Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Style advice

Please don't fall into the pitfall of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
Per WP:Lead, lead sections should be an overview of the article. The idea that lead sections should not "contain critiques or criticisms of the religion/subject, and it should not contain apologetics for the religion/subject" goes against that idea. If the article is 50% about that there is no archaeological evidence for an event, then it should make up a chunk of the lead. NPOV does not mean that we need to whitewash the leads of religious subjects -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  20:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with the above point. Particular points of concern might be such as Messianic Judaism, which describes itself as being, basically, legitimately Jewish, even though there are apparently few if any other contemporary Jewish groups or individuals which agree with them on that point. Also, honestly, how would we describe the Church of the Sub-Genius or the alleged believers in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, both of which seem to postulate central beliefs which even they themselves consider jokes. I can and do see situations where both the "beliefs" of the group and the question of the status of their beliefs can and should be reasonably discussed in the lead, particularly in such newer groups as those mentioned above. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that as well as well. On the other hand, the lead and the article both should definitely have more content about the religion than criticism. If the opposite is true, the article should be renamed to "Criticism of ...". Debresser (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Titles
As a perhaps personal opinion, one of the things which might most easily resolve what to title a given article would be to follow the lead of the most highly-regarded relevant reference sources regarding that matter. We recently had a discussion about Baptism along this line, where it was found that the Encyclopedia Britannica article limits its content and scope to Christian baptism. Specialist academic sources, God help us, may not all agree on that matter, I haven't checked yet. But I do think relevant reference academic sources, particularly those which deal with more than one religion or movement within a broader religion, might be of the greatest assistance here. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * John, Thanks for this whole page. Fully support the principle of a MOS, and suggest in some areas wheel could not need reinventing just borrowing from SBL MOS.In ictu oculi (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: Seven Point Proposal
This MOS proposal is a response to, inter alia, the discussions that have arisen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion IZAK (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC): '''Too many Wikipedia articles about religion contain too much information from a secular non-religious and even anti-religious perspective that stands in the way of anyone seeking information about a religion or religious subject to learn and understand what the religion or religious subject itself is about in the first place. In effect, over the years, by misappplying Wikipedia's editorial policies, an almost arrogant self-assured secular point of view now predominates at the expense of a religious point of view. The proposal now made, based on many years of editing such articles, is that a SEVEN POINT PROCEDURE be followed by all editors when any article about religion or a religious subject is written, of course all the while in compliance with all Wikipedia editorial, citation, NPOV and style policies:'''
 * 1) That the article open by describing and explaining (as is empirically correct and required in objective scholarship -- BEFORE making any latter-day judgments) what the religion itself says about itself and/or the religious subject in question and/or the way that religion's views about the subject.
 * 2) That all the known religious and classical sources be cited and stated for further reference. (Many of those sources already exist as articles on Wikipedia.)
 * 3) Differences among various schools of thought in that religion then be cited and described and explained.
 * 4) The history and practices of the religion and the subject in question.
 * 5) What the various other schools of thought and other religions say about this religion or subject.
 * 6) What modern secular and academic scholarship has to say about the religion or subject. (Unfortunately, far too often, this part comes to early and even gets the lion's share of the article, in the process obscuring, blocking and just plain in efect "deleting" the first original meaning of the religion or the religious susbject of the article.)
 * 7) Add criticism of the subject and rebuttal of the criticism as found in known and accepted sources and schools of thought. (This part too gets overly-emphasized far too often in articles at the expense of what the religion itself has to say about itself and/or the religous subjects related to it.) Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction and resolution
See WikiProject Religion/Manual of style: "The religious scholarship of experts in these religions should not be considered primary sources." Please note the following:
 * 1) This is very problematic and may even be a contradiction in many cases because quite often religious scholarship may emanate from theologians with PhDs and who are published authors, such as those at Catholic Universities ("the total number of Catholic universities and higher education institutions around the world is 1,358") and many faculty members are both leading theologians and academics, so it would not be possible to shove them aside with this impractical rule when in fact any scholar and WP would welcome them as reliable and even primary sources.
 * 2) In Judaism as with all religions there are many other sources within each religion for that religion's information and the religion's own sources must be relied upon as a starting point at least willy-nilly by describing and explaining it.
 * 3) While Jewish Modern Orthodoxy has Yeshiva University (YU) modern academic authorities and sources not ALL branches of it, or of all religions have the sophisticated university level outpourings of information. While YU has had notable rabbis combined with academic qualifications, the Haredi and Hasidic higher schools of scholarship do not have that and rely on classical rabbinic sources. They could lose out to Reform and Conservative and gentile and even hostile views that stress universities and academics.
 * 4) This WP interpretation of "primary sources" contradicts the definition and views of general scholarship about a Primary source that: "Primary sources are original materials. Generally, primary sources are not accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight. Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary, although it may be used by historians in the absence of a primary source. In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person."
 * 5) Therefore the false "definition" of what constitutes a "primary source" is what general scholarship regards as a Secondary source: "In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person. Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information. Primary and secondary are relative terms, and some sources may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used. An even higher level, the tertiary source, such as an encyclopedia or dictionary, resembles a secondary source in that it contains analysis, but attempts to provide a broad introductory overview of a topic." Thus WP is the "secondary source" to the "primary sources" that each religion's own classical texts and theologians have offered up for millennia in the case of the world's oldest religions. IZAK (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

General comments
I am not sure what this proposal will achieve. The WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issue mentioned above is likely to dominate the discussions, given that the recommendation is for "no critiism", etc. I am sure some people will say "these are policy-exemptions dressed up as MOS". Specific points:


 * I think the community at large will zap the no criticism recommendation. So to be realistic that item should suggest that the criticism section should be limited to a small portion and criticism articles should stand on their own separately, and be referenced. And it does make sense to separate it out, because the religious articles need to "explain the teachings" before debating that they are all wrong in the perception of the neighboring religion, or from a scientific perspective.


 * Banality: The recommendations on Body are just banal. They say nothing new.


 * A run around general policy: I am sure some of this will seem like a run around general policy, and the community at large will object to it, .e.g. special treatment for WP:Primary for this project.


 * Unforeseen problems: Regarding the WP:Primary issue, I see that as an invitation to internal debate, e.g. in the context of WikiProject Christianity that is likely to start infighting among 1,000 IPs each wanting their own interpretation of specific New Testament passages as a WP:Primary and citing this as the exemption to have WP:Secondary sources. That will be a nightmare.

I am not sure what this MOS will buy, given that it includes no specifics that I could use in articles without going against general policy. The major downside I see is that this will create the perception that "the super-religious crowd wants its own policies" and will result in a backlash against the religious articles in general. History2007 (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments
First, I think that we would probably need to have this MOS expanded at least a bit beyond WikiProject Religion per se. There are a number of clearly closely related topics, like Jungian psychology, mythology, Philosophy in general, particularly individual philosophies like Marxism, New Atheism, Scientism, the New Age in general, Alternative medicine, which basically deal with roughly the same issues. In several cases, like scientism, these philosophical positions directly to opinions regarding clearly religious content. Particularly when those criticism are not from what might be called, more or less fairly, a strictly "scientific" one, but rather from a philosophical one, it is in our own interests of NPOV to present them as such. I would ask for input from the Philosophy, Rational Skepticism, Pseudoscience, Alternative Views, and possibly other related projects in this material as well.

Second, I think we should perhaps make a point that in most stylistic considerations, we might well basically follow the nature and type of articles in the most highly regarded encyclopedic sources as possible, particularly for the primary articles on a given topic. Child articles of various kinds can probably be made rather easily for particular views or applications of the topic of a primary article.

There are any number of topics out there, many of which may have functionally similar or identical names, but which represent different groups. Relevant reference sources would help indicate how to deal with such naming issues where they exist, particularly if they deal with the various potentially conflicting topics as well.

I cannot imagine primary articles not having at least some material relating to "criticism". I do not believe many people would want the Messianic Judaism article to present only the MJ position regarding its Jewishness, for instance, but any such material would be clearly "critical" in the broad sense.

I do think that for groups, including both basically moribund religions and groups within a specific religious tradition, as well as for some topics of controversy even within the religious groups which might at least theoretically accept the controversial topics as "true", there is cause for child articles titled something like "History of study of (subject)".

I do agree that we would best include any source from an academic publisher or author as probably being reliable, so long as it basically meets WP:RS standards. However, we would have to take into account any bias the material might have. Thus, for instance, a book by a Roman Catholic criticizing Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, even if all the material included is clearly well-supported and -referenced and accurate, should be included as "criticism" of the JWs, possibly by the particular outside group if such is notable, rather than as "objective" material about them. Both religious groups, broadly defined, and their opponents often have a number of "facts" they can produce to either support or oppose a given position. We should note that and ensure our content fairly represents such material.

