable sources that we don't publish. WP:UNDUE uses the word "significant" explicitly, and in no way implies that the 'relative prominence' must be nonzero. The distinction matters in this context only due to your responses to others above, with which I would otherwise agree. This part of NOT isn't going to force our hand to add content which would otherwise violate our policies.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Required to cover it? Eh... If there's coverage, it should be covered appropriately, because RS coverage, not subjective editor opinion, is the yardstick to measure significance.  (Not saying that you said it was, but others may misunderstand) That may mean in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, vs in Barack Obama, but we're not talking about that.  We're talking about a *product announcement* which has been picked up *in reliable sources*.  DUE is not a policy to exclude information from the encyclopedia, because it only applies to RS coverage in the first place.  It speaks to proportionality, which means within the constellation of articles on a topic, not just within the primary topic article. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Back to why we are here, product announcements are universally useless as encyclopedic material. They are inherently ephemeral and promotional.  They do not support stand alone articles; and because they are part of what Wikipedia is not, they are not included amongst the set of reliable sources to be weighed for WP:DUE.  What gets included is when the product announcement is itself notable or prominent.  Wikipedia is not a trade magazine.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. DUE is based on the prevalence of an issue within RS'es--all RS'es.  You're advocating that NOT eliminates RS from consideration, which is completely against all of UNDUE. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you are the expert, why are you advocating that we can eliminate WP:NOT and simply look at RS? Just what does WP:NOT eliminate if not RS?  Back to product announcements, do you have an example of a product announcement that is either notable or prominent on Wikipedia?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here we have a reliable source talking about a wonderful little lawn party held by Miss Beatrice Rosen in New London CT on June 29. As there is sourcing that exists, we MUST include it in the article on New London and June 29 - and not to do so would be in violation of UNDUE. Absurd. The appropriate weight of this sourced content is zero as is frequently the case. Just cause its sourced, doesnt mean it belongs in an article. --  The Red Pen of Doom  17:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree--hence, NOT#DIARY, not WP:DUE. Jclemens (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens... I was going to let this be, but you seem to be arguing contradictory points. With RedPen and me, you're saying that all RSes must be covered, except in cases where the coverage would violate another policy (like NOT). With Unscintillating, you're saying that NOT cannot override coverage from a RS. I don't know how both can be true. This contradiction would seem to vanish if you agreed that some reliable sources sometimes cover insignificant details that are precluded by WP:DUE, which would allow us to weight them with some of our other policies in mind. I can't help but think you agree with us on that point, but that we're using different language to talk past each other.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you read how the differing aspects of NOT are worded? Allow me to quote (with my emphasis) "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."  Thus, the direction in NOT is to merge, not suppress per DUE, so NOT is never triggered unless the entire article becaomes a "collection of product announcements and rumors."  Contrast that to "A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person."  This aligns entirely well with our other policies and guidelines like WP:NEVENT.  NOT is only there to exclude content that would otherwise pass all our content guidelines BUT lead to unencyclopedic results. It's not contradictory at all, although I admit I could have explained the nuances better initially. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If a fresh voice would help, I see the point that Jess is raising. If the WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies (particularly WP:UNDUE) were enough, why would we need WP:NOT? I think the point is that we don't write down every verifiable detail in Wikipedia. I'm not sure how that would make a difference for adverts, though. If an advert were only sourced to primary sources, we'd likely delete it. If it were sourced to reliable and independent sources, it would most certainly not be an advert. Am I missing something? Shooterwalker (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In turn, I think I see Jclemens's point. While Shooter sees advertisement and reliable source as mutually exclusive, which avails them of the disagreement entirely, it seems, to Jclemens and I at least, that Unscintillating would categorically reject anything that could be considered an advert, which could, if you allow for reliable sources reporting adverts to be included, cut off all those sources without them being given due weight. Or rather, to quote "We're talking about a *product announcement* which has been picked up *in reliable sources*". If we consider that impossible by definition of 'product announcement' and 'reliable sources', then there's nothing to be disagreeing over; but I don't know if that's a reasonable consideration, obviously it's not one Jclemens is making, which is the issue; they perceive a class of legitimate reliable sources which would be categorically eliminated by the position Unscintillating proposes.
 * And I could be totally wrong about any or all of this, just saying what it looks like. Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Product announcements: arbitrary break 1
It is not that complicated. (a) All material on Wikipedia comes from RS. Therefore, either (b1) WP:NOT has no meaning, or (b2) WP:NOT eliminates certain RS. Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that (a) is demonstrably false... Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So what is your point, that Wikipedia policies can be ignored because they are not enforced? Unscintillating (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but trying to set up a false dilemma with an inaccurate antecedent isn't helpful to actual discussion. Your language, as a whole, is sweepingly broad when the particular disagreement is quite narrow. You're welcome to try again, but there's simply no point to even arguing the proposition as phrased above. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see Unscintillating's point, but we have to be more precise. (a) All material on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Therefore either (b1) WP:NOT is redundant with WP:V, or (b2) WP:NOT excludes certain verifiable information. (I wouldn't necessarily agree that we exclude some reliable sources, but we'd certainly exclude certain types of information, or insist on that information being covered in a certain way or context.) BTW, as much as it's fun to talk about policy in the abstract, now might be a good time to restate what both of you are trying to achieve here. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Memorial?