I do think I have more ideas, but they're not particularly well defined yet. More to come, probably. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Material to be included
The Worldmark Encyclopedia of Religious Practices breaks its articles on religious groups into the following sections:
 * 1) Date of Origin (of the group)
 * 2) Number of Followers (including at present and some relevant historical figures)
 * 3) History
 * 4) Early and Modern Leaders
 * 5) Major Theologians and Authors
 * 6) Houses of Worship and Holy Places
 * 7) What Is Sacred?
 * 8) Holidays and Festivals
 * 9) Mode of Dress
 * 10) Dietary Practices
 * 11) Rituals (including practices associated with worship)
 * 12) Rites of Passage
 * 13) Membership (including material on recruiting of new members)
 * 14) Social Justice (including poverty, education, and human rights)
 * 15) Social Aspects (including family and marriage)
 * 16) Political Impact
 * 17) Controversial Issues
 * 18) Cultural Impact (in the arts, primarily)

I will be the first to acknowledge that, for some religious groups, particularly moribund ones, some of these points may not be particularly notable, and that in those cases perhaps there might not be any clearly obvious content for some of these sections. Having said that, I think the list is a good outline of at least some of the basic material which probably should be included in a main article, provided the subject is clearly relevant and significant enough for the particular group in question. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification
This sentence needs a copyedit: "This sentence should describe what the religion itself says about itself and/or the religious subject in question and/or the way that religion's views about the subject." I would have done it, but I am not quite sure how best to fix it. -- J N  466  19:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I kinda write a lot of stuff on the fly, and don't pay as much attention to phrasing in the final product as I should. Does "This sentence should describe the internal views of the subject from the perspective of the relevant religion(s)" sound a bit better? John Carter (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you want to say. The problem with the current wording is "and/or the way that religion's views about the subject". It's just not a viable grammatical structure. I think you probably mean "and/or that religion's views about the subject", but that hardly adds anything to what has already been said. So "This sentence should describe what the religion itself says about itself and/or the religious subject in question" is probably entirely sufficient. -- J N  466  03:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

¿Many/Most? suggested redraft
These words need handling with great care, and I would argue that they are best avoided. As a matter of "wiki-procedure" if they are included they should be backed with a precise quotation from a very reliable source. Even if such a quotation is available, I would tend to avoid using it since the claim often seems to have a subjective or impressionistic element rather than being based on careful statistical analysis. I must admit that I am not entirely happy about the use of the word 'independent'; the outside observer depends on a different set underlying premises or suppositions.

In some ways, the situation is even more complicated than the preceding paragraph might imply. Let me give a specific example: The Exodus. The "traditional" ¿insider? view implies that about two-and-half million Israelites left Egypt in a concerted mass in the fifteenth century BC. Martin Noth starts his history of Israel with the tribes in Palestine and 'Israel' is composed of the "descendants of the twelve heroes eponymi who, with their common father" are simply the personification of the historical situation after the occupation of the land".(p.6) In other words the Exodus is simply an aetiological myth.  On the other hand, John Bright, is sure that "although the actual happenings were far more complex than a casual reading of the Bible would suggest, enough can be said to justify the assertion that its account is rooted in historical events."(p.110)

Here we have two critical scholars giving incompatible analyses of the situation neither of which is acceptable to the "traditionalist"; but the situation is even more complicated in that, although Bright's History of Israel is a piece of logically argued academic writing published by a highly reputable "neutral" firm, some of his other works make it plain that he is an adherent of the Christian faith. Do we class him as a critic, or an adherent?

My preferred draft of this would be:
 * On this basis content regarding such disputed matters should perhaps be adjusted to read something similar to "Adherents of this faith believe P or Q ..., but the following objections have been raised: X or Y....."

Bibliography:- Noth, Martin. The History of Israel Adam and Charles Black:1960; Bright, John. A History of Israel SCM:1964. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpacobb (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Era
This is a bit of a long suggestion, but I wanted to cover a number of questions that come up whenever the topic is brought up.

I would suggest that for religious articles (as well as articles on archaeology and history that directly speak on religion, but that's probably beyond the scope of this MOS), that we should agree to the use of the BCE/CE era system. The era system for religious articles tends to be a point of continuous contention. Frequently fly-by editors (most often IP editors, but not always) come in and change all the eras to another system, and about a third of the time (maybe not that high) a dispute begins in the Talk pages about the era, sometimes rehashing the "which era system are we using" debates and calls for consensus. A lot of this is wasted time, and some era systems can prevent some editors from contributing to articles due to abstention of faith claims of another religion.

The BCE/CE system is more neutral than the other common system used by older christians. That other system uses two acronyms for statements of christian faith (one regarding asserting the J-man is a messiah, the other asserting the J-man lordship over the user of the acronym). This can be a barrier for non-christians. The BCE/CE system is neutral on this, and makes no religious claims. Some argue that the BCE/CE system center point is the same as the other system, and ask what the difference could possibly be. The difference is the faith-claim of the acronym of the other system. What the center point of the dating system doesn't make a faith-claim. Centering a dating system on an event such as the destruction of the second jewish temple, or the year that the Selucid empire took over Israel/Canaan (both systems have/are used by jews) does not say the user endorses the event that supposedly happened that year, just as saying 11 years after 9/11 does not mean the sayer is endorsing what happened on 2001-09-11.

Others have claimed the other system is not offensive to anyone, but would they say that if an atheist group began using a system whose acronym translated as "in the year of the heretic mortal man" with allusion to the J-man. Such a system would be offensive to both christians and muslims (christians and muslims would be offended by the "heretic" part; most modern christians would also be offended by the "mortal man" part).

The NPOV character of the Common Era system makes it a good system to be used in common by various religious groups. The calender eras of some other systems, though, are explicitly POV (the christian system in particular, the jewish creation system can also be argued to be so). The islamic hijra system is somewhat neutral in faith-claims, but its non-synching to the years of the gregorian calender doesn't make it useful.

My suggestion, however, does not endorse the idea of replacing eras found in direct quotations (which should be copied into an article in whatever form they appear in the article, including punctuation that does not conform to WP:ERA's formatting in regular-body, non-quoted text).

Use of the BCE/CE system would be NPOV, and help eliminate much of the dispute over religious articles, help reduce the pre-research when fixing dates in an article (going through Talks, going over earliest article history to find which was first introduced, etc), it does not present a barrier to contributors with religious beliefs from editing articles, and it is increasingly being used in academic and religious settings, thus recent research (used as references in the articles) should more likely match the BCE/CE system.

— al-Shimoni  (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Bloat
Colleagues, I see not only the need for serious copy-editing, but a whole lot of redundancy. Given that editors already complain about guideline and policy bloat, why are we repeating tranches of policy and guidelines that are found elsewhere?

And I worry about the potential for chaos when the MoS becomes yet more splintered and localised. I wonder: what is wrong with the current set of style guides? If it's necessary to have this separate one, why can't it just be a WikiProject guide, in addition to the established policies and guidelines? In other words, why not go through it and slash anything that's not unique to this area. Just provide links to sections in the MoS and other relevant pages where absolutely necessary. Tony  (talk)  05:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to back Tony's comments up. In addition I would like to see guides that are easily accessible from WP:MOS showing me the correct (preferred) useage of language - when do I write "Islam" and when do I write "Moslem", what is the difference between "Hebrew" and "Jewish".  This is of partiular concern if I am writing about a topic not directly related to religion - for example the economic impact of the Mormon settlers in Utah - is it correct to use the word "Mormon" in this context.  Martinvl (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Islamic/Moslem issue should probably be covered in the WP:MOS/Islam-related articles WP MOS manual. Same with LDS/Mormon under WP:LDSMOS or under WP:NCLDS. Each of these articles are accessable from the main WP:MOS from the Manual of Style infobox on the right hand side of WP:MOS. —  al-Shimoni  (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Major problems? Lede?
So far as I can tell, the relevant religious related Wikiprojects haven't been consulted about this. Not a good idea. Some of these sections violate other policies and guidelines, eg "The lede of an article on religion or religious subjects should be comprised entirely of an objective description of the religion/subject. It should not contain critiques or criticisms of the religion/subject, and it should not contain apologetics for the religion/subject. A critique, in this context, means stating that the religion/subject is false or mistaken. A criticism, in this context, means stating that the religion is bad or harmful or deceitful or just plain wrong." See WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The first problem I see with the quoted text is the use of "an objective description." WP does not attempt to be objective, but rather, to have a neutral point of view (which is not the same as being objective).The "should not contain critiques or criticisms" should be "should not engage in critiques or criticisms" although it should be able to, in NPOV manner, mention c/c that people have made (if they are very significant to the topic). If such c/c are not very significant, then those c/c which are normally significant should be in the body, likely in their own section, and discussed in NPOV. Engaging in c/c would violate NPOV, but mentions of c/c, which are done in a NPOV manner, would not. Apologetic statements should be treated the same. User LISA, whose tag is next to the quoted text in the main page, probably intended the meaning as I have just described as how the text should have been. These are a fairly easy semantic errors to make considering how English words often have blurry meaning; I have probably made such errors in my own explanation, here. LISA possibly was attempting to restate WP's NPOV policy within a religious articles context, thus probably not attempting (knowingly or not) to violate WP policies. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For the time being, I have struck-through Lisa's proposed paragraph, which read:
 * "The lede of an article on religion or religious subjects should be comprised entirely of an objective description of the religion/subject. It should not contain critiques or criticisms of the religion/subject, and it should not contain apologetics for the religion/subject. A critique, in this context, means stating that the religion/subject is false or mistaken. A criticism, in this context, means stating that the religion is bad or harmful or deceitful or just plain wrong."
 * Per Dougweller above, this is likely to be read as directly contradictory of WP:LEAD which says that the lead must "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies".
 * Per Imeriki al-Shimoni above, the lead should not be a place for apologetics, nor a coatrack for excess criticism; but (similar to John Carter's comments elsewhere), if the religious view is (for example) at variance with accepted science, that would seem to be something which should be noted in the lead, if it is to conform with WP:LEAD.
 * It is possible, as Imeriki al-Shimoni suggests, that that is in fact the kind of line that Lisa intended all along. But it's not what her text says, so at the very least her text needs a rewrite.  For the time being therefore, I have left the text in place, but struck through, until a version much more clearly in line with WP:LEAD can be suggested. Jheald (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
Well, it may not be a criticism so much as an observation about... criticism. I doubt that there can ever really be consensus amongst the Wikipedia editing community as a whole about criticism of religion. The page now says that criticism sections within pages are discouraged. You may want to think about what impact that would have on separate articles about criticisms of religions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder where such consensus was established. In my opinion every article on Wikipedia may have a 'criticism' section, and if there in deed exists notable criticism, then Wikipedia should have it. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the question is about whether the criticism should be included in a separate section, or integrated into the content describing the material being criticized. I wasn't the one who added that, I think, but I can see some utility in content saying, perhaps, "The Goofballs believe God created the world in a ginormous sneeze, and the universe is God's snot. The scientific community believes the Goofballs need serious medication and/or involuntary treatment." I can see how putting the objections together with what is being objected to makes sense in many cases. John Carter (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard to take you seriously in a discussion about religious neutrality if you're going to use examples like that. What are you trying to say?  Is there one of the world religions that the "scientific community" believes needs medication?  Is the "scientific community" some kind of monolith that takes part in theological discussions with a unified voice like some kind of referee? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think John Carter was simply giving a hypothetical example that could not possibly be confused with any particular page, not speaking disrespectfully about anything. And I agree with him that often it's better to put criticisms directly after what they criticize, instead of in a dedicated section of a page. But this dialog is an example of exactly why I was concerned that any guideline about criticisms is going to run into disagreement. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And doing a really bad approximation of Douglas Adams at the same time, yeah. And there are other points regarding forms of criticism in the section I added below. So, for instance, the Lutheran Church - Wisconsin Synod has actually said that it sees all Catholic popes as Antichrists. This is a very serious criticism. How much weight, if any, should be given that view in the main article on the Catholic papacy? My own personal choice at this point, and it is just a personal choice, is to consult as many basically "neutral" reference sources as I can and see how much weight they give material and where. But getting together such sources is itself problemetic. User:John Carter/Religion reference is still a long way from finished, for instance. I think such sources would be among the best for most such disputes here, provides we can really agree on which are the least non-neutral. I am getting close to getting all the books together in my e-mail, but it is a rather huge undertaking. John Carter (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I am simply not sure a project and there guideline can have a blanket rule of this nature. You will not be the only guide that will apply to all your articles. As many projects will be affiliated with the articles and most will have guides and advice pages aswell. No project, thus there guidelines and/or advice pages can dictate this type of format or content placement in every article that falls under this project. There should be no policy or advice pages anywhere that do not leave questions of this nature upto those at the article level. As no project has ownership over articles within their scope in this manner. Cant tell our editors they cant do something because this project does not like it overall - must talk about it at every article as every article is differnt. WP:Advice pages  Should sound like ...."The use of a "Criticism section" is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include a "Criticism section" is determined"through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article".......Moxy (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Perhaps it would be prudent to omit any discussion of criticism material from this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The critism section has by all means to be included even if its just by a redirect to a seperate article. There are by far to many controversial religious orgs. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The topics of "Neutral point of view" and "Evaluating claims" is covered at WP:RNPOV and Fringe theories. That we could link from here.. but I still dont see how this project can dictate the format or content here, over consensus among the editors at each article. Moxy (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we should not only keep in mind mainstream religions, even though there are critical aspect amongts those too. Lets not forget so called cults. From late experience I would suggest a link to a seperate article on critical issues should be alsways be accomodated.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think religious orgs should be signalled out to have a mandatory "Criticism" heading. It smacks of intolerance. Why not mandate that all "Sports" articles should have a "Criticism" heading? I don't think so.Momento (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Moxy: I think most reasonable editors would understand that a proposed MoS would qualify as a guideline, not a policy. There is a difference. A guideline allows for significant variations depending on the specific circumstances of the article. Your repeated assertion that an MoS would seek to '"dictate" content is, I believe, not supportable by the evidence. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because sports organisations don't tell lies to children. Tony   (talk)  09:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the previous editor should voluntarily refrain from editing any and all religion related articles, if he has such an attitude towards the subject. Debresser (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Most sports can be criticised. What about the arguments that some sports are cruel, dangerous, elitist, many require health sacrifices that cost the victim and society.Momento (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Debresser, there's a difference between my inner disbelief and the efficient POV filter I use when it comes to editing in article space. Momento, I do hope the gridiron and rugby articles mention the recent and alarming medical evidence of lasting brain damage from participation in the sport; but perhaps ping-pong might be forgiven for not having a criticism section. Tony   (talk)  09:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, ping-pong must have a "Criticism" heading as per Catflap08, "critism section has by all means to be included even if its just by a redirect to a separate article". "Ping-Pong" can redirect to "Table Tennis" where it will be excoriated.Momento (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

See what I mean? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The question here is about the term "criticism". Are we talking "criticism" as some form of disparagement or similar, or criticism as in independent, hopefully academic or similarly uninvolved, discussion? Personally, depending on the nature of the criticism, I could see having the criticism be included in the same section as the material the criticism relates to, if that is of sufficient weight in the independent literature. There is a rather real question about weight of criticism here, and type of criticism, which could reasonably be addressed separately. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What your saying is correct - However that not what the current section explains. I still dont see how this project or any project can dictate the types of section or where content can or cant be placed. There should be no doctrine telling our editors that a certain type of article cant have something or must have something. That would be a local consensus - WP:LOCALCONSENSUS = "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.  Our policy in general is   that content and its placement is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.Moxy (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused some irritation. I did not mean a criticism section should be mandatory but that it should be accommodated for when there are enough reasons to do so. On the other hand it might also be useful to compose a whole new article and only refer to the one within the respective article. As done for instance in the article about the Catholic Church.--Catflap08 (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to say that discussing whether or not this guidance should insist on a "Criticism" section is the very reason not to have the page: legislation gone into overdrive. I do hope the huge amounts of reduncancy and repetition (of the other MoS pages) has been removed. Tony   (talk)  08:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I put a suggestion on the main page (boldness in editing, right?). Basically the idea is that for any given article the contributor/s can agree to include or exclude (formal) criticism. But if they do include it at all, then they must include all viewpoints. Weight or space for each view should approximately reflect the degree of support that critical school has. And here comes another battle. But I don't see any other way to deal with it. Either everyone shuts up, or everyone has the right to be heard.  David_FLXD  (Talk) 15:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors who are working on such an advice page are encouraged to carefully study the main policies, guidelines, Manual of Style, and relevant essays. The best advice pages do not conflict with the site-wide pages and avoid unnecessary duplications with site-wide pages. - From one of our essays on the matter - For topics which inherently represent a point of view, the ideal approach of integrating negative criticism within the primary article may not be the best approach. Sticking to the subject matter helps eliminate this For example, topics such as philosophies (Idealism, Materialism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religions (Judaism, Christianity, Atheism) are topics that are inherently about a particular viewpoint.   Integrating negative criticism into those articles can sometimes result in confusion:  readers may not be able to discern the difference between what adherents believe versus what critics assert.  For these reasons, such articles often include dedicated "Criticism" sections or "Criticism of .."  See also Criticism.Moxy (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or - perhaps - they could even have a criticism section on a separate linked page? Though I can see potential problems with that too. Then again, there are potential problems with all of the choices. Just trying to share ideas which might be useful. If they're not, I've no doubt they'll be dropped in the nearest suitable dustbin!  David_FLXD  (Talk) 18:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The inherent problem of religions is that each thinks they are right and non-believers are wrong. And since Christians, Muslims and Hindus, who represent 70% of the world population, believe non-believers will go to hell or similar, there is no shortage of passionate criticism. Even within one religion there are violent schisms; Sunni/Shiite, Catholic/Protestant. Therefore criticism of religions by followers of other religions should be treated with care. In particular criticism of small non Christian, Muslim and Hindu religions or practices by Christian, Muslim and Hindu scholars and institutions would/should have trouble passing the NPOV test. In Wikipedia this can also lead to editorial bias. Since 70% percent of the English speaking world claim to be Christians, it's not unreasonable to assume that the majority religion of English speaking Wiki editors is Christianity and therefore vastly outnumber editors of small non-Christian faiths. Combine the preponderance of Christian editors with the preponderance of Christian sources that are critical of non-Christian religions and practices and it is inevitable that fringe religions have an uphill battle getting a fair hearing in Wikipedia. Mandating or encouraging a "Criticism" section and/or link in articles on religions (as opposed to every article) may exacerbate this problem. Momento (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Matters to be addressed
First, to anyone who comes here to say that there are some religion projects which already have Manuals of style, I want them to know that we know that and that we do not necessarily have any intention of "trumping" them, although, admittedly, it might be nice to have them all in perhaps one place.

There are a few questions which I, and I believe some others, have had difficulty with, and it is my hope that having an MOS eventually will help editors deal with pages with such problems, and, ultimately, get more articles in better shape.

A few of the questions which I would like to see addressed here are as follows:
 * 1) How to deal with articles which could/should contain significant content related to multiple belief systems, either religious or otherwise. An example is John the Baptist, who is of some significance to Judaism, more significance to Christianity, and perhaps surprisingly to some of greatest importance to the Mandaeans. The Raelians give a form of credit to the Bible as well, as the aliens they believe in are apparently mentioned in the Bible as "Elohim". There are also potentially similar issues with some "revival" type groups, or new views on older beliefs, some of which might be similarly discredited/rejected in their older forms. How would we deal with WP:WEIGHT issues regarding such articles?
 * 2) A similar question would be matters of weight regarding "religious" or similar beliefs in ideas and, at times, scientific or philosophical rejection or lack of support for such ideas.
 * 3) Just about any belief system encounters significant criticism, often on several points, from "competing" belief systems. How much weight, and where, should such criticism be discussed, and can we think of any general guidelines for them?
 * 4) To what degree in content about a broad "religious" belief system should the sometimes significantly variant beliefs of small groups within that broad community be presented, and where?