WP:MEMORIAL says "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." Is this a real problem? I can't recall any incidents of editors creating memorials for their deceased friends. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * i have run into it enough times without even being a patroller of new pages to support its continued inclusion as a specifically identified NOT. -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It has, indeed been a problem in the past. I haven't seen it recently, but I've also seen MEMORIAL cited as a reason for exclusion of victim lists from e.g. aircrashes or other disaster articles, which I find a far less compelling application, if not an outright misapplication of the principle. Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to comment on the applicability of MEMORIAL to victim lists, only that I do recall that there was a lengthy discussion on that specific facet within the few years, but I can't remember where it was located. --M ASEM  (t) 19:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, part of the reason I ask is because WP:MEMORIAL is being cited by this AfD and I fairly sure that the nominator is misapplying WP:MEMORIAL. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of the other contributors to that discussion agree with you, and the question of whether it applies in this particular case will be settled there.  DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was probably a reaction to memorials to the victims of the Sept 11 2001 attacks, see meta:Sep11wiki for more on this. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request 15 Aug 2012
This sentence is ungrammatical: As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and the development of stand-alone articles on significant current events. Please change it to this: As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Thanks for pointing that out! szyslak  ( t ) 12:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

My Sandbox Page
What is the purpose of the "My Sandbox" page if it is not to be used for personal reasons? DarkFireYoshi 20:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's used for testing wikicode and preparation of articles in your personal workspace. That's personal use for Wikipedia reasons. --M ASEM  (t) 20:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I was wondering because I got this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DarkFireYoshi/sandbox DarkFireYoshi 20:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the STALEDRAFT reason is appropriate as, being a sandbox, its meant to be used temporarily for such purposes, and thus clearing it out is the better solution. --M ASEM (t) 20:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Application of WP:Crystal
There has been a disagreement over whether the following statement is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Opinions on the application of that specific policy in this case would be appreciated from a few Wikipedians uninvolved in the discussion.

In 2012, it was estimated that he had amassed twice the net worth of the last eight U.S. presidents combined,(1) and would rank among the richest in American history if elected.(1)(2)

(1) "Romney would rank among richest presidents ever". USA Today. Associated Press. January 28, 2012.

(2) Barrett, William P. (January 24, 2012). "How Romney Would Rank Among the Richest U.S. Presidents". Forbes.

Dezastru (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see how crystal applies. This isn't speculation saying that he will be the next president. It's comparing him to existing presidents. For example, the John McCain article mentions that "if inaugurated in 2009 at age 72 years and 144 days, he would have been the oldest U.S. president upon ascension to the presidency,[215] and the second-oldest president to be inaugurated." Shooterwalker (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

New RfC about Categorization of persons
Please see Requests for comment/Categorization of persons: "Should we categorize people according to genetic and cultural heritage, faith, or sexual orientation? If so, what are our criteria for deciding an identity?" Thank you, IZAK (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Catalogue
I think that we should add a section for Wikipedia is not a shopping catalogue in the soapbox section. Who agrees? Us441 (talk to me) (My piece) 14:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We already have "not a catalog" in the NOTDIR section. --M ASEM (t) 14:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * and we have not had the least problem in removing any that get inserted.  DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Does not news only concern articles, or does it concern their content as well?
How do you determine what well covered event of a famous person should be in their article and what should not? If they got coverage for something over a full month in various major newspapers, and their actions got people talking about some issue they brought to public attention, does that belong in their article? I'm thinking to prevent regular arguments with people just quoting every policy and guideline they can think of randomly until they find something that is vague enough to support their personal opinion on something, we need specifically set rules.  D r e a m Focus  22:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * we need specifically set rules. -- I agree, but good luck with the "CREEP" crowd. --81.173.171.72 (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E is the authorative policy on people and events. --M ASEM (t) 01:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I clarified things. Obviously not news is for making a new Wikipedia stand alone article for something, and doesn't affect including a sentence about some notable well covered event in an existing article.   D r e a m Focus  16:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The change is well-meaning, but I think makes application too limited so reverted it to get better wording. We are not news in that we shouldn't rush to create articles on recent events, but we are also not news in that every little event that happens to someone already notable needs to be included. Prime example is celebrity watchdogs/gossip. A starlet is getting married? That's appropriate news to include. A starlet gets drunk the night before and seen slipping out of her limo the next day for a ha-ha-funny moment? That's definitely not news to include on her article. --M ASEM (t)
 * It definitely concerns articles. In theory, there are infinite numbers of articles that could be written about events that have been covered repeatedly in third party sources. "Obama 'you didn't build that' controversy", "Justin Bieber pregnancy scare", "Kanye's relationship with Amber Rose", "Wiz Khalifa's relationship with Amber Rose". When it comes to news and events, coverage in third-party sources isn't always enough. If it were, Wikipedia would descend into self-parody. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this a violation of CRYSTAL?