Those are just a few, and I know that there are others. But I think it would be useful to have some sort of discussion of how, in general, to deal with them, and hope that this page and the accompanying discussion can help do that. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Abrahamic / Dharmic
Does anyone think it might be useful to outline briefly one of the first things usually covered in comparative religion, that the major traditional religions / doctrines of the world (or at least those large enough to constitute a 'doctrine of rule' for a sovereign constitutional state) are broadly subdivided into the Abrahamic and Dharmic categories? (And possibly even list the major subcategories of each of these, ie Judaism, Christianity and Islam for Abrahamic; Hinduism and Buddhism for Dharmic?) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Scope ?
I have a question about the proposed scope.

An MOS like this might be appropriate for topics which only bear on the religion, and have no relevance or significance outside it.

But what about topics where a religion asserts that its tenets (as might be set out in its holy book, or elsewhere) represent a reliable account of a historical event which it asserts actually happened ?

In that case, the article is as much an article about (asserted) history, as about religion. (Similarly for asserted historical figures, historical buildings, historical places, historical practices, etc.) Is it suggested that such dual-interest articles should come under this guideline? In an article with such an (asserted) historical dimension, is it appropriate to privilege the religious perspective, or does that create issues with WP:NPOV ? Jheald (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy at all with the scope, and with a number of other aspects of this draft. Tony   (talk)  10:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In order to live up to our ideal of absolute neutrality, it is crucial that we recognize that there are multiple, competing, and vastly different "views of history" that are active and significant in the world today. Although the scholars for all these "views of history" will naturally assert priority for themselves over the others, there is really no such thing as a "unified view" that can be crammed down everyone else's throat. Not only do different governments often have different and contradictory views of history, but different religions, sects, and religious books also frequently present their own views of history, from  the most ancient times to the present.  Are we going to neutrally and earnestly explain for readers and attribute, what is the Christian view of history, including Protestant or Catholic view of history, the Jewish view of history, the Hindu view of history, the Muslim view of history, etc. along with the Marxist or Maoist view of history, or China's current official doctrine "Scientific Development Concept", on the articles where these major respective views are relevant and significant?  Simply describing them impartially, without endorsing, rejecting or marginalizing any of them, and realizing that all these views of history really do have significant followings in the Earth's population? (Even if they aren't all visible in the media of the country where we sit)  Or, are we going to be a vehicle for steering readers away from one view of history, and into another - which is a gross violation of what I like to call 'Starfleet's Prime Directive of non-Interference?'  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I regret I have to strongly disagree with at least some of what seem to me to be assumptions in this thread. I do not see how we are obliged to represent the vastly different views of history alive today, simply because they are held by people. There are significantly different views about any number of matters of science, for instance, particularly among the marginally educated. We do not feel the obligation to present all of them, nor have I ever seen any statements to the effect that they must be presented simply because some people hold them.
 * Regarding the different views of history, I have assembled the list of articles contained in Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones, which has been described as probably the best extant reference source on the topic of religion, broadly speaking. It is of course far from completely and absolutely comprehensive about the subject, as basically no print source ever could be. However, it has separate articles on History (Christian views), History (Jewish views), and History (religious views). I imagine any number of subarticles could be made on the latter.
 * Also, as per most policy, we are not obligated to present all views on a topic in main articles. WP:WEIGHT applies here as well. There are any number of ethnoreligions out there which have received little if any degree of academic support for their beliefs. Rainbow serpent being both the creator and the embodiment of the world is one example that comes to mind. What we are obliged to do is present all information with given weight and verifiability, and I believe that, if we have editors who are willing to go through the effort to do so, we would welcome content which does so. However, if religious beliefs of any sort have not received some reasonable amount of support from academics independent of that belief system whose work do not qualify as fringe theories, we are not necessarily obliged to present their views in main articles on the subject under question. It would however be completely appropriate to present such material in articles related to the belief system in general. John Carter (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This raises the question of who exactly will get to hand-pick and choose whose view(s) of history will be represented, and whose won't. Since several sovereign governments are interested in the matter (all of those I mentioned have sovereign governments and constitutions that promote their official views) this should be an interesting question indeed. Perhaps we should just go ahead and as a project assume the role some seem to crave, that of a modern day "Council of Nicea" that will determine once and for all ("neutrally" of course) exactly whose beliefs are "approved", and whose are declared "heretical" and even unmentionable. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As John Carter says, WP:DUE is relevant here. By and large, I think WP usually does a pretty reasonable job of summarising different lines of thinking, and what sort of support they are associated with. (Also, for clarity, I'm absolutely not assuming there is likely to be any monolithic view of history, if that was a perception that Til Eulenspiegel had of me and was reacting against.  Though, in line with what I think is the spirit of WP:POVFORK, I'm also very wary of splitting off articles by viewpoint as John Carter seems to suggest above. Sometimes this may be necessary, per WP:SUMMARY, because of the sheer depth of material available on a particular subject; however even then there should still be a central article which tries to present, at least to a basic level, a 360° view of the topic).
 * But I'd like to return to my original question: in terms of articles, what is the intended scope for this proposed MOS ?
 * It seems to me that there are some topics which might fairly clearly come under the heading of "religion" -- for example, Trinity, Shabbat, Dharma ... ; though even just looking at those examples, it's clear that each takes a particular path through its subject, which it seems to me doesn't necessarily follow the template of this proposed MOS, and I do wonder whether it's really a good idea to try to force the treatments into a fixed ironclad pattern, of the kind that might make sense for WP:FILM or WP:ALBUMS, but I am not sure actually makes so much sense here.
 * But then we have an article like King David, where it seems to me quite appropriate that a summary discussion of what views there are about actual history comes before a detailed presentation of the bible story; or, say, Synoptic Gospels, which takes a pretty much fully analytical line from the start, rather than taking the pattern that this MoS would seem to impose.
 * So, as I say, I am unclear about the scope of articles that it is proposed this guidance should apply to. I also wonder how much of a survey has been done of existing articles, to see how many of them, even unquestionably in scope, do or do not currently follow this proposed template, and whether it would really be an improvement to be this prescriptive and require them to follow it.  Jheald (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are basically two responses. First, the intended "scope" of this is, to my eyes, matters dealing with religion specifically. There are a number of other belief systems, some of which have been called "secular faiths," like Jungian psychology, the paranormal, and other topics, which are to some degree related and some of which would probably benefit from having some sort of MOS as well. This guideline, if enacted, could cover them as well.
 * My primary concerns relevant to this topic, however, are I think addressed in the "Matters to be addressed" section above. Specifically, there are a lot of "belief systems", religious or otherwise, which people hold with. Political views can in some cases be included as well, if they are based on some form of "evolutionary" view of man, for instance.
 * There's an old joke about how one never talks religion or politics at work. Unfortunately, we have lots of articles about both here, and the same problems which prompted that joke are, to my eyes, the problems that should be addressed by some guidelines here in wikipedia.
 * My own, most basic, belief is that, ultimately, on these socially divisive issues, maybe the best way to go is to follow the lead of the highest academic quality of the existing, relevant, reference works out there. So far as I can tell, that includes numerous reference books on every "faith" over a hundred years old or so. In several cases, there are unfortunately multiple such sources, some of which are primarily interested in presenting the internal view of a belief system, and some of which are more about an "external" view. The former are more common than the latter. And, with some topics like those in the "Matters to be addressed" section above, I don't think we have any clear guidelines right now regarding how to approach such matters. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My own most basic belief is that it is not unfortunate at all that we are blessed with an abundance of varied sources, but rather fortunate. If we had only one "acceptable" source posing itself as the ultimate authority for the tenets of each faith, that would be unfortunate.  Having multiple sources allows us to give multiple aspects or perspectives, and what we don't need is some kind of formula for determining whose side of the story to give preference to or "weigh in" on; what we need is a formula for ensuring that all relevant perspectives are presented with their due weight, but impartially, by using "attributative" language rather than "endorsing" language.  As an example of due weight:  Asatru probably can count around 2000 adherents worldwide.  That is far too insignificant to include their opinions (if any) on many subjects, BUT their position should be considered most relevant (and treated neutrally) on their own article, and also if they have any statement on specific matters relevant to their faith, like perhaps if they have published an official statement that Thor was a real historic person and whether his hair was red or blond (I have no idea if they really state any such thing, this is only a hypothetical example), then it could well merit a single referenced sentence to that effect in the article on "Thor". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is my subjective opinion that articles about religion and religion related subjects should deal first and foremost with the religion as viewed by the religion itself. Academic views on religion may definitely have a section "Academic views", but that should probably be the last section in an article. Debresser (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Debresser has a point. There is a however a difference between "articles about religion and religion related subjects" and sources which are clearly biased in favor of individual religions. Till's comments about variety of sources is not unreasonable, and clearly articles on Asatru for instance might well have material about their beliefs. In fact, that would seem to be the primary purpose of such articles. Part of the problem, as I indicated in the section I linked to above, is dealing with matters of weight. John the Baptist strikes me as a good example. He is the primary prophet of the Mandeans, although, so far as I have seen, they don't have any particular new information on the subject, and there is some serious question in the academic world whether they simply adapted him as a primary prophet after the local government adapted Islam and adapting him made them "people of the book". How much weight to give material regarding them in the main article on John is I think a reasonable question. Articles clearly and solely devoted to individual religions are a reasonable place for content regarding them as well. However, there are serious questions regarding, for instance, bias within sources. A reference work written by a Catholic about differences in the Calvinist churches might very easily be influenced by some bias of the author.
 * The Catholic Pope and Dalai Lama can clearly be in a position to make authoritative statements for the religious groups which they lead. Not all other religious groups have such individuals, and there is a question as to how much weight to give opinions made at specific times by leaders of groups at their time. Judaism is one example of several groups which do not have individuals within the group to make authoritative statements. If there are clearly different opinions on matters over time, and no specific individual or group who can define current beliefs, but several people who seem to be trying to do that for the group, how do we deal with it?
 * "Religion and science" articles are another matter that reasonably could use some sort of guidelines regarding content, particularly of the religion-related content, and especially when different religious groups have markedly different opinions.
 * Other questions involve how much weight to give opinions of "restoration" movements in main articles about earlier versions of such faiths. There are several groups in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions who see themselves as some form of revival of the Essenes. Some of them might have opinions about the Essenes which have little, if any, support in the academic community. How much space in the main Essenes article should they receive, and where, particularly regarding any such beliefs the "revival" groups might have about the original Essenes which have little if any support in other groups or in the academic community? The hypothetical "Thor" question above is another point which would theoretically merit some guidelines. Particulary if there are seperate groups in Asatru which have differing opinions about Thor's haircolor, and particularly if there are some American Asatru groups who might, perhaps amusingly to some, see Marvel Comics' character as having been directly and pointedly inspired by Thor himself in this matter to reflect "the truth". I think questions of weight in articles, like these, are ones which might benefit from specific guidelines, even if they are of a rather "rough" kind.
 * Ideally, my own preferred way to resolve these matters would be to consult apparently independent academic sources on the topics and see how much weight, if any, they give these ideas in their articles relative to their length and ours. But that is just a personal opinion. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still not clear here. Are articles like Abraham, David, Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) considered in-scope or out-of-scope for this proposal? Jheald (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's one of the questions to be addressed, I think. Those articles, so far as I can tell, would seem to fall in the broad "science and religion" (or "history and religion") field. I would think the first two clearly would, as they are about major religious figures, and independent evidence on them is rather limited, or maybe nonexistent. The last one about the Kingdom seems to me, maybe, probably would as well, if religious sources of whatever kind are counted as among the main sources of evidence on it. We probably should make it clear, though, that most everything which is called by some mythology is or has been called by others religion, and if I remember right it was in some part based on the arguments about how to deal with "mythic" beliefs that prompted this proposal. I hope maybe that answers your question.
 * In response to some of the other comments, I tend to agree that there probably would be good reason to help ensure that this MoS not be taken as being "of primary importance to the article as a whole", but one of at least a few MoS pages which would be relevant to given articles. So, maybe saying something along the lines of "this MoS would be primarily applied to a variety of articles whose primary topic is one which is, in general, of greatest importance and relevance to the study of religion or individual religions or similar belief systems, broadly defined?" John Carter (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see these protracted discussions about scope all the time. They consume millions of keystrokes and invariably go nowhere. If anyone recalls the WikiProject Conservatism scope wars, or the WP:USA conflagration, you know what I am talking about. There are tens of thousands of religion articles. We will never develop a formula that everyone likes. So let's make this simple: this guideline applies to any article which bears a WP RELIGION banner--taking into account that (1) guidelines are not binding policy and (2) WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If the article was erroneously tagged, then that is an issue for the members to adjudicate at WT RELIGION. Dumping this into the lap of WP RELIGION is the best way to go... trust me. 21:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)– Lionel (talk)
 * And what about religious "sections" in non-religious articles? Leave it up to the discretion of the editors at the talk page. – Lionel (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The question Jheald asked is a good one and saying we only worry about articles with a WP RELIGION tag doesn't quite solve it. By what standard are articles eligible for tagging? Thus, we come right back around to the initial question. What's the intended scope of the MoS. We can't create a functional MoS if we don't first know exactly what the subject is. The title WikiProject_Religion/Manual_of_style and manual's current lead strongly indicate that it's a project-wide MoS, not limited to a particular subset thereof. However, the tone of the manual seems to be of one intended for articles about particular religions and their denominations, not other articles that fall under the Religion WikiProject's mandate. Case and point:"The body contains the history and practices of the religion and the subject in question.SPCP4 It should also address differences within the religion, the views of other schools of thought and other religions, and academic points of view."

- Body sections, as of 24/8/2012 This covers articles about particular religions, but what about articles focused on observances, rituals, other practices, notable individuals, history, etc? What about small statements in religious articles that refer to other religions? The MoS still largely fits most of those, but becomes tighter the further down the list you go. Is the MoS intended only for whole articles that focus on specific religions, denominations, and their major practices or is it intended for all religion articles? If the latter, than the implied scope needs to reflect this. There needs to be guidelines on what sections are desirable in what sort of article and when they're not. Sowlos (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggest making this a WikiProject guide, not a sub-page of the MoS
A sub-page of the MoS is going to be scrutinised very closely, and probably rejected unless this is recast, given that editors are already upset at the amount of bloat in our official style guides.

I wonder why not make this a WikiProject guide? Then it would strike a kinder, more flexible relationship with the editors of religion-related articles.

I still suggest that any duplication of other style guides be removed from this one and, if necessary, linked. Tony  (talk)  08:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Making this a guideline sounds good. Removing repetitive parts should be done carefully. There is no harm done if some things will be repeated. There are always people who will not be aware of what is written in other places. Debresser (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I also concur with the above editors, that this would be far more appropriate as a WikiProject style guide, than a subpage of the MoS. Tony1 put it very well, a 'kinder, more flexible relationship' that engenders more trust from editors is precisely what is needed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I had thought of suggesting making this a "group essay" and letting it work its way up from there on its intrinsic merits. Any classification that helps to generate quickly and easily a useful document is welcome so far as I am concerned. While recognizing the problems of bloat (and let me add "wordiness" in general), there is a lot to be said for having all the basic information in one document  - many inexperienced editors want to get on with editing.  There is no guarantee that editors will read linked pages in these circumstances and I suspect that jumping to related pages tends to break their concentration. So let's get all the essentials in one place and cross-link via "For more details, see ..." Jpacobb (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And that one place would better in the MoS central, or as an essay here. It is destructive to duplicate text in our existing style guides because they change over time. Tony   (talk)  01:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This has always been a Wikiproject guideline with the target audience WP:RELIGION members. This goes back to the original discussion at WT:RELIGION. The top template says: "The following is a working draft of a proposed ... guideline." We can also ask the page creator. Well, ask me...  ;-)   – Lionel (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"No Criticism" is a pretty blatant violation of WP:NOTCENSORED, this and WP:RELIGION
The article states that there must not be any mention of Criticism of the said religion in question. But isn't that a blatant violation of WP:NPOV, which states that "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias", as well as WP:NOTCENSORED, specifically this: "Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations" as well as "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer)".