There is a disagreement at Talk:Lance Armstrong about whether the text in this revert is a violation of CRYSTAL. This is the text that was added then removed:

Any assistance in helping resolve this agreement would be appreciated. Please weigh in here: Talk:Lance_Armstrong. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether it violates WP:CRYSTAL or not seems irrelevant to me. It is sourced to a blog, and to a primary source - the interpretation of the WADP source is WP:OR, plain and simple. Unless and until WP:RS (i.e. reputable media organisations) comments on what may happen later, we don't, per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that as stated it is WP:CRYSTAL, because it is stated in Wikipedia's voice. I don't think that readers are interested in Wikipedia's opinion about the future.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Fact sheets?
See proposal/discussion about a new type of Wikipedia articles, fact sheets. I'm leaving this note here because it may be related to WP:NOTSTATS. Please discuss the matter at VP because it's not strictly about this policy. (We could choose to put other kind of info on our fact sheets.) Tijfo098 (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own is-ought-problem
Shouldn't the page accurately be titled "What Wikipedia is not supposed to be? Take e.g. "Wikipedia is not a battleground". Really? When did it stop being a battleground for all kinds of people who edit with an agenda? When did that happen? Because last time I checked, Wikipedia is definitely a battleground. The grammatical assertion that it " is not a battleground" is entirely false.

Why does the Wikipedia community completely shy away from speaking for itself in the first person, in an assertive and positive way? "We don't want Wikipedia to be a battleground." Claiming that Wikipedia is not, in fact, a battleground is dishonest and counterproductive.

Mind you, I'm only focusing on BATTLE as a particularly glaring example here, but this really affects this entire page. NOT is normative by its very design, and there is nothing wrong with that. We as the community agree on standards and we expect them to be followed.

So why this dishonesty? Could it be that using an "is" where there should be an "ought" really protects bad patterns and habits, by claiming that the respective problem doesn't really exist, at least not in a rampant fashion? --81.173.171.72 (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, these are all "is", with some common sense excepts per WP:IAR. But taking something like battleground, and saying that because these happen on WP, does not invalidate that "WP is not a battleground"; its a matter of enforcing it. There are battleground-like discussions that are actually good debates, there are debates that are really battlegrounds, and so forth.  That's why in this case we have dispute resolution boards to avoid further engagement on battle-ground like mentality. --M ASEM  (t) 01:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have understood my point. "is" in the context of NOT is flag-waving, window-dressing, lip service. Wikipedia, de facto, very much and evidently is a battleground for many. Saying that it isn't doesn't make it so. It only serves to distract from our shared editorial duty to identify these problems wherever we come across them, not to rely on deficient DR processes to magically take care of it. Consider the reality that the very worst cases of bad editing mentality never even make it to RfAr. Speaking in "should" and thus making NOT explicity normative (instead of half-hiding the normativity for some reason) would transform this policy into a positive statement; from something that supposedly takes care of itself into something that is understood as requiring everybody's continued effort. Anyway, all is well in Wikiland, and changes are always bad. I get it. --87.78.5.247 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There's battlegrounds, and then there's battlegrounds. By being an open wiki, by definition, we will have internal editor conflict, and that's why we use consensus to resolve these. Arguments between counterthoughts will happen, but that's by nature of an open wiki attracting many editors to participate.  We are not a battleground just because this happens, and we attempt to prevent true battleground-nature issues from taking place by encouraging dispute resolution channels. But we can't proactively stop a few editors from standing firm and refusing to budge on their point and using tactics to maintain that; those cases usually end up at ArbCom for remedy. --M ASEM  (t) 13:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the OP is correct, for example here is an admin responding to a "Wikipedia is not a battleground" request. Unscintillating (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't preemptively stop people from getting into arguments - but we don't tolerate them any further. So, no, it still holds.  --M ASEM  (t) 15:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To wit: "Don't say it isn't. It is." -- Charlie Brooker
 * I had not noticed the problem with "is not a battleground" vs "is agreed by the community, and planned, not to be a battleground." Where "is not" is the declaratory and the imperative to be complied with by all who behold it. I believe it is an Anglicism, and merits further thought. --Lexein (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, we can't prevent people from making that first edit that goes against what WP is not. It's that we don't sustain edits towards that and deal appropriately with users that do. Unless we either have software that can 100% positively identify edits that fail NOT and block them from being added, or require every edit to be reviews, we will always have that problem.  I'm sure most users recognize that NOT is meant to be the ideal but difficult to completely prevent. --M ASEM  (t) 18:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's simply a difference of writing technique, or grammatical mood.
 * Ie. Rather than describing the nutshell of WP:No original research as "Wikipedia tries to not publish original thought but sometimes they get in for a while", we write "Wikipedia does not publish original thought". It's fairly common to use the imperative, when writing guidelines/rulebooks/laws/etc. Less complex. More hindbrain.
 * See also: Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff...We've got an encyclopedia to write, and further Wikipedia is not nomic. Ignore the rules unless there's a real problem that needs to be ruled on (because instruction creep is overwhelming us already). —Quiddity (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See, imho the vast majority of instruction creep takes place in the minds of people who build their own rules into a perceived vacuum of rules. Many times, writing down a rule serves to actually reduce the rule clutter. See also hypercorrection. --87.79.106.130 (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Lol. By this logic, I can't help but ponder the helpful addition of Wikipedia is not a feeding ground for trolls! :) Hiding T 08:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, dear Hiding, there is a policy against making personal attacks. --78.35.248.247 (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a semantic exercise? Wikipedia isn't a place to wikilawyer about things that we don't allow but happen from time to time? Shooterwalker (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Make that a double. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalizing the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Verifiable future events with no real world impact yet
In the articles about ongoing topics one would normally find some verifiable statements about future events that may happen but have no real world consequences yet (eg. new cast members in soap operas which signed contracts but didn't make their appearance yet; features of software that were announced in future versions but were not implemented yet; corporate mergers that "leaked" to major news media but were not announced yet). Should this content (if it is attributed to reliable sources) be included in the articles in spirit of WP:NOT and WP:NOT? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) (DRN volunteer) 15:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As long as the source is reliable and is not presenting the information as a rumor, then there no reason under WP:NOT to prevent including this information; there may be other policy, guidelines or decisions by consensus to omit this information, however. But it is important to identify if the information is coming from someone with direct knowledge/control of that future aspect, as opposed to some industry analyst that may be reliable but making a stab in the dark.  If it is the case that one or more highly reliable sources are speaking of some future event but there's no confirmation from the direct source, these can be included but usually adding text cavaet of "According to source, this event will happen." as to take away the crystal-ball aspect. --M ASEM  (t) 15:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue from my perspective is that these statements are, necessarily, predictions, and that therefore full verification cannot occur until they are resolved. Even when they are true, one sees a lot of articles which contain outdated statements about what will happen or is expected to happen by some date which is now in the past. Now, some of what looks like predictions aren't, or can be presented in ways that are not predictions. For example, in the case at hand the addition of Bonnie Franklin to the cast could have been phrased as occurring in the past ("CBS announced that....") and then updated now that the air date has passed and she is indeed verified as appearing. The tweet passed on by SOD strikes me as lacking reliability; even cast in the past it's questionable.


 * It's somewhat context-dependent. We've had a bunch of statements in lighthouse articles saying that this light was going to be deactivated or torn down, and in a lot of cases, it doesn't happen. We've had a category discussion recently about projects planned to be completed by a certain year; of course even buildings already under construction are often not completed on time. I would want a pretty high degree of confidence that the predicted events actually were going to occur. Mangoe (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup - context matters: "features of software that were announced in future versions but were not implemented yet" for instance fall firmly into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory. Not to mention that the only people able to directly make such 'announcements' are the producers of the software, and per WP:RS, aren't third party sources. At best such material would have to be of the form "ReliableSouceForThisSortOfStuff Magazine reports that TrustworthySoftwareDeveloper has announced that NotableSofwarePackage version 3.1 due to be released SometimeSpecificAndSoon, will feature SomethingSpecificAndSignificant". Anything else is likely to be just recycled press-release puffery or outright rumour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec)A lot of the issues you mention can be gotten around to avoid the OR-ness simply by adding a few words to indicate the source or likelihood. For example, in the lighthouse case, you can say "scheduled to be deactivated in YYYY", which is 1) the truth assuming that is what the RS says, and 2) does not condemn WP in any way if the deactivation occurs later. In the case of actors leaving/returning to the show, often citing within the prose of the WP article who made the claim is sufficient to take a statement of speculation and to make it factual without harming WP's reliability. "CBS has announced that John Smith will be appearing in this show during the 2013 television season" is a factual claim about what CBS says: if this John Smith never appears, it's CBS that was wrong because things change, and we just update WP later, particularly if counter-statements after the fact come along. eg "Though CBS had announced John Smith would appear this season, scheduling difficulties forced his appearance to occur the next season." would be the statement we make after the fact.