Also, I'm confused as to why this is different from the other guideline being developed (also MoS) and why they conflict with each other. Cyan  Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 10:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style.Moxy (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for that link, CyanG... so, I see this isn't even wikipedia's first or only attempt to devise a cookie cutter / boilerplate / one size fits all "answer" for all the religions of the world, which are all vastly complex, and have little in common - not to mention all the pertinent articles, which each have unique conditions that need to be looked at case by case. I'm starting to think now that laissez faire has worked best so far - and all these multiplications of "rules" are a bad idea, not to mention open to abuse by those with agendas to push, as we have seen in the past with the insistence of the "all religion equals mythology because our sources say so and only they count" crowd, boldly writing their own rules into policy for everyone else to follow. Why is there such a determined push to enforce consistency among apples and oranges?  Maybe it's just like Emerson famously said, about "a foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of tiny minds"... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is probably the most difficult part of Wikipedia to work in, but I think any attempt to provide some guidelines (not trainlines) is of value. Re criticism, it seems that almost every religion is anathema to every other, and I think that is the supporting idea behind the "no criticism in the lead" suggestion. I don't know how this issue can be resolved, but including info on what Catholic scholars have said about Buddhism (critical) or what Hindus have said about Islam (very critical) or what Wiccans say about all of them (critical and dismissive) would be tedious, predictable and repetitive. OTOH, not including coverage of sex abusive scandals when they occur would be remiss. Seems to me the idea of focusing mainly on what adherents say about their own beliefs has a lot of merit. Rumiton (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe I have got lost in the increasing bulk of the contributions to this discussion (see also the sections and ), but it seems to me that there is a misunderstanding.  I think the original suggestion was that "the lede should not contain criticism".  If so, much of the debate is beside the point in that, even if this were accepted, criticism is not excluded from the article as a whole.
 * Having said that, my own opinion is that the lede should reflect the article as a whole and, since criticisms are made, responsible ones should be reflected in it somewhere and in a balanced way and their presence reflected briefly in the lede. Let's try and find guidelines for ensuring that balance. Jpacobb (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of the original discussion which prompted this was concern about "mythology," specifically stories which have been and/or are accepted as true by members of some segments of the religious believers of the world, but largely rejected by independent scholarship, and regarded as "myth", "parable," or similar by a substantial segment, possibly the majority, of the people who describe themselves as adherents of the relevant belief system, broadly defined. In large part, I think that can be probably best addressed by something like the following:
 * 1) In almost all cases, particularly with the proliferation of neopagan movements, generally any story which is counted as "mythological" by the likes of Max Muller, Joseph Campbell, and others can also be described as "religious." In some rare cases, given beliefs may have no verifiable current believers, but I think those are probably rare occurrences.
 * 2) There are serious problems with many of these articles about religious stories with POV pushing. Sometimes the most seriously problematic editors are those who are devout believers in a given "story", and who object to them being called "mythological" because they perceive that word, erroneously, to indicate that the story is inherently false. I remember looking at various dictionary definitions of the terms and finding that the definition of "mythology" as "dubiously true story" generally comes no higher than second or third in the list of definitions, which are organized by frequency. Some of the early and more frequent editors here I think were substantially involved in those discussions, generally opposing the use of the word "myth" and similar. There are also other aspects of the science and religion debate that some devoutly religiously people object to. This might include, for instance, the "Jewishness" of some native Americans, as per the Book of Mormon. In many such cases, there is today no real substantive independent evidence to support such contentions, but some of the more profoundly devout editors still cannot accept that their personal beliefs are not, well, divine and inerrant fact, and that they should receive that degree of attention and encyclopedic "credit" in the content of our articles. And, of course, they are among those who would most bitterly oppose asserting the scientific view as the more likely one in some such instances, despite the fact that it is often the primary if not only one presented in other encyclopedic sources in articles on the main topic. If we could figure out how to deal with one example I have mentioned repeatedly, where and how to place information on the Mandaean veneration of John the Baptist in that, the primary article on the subject of John, that might help indicate how to deal with similar issues of how much weight to give religious beliefs which are held by a significant minority, but definitely a minority, of the relevant individuals and groups which relate to the subject.
 * Now, having said that, there are other problems regarding religion. One is the John the Baptist as a Mandean weight question I raised above. Others deal with NRMs, like Falun Gong, which is currently in a repeat performance before the Arbitration Committee. At least from my perspective, it is those issues and others like them which are the primary concern of this proposed guideline, although some of the earlier editors primarily concerned with "myth" issues have left a definite mark on the page. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If I wanted to find out what the Mandeans believe about John the Baptist, I would start with the primary source, which is the Mandean scriptures, and look up every reference in them to John the Baptist.  Has anyone done this? Surely they aren't that hard to find.  I wouldn't assume that they have "nothing new to add" until I had done this.  If it turns out that there really is nothing at all in them that is not also in the Bible regarding John the Baptist, then I would look to see if secondary sources could shed any light on why he holds special veneration with them, keeping an eye open for anything mention-worthy in the John the Baptist article.  Based on the relative size and antiquity of the Mandeans, a single sentence explaining any unusual views seems like due enough weight for the John the Baptist article.  Note that size (as in number of adherents) seems like the best gauge for significance, followed by antiquity (they weren't invented on the internet just yesterday; they go back quite a few centuries and are still represented today). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, I did look, as the Mandaean scriptures as translated are in the local SLU library, and I have also checked the academic journals on JSTOR on the subject, which are admittedly very sparse, as well as other databanks and reference sources, including primarily those which do not have an apparent Christian bias. This was, admittedly, a few weeks or months ago, I think before or very shortly after this was first proposed actually, and I do not at this point clearly remember all the details quickly. I would myself very much question some of the assumptions made in the above comment. I also seem to remember the sources are all considered significantly later than the Christian ones, by at least a few centuries. The lack of new information is, in fact, one of the reasons that some academics have said that the Madaeans under Islamic rule were basically grabbing at whatever they could to qualify as "people of the book," and, with their great emphasis on a ritual resembling baptism, John was the best candidate. They also speak very negatively of Jesus, considering him to actually have evilly perverted John's baptism, though that is irrelevant to this particular article.
 * Specific points to be addressed are
 * (1) how should the lede section be written, regarding the relative "importance" of John to Judaism, Christianity, and the Mandeans? He has some relevance to all, basically in ascending order of the three.
 * (2) Assuming that the "biographical" content comes first in the body of the article, how and where would content about John's role in Mandaeanism be placed thereafter? Would there be one section on "Religious influence", covering all three groups? If so, would the Mandaeans be the first of the three, given his primary importance to them as basically the "prophet of baptism," or later, and why? Or would there be three separate sections, one for each group? (Here I'm assuming there aren't more, of course.) Also, how long should that section be relative to those for Judaism and Christianity?
 * (3) Also, although not directly relevant to that article, there are additionally, admittedly rare, other groups, including some NRMs, whose leaders or "prophets" of some sort have received significant "revelations" about historical religious figures. The Ascended masters come to mind. Some of these are similar to the opinions on these subjects within the field of academic history, some differ pronouncedly. How and where and to what degree would content relative to them be included in main articles on these historically disconnected prophets?
 * My own bias, which I acknowledge is a bias, would be to consult the most highly regarded academic reference sources and see what they say, and to what degree relative to other content therein. Our article may well be longer than those, and probably will be, but it would allow a rough basis from which to start, maybe on a very rough "percentage" basis. If however, those sources give little or any treatment to the Mandaeans (in this instance), should we follow suit, or should we have separate specific guidelines to try to follow? John Carter (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * John, while you were researching the Mandaean scriptures, did you happen to notice that they have an entire book said to be authored by John the Baptist himself, and consisting of his purported teachings? Or, would you sum this up as "nothing to see here, keep it moving right along"? And what "assumptions" have I made now that you disagree with?  Are you "inferring" things I didn't actually say again?  We may admit to "bias" but it is very bad for engendering trust if as editors we routinely evince a condescending attitude to other religions or belief systems. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The original idea for the "Criticism" guidelines was to address 3 types of issues WPReligion members face: (1) criticism of the belief system precedes the description of the system and (2) because of suppression of primary or scholarly religious sources the entire lede is written from the POV of the faith's detractors and (3) The amount of criticism in the lede was totally undue based on the proportionality in the article body. This was becoming frustrating particularly for new members and a topic of discussion at WT Religion. – Lionel (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe (examples might be useful), but even so, that isn't an acceptable way to handle such problems. We already haveWP:LEAD for instance which should be followed and if followed should prevent such situations. I don't know what you mean by suppression of primary sources - what you or others call suppression may simply be application of policy, as WP:VERIFY says "While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic" - the main discussion is at WP:PRIMARY, part of our NOR policy. Maybe any religious guidelines need to make this policy clear. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of good logic in the proposal that the lede is not the place to detail criticims. It is not a case of censorship but more a case of ensuring that the lede gives an objective, un-emotive definition of what the subject is, as understood in its own terms, and free of editorial bias. In other words: no implication for or against within the introductory definition.
 * If we don't ensure the lede is free of criticism, then we can't ensure that it is free of positive endorsement either. Any kind of inference as to the value of the religion - or anything that can be construed as such - loses the encyclopedic tone from the start. The article body is the place to cover all aspects of the subject; and detail the criticisms in a place in a way in which they can be properly explained. When introduced in headline format in the lede, they attract controversy because the lede appears to present the final definition of a subject in condensed form. As neutral editors we should only report and not make it our jobs to try to define, and we do that far more effectively within the article itself. --  Zac   Δ talk! 02:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much agree with the previous editor. And I think there is another reason. We want the articles to be first and foremost about the religion itself. Debresser (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

More concern about fragmented advice to our editors
Bishonen has mentioned on my talk page that there's a Manual of Style/Islam-related articles page but no Manual of Style/Christianity-related articles. I'm wondering why this current proposal excludes the possibility of merging advice for all religion-related articles. It's clearly an unsatisfactory situation. Tony  (talk)  13:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The same goes for why there is a WP:Christianity noticeboard but no WP:Islam noticeboard. People have to create it first. Cyan  Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 04:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Better that there be one noticeboard. It is not WP's role to cluster into factions of editors based on any particular religion; rather, religion should be seen as a field, as taught in many (even catholic) high schools and universities. It is the essence of neutrality that this be done, I think. Tony   (talk)  09:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice (refreshing for here) expression of Common Sense, Tony! WP:Religions and faiths noticeboard, and Manual of style/Religion-related articles are the obvious two to be created. Of course that would require sensible and collaborative discussions on what / how to merge stuff ... ;P  Pesky  (talk ) 20:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that there was an indication that there couldn't be a single religion MoS. I would personally support one. There is also a Buddhist MoS and various others, and I thought I indicated elsewhere on this page that I would have no objections to merging them all into one. Regarding the Christianity noticeboard, that was created not so much as a "noticeboard" but to be a talk page which could be used for all the various Christianity projects. And, FWIW, I remember there being objections to merging the various Project talk pages. If someone wanted to create a single talk page/noticeboard for all the Islam projects, as a member (at least a signed member) of many of them I would support it. It would make it easier for comments to get seen. Regarding Pesky's comments, if there were an effort to turn the talk pages of the inactive religion related projects into a single noticeboard, or even a single project talk page, I for one wouldn't object. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. As one of the editors involved in the Christianity content, I can say that it waas proposed before when I invited comment on this proposal with that project that there be a separate Christianity MoS. At the time, I indicated that I doubted it would be particularly different from a main religion MoS, although, admittedly, there might be further details. I think there already are MoS of sorts for the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses. But, in general, I think most points relevant to that would probably be "sub-points" of those included in a broader religion MoS, and it would probably make sense to have that first, adding Christianity-related points only where directly needed. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does it say "this current proposal excludes the possibility of merging advice for all religion-related articles"? Although it would be difficult to merge this with the Islam MOS because as official MOS requires community consensus and this guideline only requires wikiproject consensus. I disagree with your assertion about clustering editors. The definition of a wikiproject is a group of editors who edit a certain topic area collaboratively: whether that area be culture, science, or even a religious denomination. – Lionel (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A great and significant quote on "religious tolerance"