 * We just don't want to introduce speculative OR ourselves. A case in point I'm dealing with is for the upcoming season of Fringe, we know it takes place at a certain point in time that introduced what were previously one-shot guest actors. A teaser video suggests these actors will reappear but no absolute word has been said to this. Ergo, we cannot make the claim that these guest actors will reappear this season. As soon as FOX or the show's producers say otherwise, or the episodes actually start to air, then we can, but not until that point.
 * To Andy's point - actually, it doesn't matter about third-party-ness here at this point, assuming there are plenty of other third-party sources to meet WP:V and sources for notability. A software manufacture saying "Feature X will be in version 2.0" is a completely valid statement we can source and use. We'd just write that as "The software maker states they plan for X to be included in version 2.0". That's not crystal-balling at all. Now, that's why I said it is important that the article's already got third-party and notability sources. If all that the article is riding on is first-party press release or promotional information on a yet-released product, we shouldn't have an article about it at all. --M ASEM  (t) 17:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While not "crysal balling" per se, it then falls very much into the WP:ADVERT as being merely promotional. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not always. I'm pulling a hypothetical example out here, but lets say there's a brand new web browser on the market, and it's gotten appropriate critical reception for a standalone articles, but for some reason lacks tabbed browsing, though the developer says this is planned for a future release. Because tabbed browsing is a rather common feature in browsers, the statement by the developer to say it is a planned feature is not promotional, at least, in the purest sense, and such mention should be included. On the other hand, if they're promising that a future version will print money for you, yeeeeah, that's both a bit overly speculative and entirely promotional. --M ASEM  (t) 21:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How would this affect a statement in November of this year (2012) which states "On January XX, Obama/Romney will be sworn in as President". The president-elect is a living person and the swearing-in is highl;y probable.  In a similar vein, there was a discussion here about a similar situation. Martinvl (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's all in the wording. Your statement on the swearing in is not one to use because until that date passes, that may not be fact. But simply rewording it: "The swearing in of the President is scheduled to occur on January XX" - makes the statement a fact (since such events are scheduled months in advance) and doesn't harm WP's reputation should that date change due to an unforeseen event (which can happen). But here, it also helps that this is a regular event in US politics every four years, and acts like clockwork (just like the Olympics, for example). On the Wedding one, humans are more fickle and there'd be no assurance the wedding would go through. Probably as the date actually got closer and arrangements for the actual festivities, ceremony, traffic management, etc. were being made, it would be reasonable to state the scheduled date, because at that point, others are banking on that date as well. --M ASEM  (t) 21:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont see how your tabbed browsing is not promotional. I am not going to bother with a browser that doesnt have that but might consider keeping an eye on one where that feature is a promised future update. It is a claim by the creator that is moving its product from a dinosuar to the modern era.-- The Red Pen of Doom  21:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That logic would invalid any article on any commercial product (physical or virtual) until its actual release, since nearly all material about yet-released products is designed as promotion to get people excited about the product. Instead, for us at WP, have to filter these through critical eyes, use secondary sources that mention what are appropriate features of product are to be highlighted, etc., even if they use claims from the creatures of the project. We clearly don't want articles that are 100% promotion, but there is a line and allowance for future promotional claims - written in a neutral format - within the prose of a verifiable, notable article about the product. There is a fine line here, of course, as we're not supposed to be selling the project, but that's why I used the tabbed browsing case - it's considered an essential feature of the browser so its present lack of that feature and promise of it being added later is not promotion, particularly if the lack is called out by secondary sources. --M ASEM (t) 21:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem, reporting on the announcement of a new product or show or cast change or whatever is not promotion. Praising an unreleased product is promotional, but simply stating that a product by a notable company will be released in the future is not. Stating that the Wii U will be released in the fourth quarter of 2012 is neither promotional or CRYSTALBALL-ish.--SGCM (talk)  22:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Masem's points and feel they better articulate some of what I've tried to express in the previous discussions re: reported cast changes. While pages regarding the characters wait for on-screen appearances, I feel the actor pages should be able to have this type of information, since the sources are quoting that a contract has been signed/released and/or they've actually begun filming it just hasn't aired yet. All those are facts and can be updated if the facts change. Per advertising claims, does location count? Since the information is being put on pages about the actors/shows/cast, anyone going there is already looking for this information? Thanks everyone. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to guess about the future, we can wait for it. Unscintillating (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it's just pointless to include such things in a cast list. It is perfectly acceptable to include such information on the character's article (if they have one). "Comings and goings" comes from the title soap blogs give it; having such a section turns Wikipedia into such a website.  Statυs ( talk ) 04:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a degree of how much weight a future event may carry. Let's use the example of cast lists. If it is known that an actor is joining the main credited cast, reported by many reliable sources, there's no reason not to include that and in fact, we'd look silly for not including it just because its an event that hasn't happened.  If we have word of a producer and of a guest star that they will appear in one episode that season, that's probably a good reason to include but we shouldn't give undue weight on that.  If it's an industry rumor that said person might have been on set for an episode, that's a wait-and-see approach.   And I will caution here that SPOILER is a good guideline to think about here - we don't hide facts that are widely known, and here we would not hide future facts that have been widely reported in reliable sources.  --M ASEM  (t) 04:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "we would not hide future facts". Just out of curiosity, could you define what a "future fact" is, and how one would distinguish it from say "future guesswork". I'm sure that the philosophy departments of leading universities around the world are busy shredding their textbooks as I write, given your ground-breaking announcement that such things exist... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the point is we wouldn't hide scheduled events simply because they haven't happened yet. But the scheduling itself is a fact/event that has occurred. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's all sourcing. Again to the example, if 5-6 different entertainment magazine separate confirm that an actor is in a starring role for an upcoming season, that's not guesswork. If only one questionable source suggests this and doesn't give a reason why, it's more guesswork. --M ASEM  (t) 05:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And yea, Kelly Marie's idea that one considered it the scheduling of the event by those in charge of it as reported to multiple sources makes it a past event, with the possibility of something might change in the future. --M ASEM (t) 05:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Masem, I completely agree; what I am against is this avid use of a "comings and goings" section. For example, on List of The Bold and the Beautiful cast members, there was a comings and goings section that, again (as it was listed already in the article), repeated the actor and the character the person played, with the addition of the date they return/exit. If they are now part of the cast, they are part of the cast and should be added. But for former members, until they are gone from the show, they should not be moved into a "former cast members" section. This "comings and goings" bullcrap needs to go. Zac   06:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's relevant for the main articles it should be okay to include in the summarized list as well. Also I think actors who have not renewed contracts and are leaving are relevant to this type of information/article. You removed the list on the B&B cast list boldly without a discussion first. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * in Masem's support for the concept, xe has stated "It's all in the wording. Your statement on the swearing in is not one to use because until that date passes, that may not be fact. But simply rewording it: "The swearing in of the President is scheduled to occur on January XX" - makes the statement a fact" How would you propose to have appropriate wording and context in the "List of SOAP Characters" articles? -- The Red Pen of Doom  11:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If necessary, I think an additional column could be added with brief detail, such as "did not renew contract, as reported in ReliableSource1," "tvshow1 released casting call as reported to news/reliablesource2," "actor1 has begun filming, as reported in ReliableSource3," or "actor 2 has officially signed a contract with tvshow2, as reported in ReliableSource4." However, it's still my opinion that the sourcing is sufficient on its own since these contract/filming/casting events have occurred. FYI I am off to work for the day and won't be able to respond until later tonight. Thanks everyone for the help. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. Zac  15:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that there's two different scenarios and we are confusing them.
 * If an organization announces something by themselves, then that information is official and can be added to an article (if it's relevant enough). Those announcements about the future can be cancelled, but they are still official announcements.
 * If a media leaks an information, then it's unofficial. That usually is unreliable, but can be relevant in some special cases.
 * --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is well established that companies announce future events (such as software game companies announcing release dates) and then miss them. Is the encyclopedia served by having, even if appropriately couched in weasel language of "The company has announced that it will ...." such predictions about future events? I can see theoretical instances when an announcement will itself be of such note and with such levels of outside coverange and analysis of the future event that it becomes encyclopedic in nature, but all in all those cases would seem to be such rare events that they would be covered by WP:IAR and that the trivial day-to-day promotional announcements would be better off not cluttering up articles.-- The Red Pen of Doom  16:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * From the perspective of video games, if a company's announcement that it plans on releasing a game in the future, and that announcement is picked up by reliable sources, it is worthy of inclusion somewhere. We generally discourage the immediate creation of a new article that only has the announcement details, instead adding that to the article on the developer or if the game extends a series or is a sequel, on those respective articles. But in the VG industry, big titles are show, discussed, and demonstrated in depth well before release. (Bioshock Infinite is 6 months out from release, but look how much is there about it already. Or in some cases the game undergoes a significant development cycle before cancellation (Sam & Max: Freelance Police).  But I think the key here is the external observation about the product or future event.  A press release that otherwise doesn't get mention in third-party sources is probably not sufficient to include. --M ASEM  (t) 17:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "From the perspective of video games, if a company's announcement that it plans on releasing a game in the future, and that announcement is picked up by reliable sources, it is worthy of inclusion somewhere." Why is it worthy of inclusion somewhere? how does that improve the encyclopedia? We are not a breaking news service, and we are not an advertising media, to re-re-gurgitate someone's promotional press release. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And your "examples" are of announcements that have recieved significant coverage and analysis outside of the press release - the type that one can easily make an WP:IAR exception argument for. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is calling it IAR - in video games, as long as we're talking titles from major developers, coverage prior to release is virtually an assured event. Extend it to other cases - for television shows, I know media like Entertainment Weekly and Vanity follow casting choices well prior to the broadcast, and as long as the show is a major one, this type of coverage is not exceptional.