 * "Since nobody can interfere in the realm of God, we should tolerate and live side by side with those of other faiths. In the mystic traditions of the different religions, we have a remarkable unity of spirit. Whatever religion they may profess, they are spiritual kinsmen. While the different religions in their historic forms bind us to limited groups and militate against the development of loyalty to the world community, the mystics have already stood for the fellowship of humanity in harmony with the spirit of the mystics of ages gone by. No one should question the faith of others, for no human being can judge of the ways of God." - Haile Selassie I, 1965
 * Let's not kid ourselves; there are certainly a number of people who would consider this a Significant Point of View on this subject. He was not speaking as an ordinary pundit; he was Head of State for a country with a long history.  Personally I think this quote is so unsurpassed a statement on religious tolerance, that I would like to see it incorporated into any proposed guideline on "how to deal with them religions". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this statement makes any sense, and would oppose incorporating it in any Wikipedia guideline. Debresser (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And I can't help noticing how the comment starting this thread seems to imply that there is some sort of perjorative motivation behind this proposal, when I am aware of no such intention. If anything, not only does the statement itself make little sense, but the motivation behind it seems to me to be a bit suspect as well. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is simply a famous quote from Haile Selassie about how people of all faiths should tolerate one another. It has been quoted like millions of times; never before have I seen anyone claim not to understand what it is saying. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This guideline is not about religious tolerance. But you are free to write one. – Lionel (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you apparently feel that stressing a need for editors to have a tolerant attitude toward other faiths when writing about religious topics, should have no place here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am more than a bit confused by the above comment. I would very much appreciate how "religious tolerance," which seems to me to be a conduct issue more than anything else, does have a place in a proposed manual of style, which is ultimately about content. Please elaborate exactly where you see a connection. John Carter (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's see... Reading through the proposed page, as it currently stands:
 * "Please follow these conventions when you contribute to religion articles so that they are neutral..."
 * What does tolerance have to do with neutrality?


 * "The field of religion is among the most contentious and often disputed topic areas in Wikipedia. Very often, editors involved with such content are so involved because of either their individual support of the religion in general, their support of another religion, with which others would disagree, their opposition in some way to the religion with which a specific article deals, or general opposition to religion."
 * Hmm, now what could this possibly have to do with tolerance?


 * Etc etc etc... I could go on with just about every single paragraph, but hopefully you get the point. Writing about religion from a NPOV standpoint is obviously all about tolerance, sorry if you cannot see the connection. I was checking to see if mention of "tolerance" would be tolerated here as well, but perhaps not... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Till, what would be sought would be actually responding directly to the point raised. For all your rather obvious disregard for the point, you have yet to indicate how encyclopedic content is of necessity dependent on "tolerance." There has been no objection to the mention of tolerance, and will not be. The only objection I think that anyone would have is to the apparent irrelevance of this thread. If you cannot produce any evidence to indicate that encyclopedic content is dependent on tolerance of religious beliefs of others, please either do so, or cease making what others might see as unfounded assumptions and intimations about the motivations of others. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're trying to read my mind too much. Don't infer anything I haven't explicitly stated.  You're just setting yourself up for a strawman fallacy. I will say it is rather mind boggling that you cannot see what "tolerance" has to do with quotes from the project page like "The field of religion is among the most contentious and often disputed topic areas in Wikipedia. Very often, editors involved with such content are so involved because of either their individual support of the religion in general, their support of another religion, with which others would disagree, their opposition in some way to the religion with which a specific article deals, or general opposition to religion."  But, if you give me time, I will try to figure out a way to spell it out in very simple, easy to connect terms, so that there cannot be any possible confusion professed in this regard. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, actually, I'm trying to see where you actually addressed the points I made. If trying to see how you addressed them is trying to read too much into them, I think it might be useful for you to indicate how you did. So far as I can see, you have yet to say anything which clearly indicates how "tolerance" would matter in constructing content guidelines or article content. If it was a mistake on my part to assume you actually did do so, my apologies and please point out what I missed. If you did not, please do so now. I would still like to see exactly how it would directly relate to matters of content. John Carter (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What does Lionel think?
This guideline was originally created to solve a particular recurring issue identified by members of WPReligion. What that issue was evades me at the moment... something to do with editor attrition and a particularly aggressive POV pusher I think. In any event, language was crafted to resolve the issue in case of future difficulty, and then relevant text was incorporated from other Wikiproject guides--e.g. MILHIST--and adapted to religion. Other stuff was thrown in along the way. At this stage we probably need to reboot this thing... (1) identify problems that WPReligion members face on a regular basis and try to develop consistent protocols for dealing with them and (2) organize all of the standard stuff in one place. E.g. article layouts, style stuff such as how to add "GOD" to an article, forms of address, conventions that are specific to religion articles. – Lionel (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good ideas. Maybe it might be a good idea to archive the talk page and start over? I'll leave that up to Lionel to decide, as he probably has a better memory of the specifics here than I do. I do think it might work best to operate from specific examples of matters of contention at least from the beginning though, as I at least find it easier to deal with even broad specifics than total generalities. John Carter (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What exactly is wrong with this talk page? Discussion not going the way it was intended? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Til that was unnecessary. Please WP:AGF. Have you forgotten that John is an admin and he can block you for 6 months with the push of a tiny little button. Back in the 70s I saw him block an editor for 1 week for leaving out a comma. On a talk page! – Lionel (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't threaten me. I haven't done anything wrong whatsoever.  Are only certain people allowed to comment here?  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No threat. The AGF was a warning. The block bit was intended to be humorous. Obvious because of the absurdity (there was no wikipedia in the 70s). – Lionel (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the greatest principles that mankind has taken centuries to learn from his spiritual quest, in the opinion of a vast number of observers, is the one that "all men are created equal". And yet, it seems there is still an ongoing struggle today to preserve this very principle in the face of those to whom it is still anathema, those who would assert some kind of priority for themselves, claim to be the instructors of their fellows in these matters, and try to marginalize anyone who does not accept their self-claims.  So then, is it up to only one or two 'special' editors here who get to to decide when to archive this page, when things don't go according to their plan?  Have we dispensed altogether with the idea of "consensus"?  And is it sufficient to simply repeat "AGF" again and again like a mantra if anyone notices what is really happening?  I had thought "AGF" was a two way street.  I started out with good faith here. But for those who react to my input with bad faith, the whole concept of mutual "good faith" goes right out the window.  I am expected to continue to show "good faith" to those who lord it over and threaten, as well as those who spend far too much time going over others' words with a fine toothed comb looking for any slight fault that can be used against them, to remove them from the equation, etc. The way to restore "good faith" here will be for those few who have seated themselves in the chair of privileged authority to step down, and adopt a spirit of genuinely fighting AGAINST bias, not chuckling at it, and standing up for EVERYONE's right to their own beliefs. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This--"is it up to only one or two 'special' editors here who get to to decide when to archive this page, when things don't go according to their plan?"--can be construed as a personal attack. You cannot accuse editors of WP:TAGTEAM without proof. You have already been warned. Do you realize you are making a big deal out of nothing??? Just calm down already. Noone is going to archive the page unless we get your blessing first.– Lionel (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I also have to agree that one editor in particular has apparently come to the conclusion that there is an express intention to try to downplay the beliefs of one or more individual religious groups. I have seen no evidence to support that contention. I also would ask everyone to note that I have requested in a current ArbCom case that efforts be made to develop such a manual. However, I also believe that it is incumbent upon all editors to try to conduct themselves in a manner in accord with wikipedia guidelines. That might include, in this instance, WP:POV, and possibly WP:TE, WP:AGF, and others, particularly if there is evidence that individual editors might be trying to influence that guidelines be constructed to perhaps be in accord with their own personal opinions. Some of the comments made to date have been I think rather seriously off-topic, and I hope that such comments cease. Having said that, I believe it would be reasonable to try to assess what the basic "outline" of existing problems might include. On that basis, I am in good faith below proposing what I think might be included as some of the areas which cause the greatest frequency of conflict below.
 * 1) "science vs. religion" content - Particular concerns include how much weight to give ideas of a primarily religious nature in articles about science, and when it is a good idea to create spinout articles on what might be perhaps broadly and possibly inaccurately called "non-scientific" views on the subjects.
 * 2) "religion vs. religion" content - This would be particularly relevant to articles on such subjects as Messianic Judaism, a movement which, internally, describes itself as being Jewish and Christian, is generally accepted as a form of Christianity within the Christian population and elsewhere, but has little if any outside acceptance of its claims to be Jewish.
 * 3) "official" statements of beliefs - Obviously, all groups have beliefs, and most if not all have some clear statements of doctrine. There are questions, however, regarding groups which do not have any bodies which might be in a recognized position to make official statements of doctine, particularly if the beliefs relate to newer scientific or other ideas and/or religious or ideological beliefs which they had not previously clearly encountered and responded to.
 * 4) "folk religion vs. official religion" - How do we deal with religious beliefs which are widely held within one or more religious communities, but may not have received much clear degree of official support or acceptance? Specific examples might include Joseph Smith's claim that he and many other early Mormons were lineal descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, the Xenu controversy in Scientology, and similar cases. Specific concerns relate to how to relate these ideas in main articles on general topics, under what circumstances if any to create spinout articles, and what circumstances might apply before such spinout.
 * 5) Additionally, there are clear matters of language within articles, mentioned above. Under what terms would "Muslim" or "Islamic" be used, "Mormon" or "Latter-day Saint", and other matters of sometimes popular terms vs. more internally approved terms. And, yes, this would likely include under what circumstances to use words like "mythology".
 * 6) To what degree non-academic sources, particularly publications of church bodies themselves or their affiliated organizations, like denominationalout colleges, should be used as sources for content regarding the beliefs and practices of religious groups, and when it would be better to use sources which do not have what some might consider to be conflict problems.
 * 7) Amount of weight to be given in articles to matters about religions to beliefs of either secular or outside religious groups, or dissenters within groups, and how it should be included.
 * 8) The last one I can think of is questions about article structure. I think this question would most clearly relate almost exclusively to articles which have multiple sections within it which relate to the broad topic of "religion" or belief.
 * If anyone can think of any others which they believe to perhaps deserve inclusion, please indicate as much. But I do hope that this matter might well be getting significantly more attention soon, particularly if ArbCom agrees that there might be a need for some sort of guidelines regarding religion, and I think that if that situation should develop, it might be useful to do some archiving, if for no other reason than to prevent the page becoming perhaps overlong. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Layout guidelines
You may need to split these. The structure of a top level article on a whole religion should be very different from the structure of an article on a Hadith, or on Lent, or on a Buddhist temple. Or perhaps link to more specific layout guidelines where these exist. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Manual of style seems to parade bad style throughout
Let's take a look at the opening few sentences:


 * "Please follow these conventions when you contribute to religion articles so that they are neutral and stylistically consistent for better and easier reader comprehension."—Neutrality doesn't make for better and easier comprehension. And I suggest "articles on religion-related topics".
 * "The field of religion is among the most contentious and often disputed topic areas in Wikipedia."—This is not a good sentence. We have "field" and "topic areas". Not sure "often" is required, especially as the next sentences opens with "Very often".
 * "Very often, editors involved with such content are so involved because of either ..."—What does so involved refer to? I'm reading through the sentence to see "so involved ... that X" ... but it doesn't get there. "Either" introduces two elements, but the list contains far more than two.

Every sentence has major problems, yet this is meant to be a model of good style. Is it all like this? I can't bear to look further. Tony  (talk)  08:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is I believe noted that this is an early draft of a MoS. And, yes, speaking for myself, I have a serious habit, unfortunately, of both writing on the fly and correcting my own writing while in the process of writing it, which occasionally creates duplication. Also, several sections were written by different people.
 * While the stylistic considerations noted above are not unreasonable, there are a rather large number of more constructive, and possibly more useful, statements that could be made. Certainly, as this is still in the early stages, stylistic changes would certainly be welcome where such is seen necessary. And, yes, if there were any constructive comments about other ideas which are not yet covered, or covered inadequately, they would be welcome too. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Some proposed 'plain English' amendments ?:
 * "Please follow these conventions when you contribute to religion-related articles to ensure the content is neutral, consistent in style, and easy for the reader to understand."
 * "The field of religion is one of the most contentious and disputed fields of discussion in Wikipedia."
 * "Editors often hold an emotional attachment to the subject because ..." --  Zac   Δ talk! 21:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No objections here to those, or tprobably to any others you might wish to make. This is still in the early proposal stage, so I think any additional input of any kind, including content of the MOS and particular points to be raised in it, are more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Covering Mythology?
Is this manual of style intended to cover mythology articles? As I am likely the most prolific author on the subject on Wikipedia, I'm curious as to what's brewing here exactly. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a very good question. The best answer I can think of, unfortunately, is "sort of". The question, I guess, is how to differentiate between "mythology" and "religious story". The latter would fall within the scope of the topic of religion, the former maybe not. Unfortunately, so far as I can see, the difference between those two terms is pretty much negligible, as, so far as I can tell, there is a very good chance some group out there believes in just about every old myth we can think of, with about the only differences between about the number of believers, the question of whether the stories are taken literally or not by those who believe them, and the independent scientific views on the topics. So, in a sense, yeah, these would apply, to some degree, depending on the ratio of people who believe the myths to those who do not credit them at all, and the independent scientific/academic opinions on the subject. Having said all that, if anyone, including you, thought of some rough guidelines that you thought would be applicable to the general topic of "myths," I think we would welcome the input. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if some kind of due-weight might apply. If the number of followers are so small in relation to the topic itself, then it may have crossed the line out of a religious topic and into one that only deserves only a section or two about how it was once observed mostly as a religion. Not a very good comparison, but as a kind of example: If the English language is the language of the Angles, and whenever you talk of English, there is a good chance you also must speak of the Angles, then the weight is toward one direction where the Angles are quite involved in the topic. But when English has diffused to the point where hardly anyone associates English the the Angle people (who pretty much don't exist as a people anymore), then it has now shifted another direction, one where an article on English might have just a paragraph or two related to its "Oh, by the way" origins among the Angles, but otherwise, the Angles are out of sight, out of mind. In this situation, a myth generally has long crossed the line to the point where few ever consider it a religion (or, even, ever having been one). — al-Shimoni  (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For the most part I think I could agree with the above. Thinking of a particular case, there are still a few people in Athens who worship the old Greek gods. I remember a piece on them on the BBC during the Athens Olympics. It is illegal in modern Greece, but, if I remember right, that might be because of "freedom of religion" laws and not wanting blood sacrifices to regularly take place at major tourist attractions. But, in the cases of most of the myths about the Greek gods, while there still are, evidently, a rather limited small number of people who believe in those stories, and they are given rather little weight in comparison in reference works on the topics in general. My own idea would be to try to use existing reference works which deal with the topics, like encyclopedias, as a rough guide to the percentage of material in articles on myths to be given to modern believers. It might be a bit of work to determine that, but it seems to me to be the most neutral and defensible way to go. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by encyclopedias? Encyclopedias such as the Britannica are IMHO pretty bad as references. Articles are generally written by just one person and can reflect any pov, not necessarily the most uptodate or most common view. Specialist encyclopedias are generally much better. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, I'm thinking of things like either the Mircea Eliade (1st edition) or Lindsay Jones (2nd edition) of the Encyclopedia of Religion, or the Brill Religion Past and Present,/Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, or other works of that kind. There actually are a rather huge number of such reference works in the philosophy/religion/mythology field, including some on neopaganism and the like, so some might cover only one aspect of a story, which is what might make it somewhat difficult. Now, some of the individual articles in those sources have been criticized for the same reasons you give above, but they aren't that many, and the academic journals probably have some material indicating why and how they are criticized. So, while they are in no way perfect, those two sources at least are probably in general more or less meet the level of quality and balance we would hope our own work to get to. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I presumed that was what you meant, but wanted to see it stated explicitly here. I have Sarah Iles Johnston's Religions of the Ancient World. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For the purpose of whether or not mythology articles fall under this manual of style article, I don't see what difference it makes whether or not anyone actively worships, celebrates, or venerates this or that. If there's an active belief in the subject or it's a part of some sort of religious system, we simply state that in the introduction and in a section about it in the authors I've authored and/or collaborated on. As "mythology" was someone's religion somewhere, it would naturally fall under this category. I believe this should be kept in mind as this manual of style page is crafted. Perhaps one specifically about mythology may be appropriate. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is part of a "religion," then it would reasonably fall within this scope. I think the big part of the question here is the definition of "mythology". So, does Noah's Ark qualify as "mythology"? Some would say yes, some would say it is religious in nature. Also, does a given story, like, for instance, the "myth" of Jesus' crucifixion, hold a significant place in a given religion? If yes, then it too is probably "religious."
 * I do think it might make sense to have specific material included in this that deals directly with mythology. I actually kind of doubt there would be enough divergence between an MoS for mythology and one for religion to merit a separate one. Also, FWIW, if one looked at some of the reference sources on the subject of religion, you'll find a lot of overlap between "mythology" and religion. Like I said earlier, my first choice for use in helping to determine content weight, location, and such is the better religion encyclopedias, if they apply. Having checked the reviews and other comments on them, they tend to be accurate and NPOV. If someone wanted to add material specifically devoted to articles about "myths," of course, that would be very much welcome. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "classical mythology" in literature, art, and popular culture of the post-classical West is secular (works of the imagination, or allegories, or poetic tropes), in contrast to the myths of the Greeks and Romans themselves. Even in antiquity, however, mythological subject matter isn't always religious in character. Paintings of sexual escapades among the gods in the bedrooms of Pompeii differ in purpose from the religious images in the household shrine down the hall. The myths even of ancient Greece are known to us mainly through sophisticated works of literature, not sacred texts. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a point regarding basically articles about "mythology in popular culture" articles. I'm not entirely sure that an MoS on religion or mythology would necessarily have much to say about those topics, nor do I think it necessarily should. A painting of Apollo is a painting of Apollo. I don't think this MoS would necessarily apply to paintings of The Last Supper to much degree either. Regarding your second point, about the "secular" nature of Greek mythological sources, last I remember Homer was counted by cultural anthropologists as possibly inventing the idea of the Olympian gods as a sort of Ewing family in the sky, so the Iliad and the Odyssey would probably count as religious literature primarily, even if that is no longer the primary way they are perceived. John Carter (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)