 * To your first point, and this comes again to the IAR aspect - since nearly every game published by a major development will get coverage, release or not, the title of the game is a search term, it provides a place to put coverage of the game until a separate article is warranted, and the like. It's not "news" in that in the case of most news events the amount of coverage spikes and then falls to zero; for products, there is usually the initial spike but the coverage actually never zeroes out but instead builds slowly as the planned release nears. News events don't work like that. For all of these, we're talking about calling the future event reasonable to include (just like we have the 2016 Summer Olympics already) because of the reliability of the companies and sources reporting on it.  They may end up being absolutely wrong,  but that's not soiling WP's reputation.  --M ASEM  (t) 17:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a 'future event'. Please cut out the bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, these aren't future events, they are current events that relate to future events. Just because a tv show hasn't aired, a movie hasn't come out, a video game isn't physically on the shelf, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist whatsoever yet. People are filming, working, producing, and these are events worthy of coverage as long as they are being reliably reported, etc. Even if the project falls through, someone still worked on the product, someone still signed a contract even if it's later thrown out, someone still filmed a movie even if it doesn't make it to theaters. As long as it meets other verifiable wiki criteria, I think it should be included. Thanks - Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No. A statement that something is going to happen in the future isn't a current event in any meaningful encyclopaedic sense. Both WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS apply (along with WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTPROMOTION etc), and are firmly established guidelines. Any material added in contravention to such guidelines is liable to be deleted - and it is for those wishing to contravene the guidelines to explain why they should be, for each individual case. This is non-negotiable unless and until What Wikipedia is not is revised - and no proposal has so far been made to do so. If anyone wishes to make a specific proposal, they are of course welcome to do this, but it can't be done by arguing that you don't think it should apply to 'future events' relating to specifics, without getting wider discussion regarding broader principles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to convey is that while these event impact future events, they are in themselves current events. That is, actors are hired, shows/movies are filmed, products are developed. That is what the sources are reporting. If the articles were in regards to the character, then yes it would be speculation as the character has not appeared. But the actor has been hired/fired and/or is filming their role. I don't think WP:CRYSTAL applies. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As Masem and Kelly Marie 0812 say, official announcements are current events. Sometimes they are relevant, sometimes they aren't. If FIFA announces that the 2012 World Cup will be held in Qatar, it's relevant for the articles FIFA World Cup and Qatar, for example. If I announce that I will release a new videogame, then it's not relevant for Wikipedia. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Corporate announcements are competitive marketing tools, and are trivial as current events: a person at a mic is not a "current event", and an email or sheet of paper in a fax machine is not a "current event." Wikipedia is NOT a corporate marketing tool, no matter what PR and marketing people want. We as Wikipedia editors should not be feeding at the PR trough. We should stick with independent reliable sources which discuss the subject: if they don't discuss (as opposed to reprint) we are under no obligation to mention any such advertisement. Primary sources are fine for details, or declarations of mission, but for actual products or events which have not happened? If no RS discusses it in a non-trivial way, skip it. Compare vaporware. Nobody wants to be used as a PR tool, and Wikipedia editors should definitely develop an allergy to being so used. Encyclopedias are not about future events. Announcements by themselves are rarely significant, and are in and of themselves not events worthy of mouthing here.
 * To be very blunt, public relations and marketing people positively squirt every time one of their pieces gets cited directly by Wikipedia, instead of being first discussed by a independent reliable sources. Let's interrupt that ad-jaculation loop. --Lexein (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If the only thing announcing a corporate "future event" (a new product, etc.) is the press release by the company making this product, yes, we have to avoid giving undue weight to that primary source to make it more significant than it is. However, when that press release or marketing blurb is outlined and pointed to by several reliable sources in that field, (and no, not just regurgitating the press release but adding additional flavor commentary to it when possible), that shows that others have interest in this event, and ergo discussing the event in that light is no longer marketing but appropriate coverage for an encyclopedia. BTW, we do cover notable vaporware - Up until last year, Duke Nukem Forever was an article on a widely-notable piece of vaporware until it finally got its release. Again, though, its about what coverage other independent sources give to a product to be released in the future, and DNF had that in spades. --M ASEM (t) 14:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking about the general case, there is no reason exclude the whole class of information that relates to future events. As others have said above, whether information relating to a specific future event should be included or not will depend on many factors, such as the nature of the event and the source of the information (number and reliability of sources, etc), and considerations of WP:WEIGHT in the individual articles. For example, the 2016 Olympics are an event that is scheduled to happen, and it would be wrong to exclude information about them just because they haven't happened yet - indeed doing so would significantly harm the encyclopaedia. Which athletes will compete at the games is not knowable yet - while there is an expectation that Tom Daley (diver) will compete, and this is reported in at least one reliable source it is not significant enough for his article currently. For other thins, and cast lists will likely fall into this category, announcements and speculation can be encycloapedicly notable, and WP:NTEMP makes clear that notability is not temporary. Even if the event didn't happen, the speculation that it would remains notable. Whether a particular announcement is notable can only be determined on an individual basis, but as some are, it is not something for WP:NOT. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Thryduulf. Taking it further, if someone states something, it is a fact that they stated it. The only thing we have to do is work out whether what they've stated is relevant to the article. This cuts across huge swathes of articles. Go look at Category:Future referendums. These are all notable events that our readers would expect us to convey information on since they are in the news regularly, yet they haven't happened yet.  Our ability to build articles on such things allowed us to grow. Let's not forget that the Washington Post once praised us so: "it's hard to find a more up-to-date, detailed, thorough article on Obama than Wikipedia's. As of Friday (14 September 2007), Obama's article – more than 22 pages long, with 15 sections covering his personal and professional life – had a reference list of 167 sources." Don't throw the baby out with bathwater here.  We're not discussing a policy change here, we're discussing how policy applies to one article.  People, take it back to the article talk page. Policies describe what we do, and we do detail the facts as they are currently known to the best of our ability. Imagine not having an article on the Higgs boson! Hiding T 07:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It depends: I have to largely agree with AndyTheGrump and Masem. WP is never in a position to try to predict the future or to pass on rumor. We are in a position to report reliably sourced information that the external publishing world seems to think is notable (or in a intr-aritcle context relevant, as Hiding points out, since the standard for inclusion is lower that WP:N), by its non-trivial appearance in multiple, independent sources. Sometimes these  are the only thing notable about a subject at all!  This isn't very common, but it happens (and sometimes those cases are nuked at AfD for being too vaporware, but not always – see, e.g., Battlestar Galactica: Blood & Chrome which existed long before any stills were leaked indicating that filming had commenced and there was a "there" there).  There can be no categorical "it cannot appear in WP because it didn't happen yet" rule. The sentiment that "it can't because this is an encyclopedia" forgets WP:NOT; we are not constrained to a publication schedule and a limited amount of paper, and WP has redefined what it means to be encyclopedic. All that said, there's a tremendous amount of unsourced and only-marginally-sourced "nostradamism" and rumor-mongering in articles here, especially those subject to large degrees of geekery and fanwankery (I say that as a total nerd and collector, BTW). — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has grown to a much broader scope than the original question, and I'm wondering if I can get a little clarification on the original topic, which was inclusion of reported cast changes on multiple cast lists of US soap operas (started on individual talk page(s), moved to WP:SOAPS, then dispute resolution board, then here). While it certainly relates to other similar situations, I think some of the discussion has moved to product announcements and I'm not sure how to apply the opinions to this situation. My understanding of some of the comments made here is that as long as reliable third-party sources are reporting the changes, inclusion does not violate WP. It's also my opinion that the majority of these casting activities have occurred by the time they are reported/included, and shouldn't be scrutinized only because the character hasn't appeared on-screen (i.e. filming occurs beforehand, contracts are signed beforehand, etc, and these events have occurred). Any help with applying the discussion here to come to a conclusion on this question would be greatly appreciated, to not have to start the discussion again on yet another board. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing that comes to mind with soaps is that the entertainment field is one of large amount of gossip that might be taken as word if propagated far enough. Editors should be confident in which sources are considered reliable and reporting upcoming casting changes. Even in reliable sources, watch for statements that suggest word-on-the-street poor sourcing. But as long as editors are assumed that "Actress X will be on soap Y" from a reliable source, including that sourced fact in the article in no way is a violation of CRYSTAL; if there are concerns, as suggested by above, the statement can be reworded, if possible, that "Magazine Z states that actress X will be on soap Y", putting any blame on the incorrectness on the magazine and not WP. --M ASEM  (t) 14:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as WP:NOT is concerned, I agree with Masem's points. If the future event is adequately sourced, and it is contextually clear who is making the prediction, then it is ELIGIBLE for inclusion. As for whether it ends up making it into the article text, its a question of WP:Weight and normal editorial judgement by contributors, and needs not be decided on a categorical basis here. Monty  845  18:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * by "contextually clear" do you mean in article text or through the footnote? -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on the type of information and article. Inline cites is an absolute minimum. If the claim is about something subjective that may happen in the future, or is potentially contentious, I would likely require the name of the source in the article prose; eg, "According to Variety, Big Explosions the Movie is expected to be the most expensive movie made to date." in contrast to "Big Explosions the Movie is expected to be the most expensive movie made to date".  The latter reads like OR even if there is a inline cite immediately following it, and I'd prefer to see the former to know whose making that claim.  On the other hand, a statement like "Tom Cruise is expected to return for Mission Impossible 5." is less of an outlandish prediction, and while a source could be named, I wouldn't be begging for it as long as the inline cite follows.  --M ASEM  (t) 23:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)