Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Talk:Sexual intercourse#Article is overwhelmingly dominated by human sex

Opinions are needed on whether or not the Sexual intercourse article should lean mostly toward human sexual intercourse. One view is that since "sexual intercourse" mostly refers to humans and we have other articles to cover sexual activity of non-human animals (such as Animal sexual behavior), then it is fine that the article mostly leans towards humans, similar to the Anal sex and Oral sex articles. The other view is that humans should not be given so much weight, since the term "sexual intercourse" also refers to non-human animals. Flyer22 (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's really a problem, rename Sexual intercourse to Human sexual intercourse and leave the animal stuff in Mating. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Environmentalism as a Religion

I am seeking assistance in writing a section to the article Environmentalism regarding a significant minority opinion that Environmentalism can be seen as a religion. As this wikiproject concerns itself with religions perhaps there would be interested parties willing to assist in this endeavor. Please see the current discussion at Talk:Environmentalism#Enivironmentalism. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for NPOV review

  • Recently an editor has raised concerns regarding NPOV with some articles I had worked on prior to an extended wikibreak.
  • I have committed to no longer edit or watch these pages.
  • However, I would appreciate it if others could look them over with NPOV in mind, and discuss on their talk pages and make appropriate changes if need be.

One of the articles was related to this WikiProject:

  1. Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

I will not object to any changes proposed, discussed, or implemented.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem article

Collective salvation. I really don't know what to think about this article. I am considering nominating it for deletion. Does anyone know something about the topic? Borock (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone else just nominated it. Borock (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Deity infoboxes

Is it possible and within the remit of this project to conflate the various deity infoxoes into one that will have parameters for each cultures deities?--NeilEvans (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Asking for a FAR of the article Sharon Tate

I believe it no longer meets FA status and have nominated it for FAR. Per wiki rules, I am notifying all of the article's involved wiki projects. Crystal Clear x3 03:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Defining "Fundamentalist Christianity" as "militant"

There's a discussion occurring on Talk:Fundamentalist_Christianity concerning the use of "militant" to define "Fundamentalist Christianity". Feel free to participate. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 21:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Another Gospel (countercult book)

Hi. I see an issue with the article on Another Gospel (a book by Ruth Tucker on "cults"), and I'm hoping some people here might be able to help.

The problem I see has to do with WP:NPOV. Essentially all of the material cited in the article comes from sources within (or at least leaning toward) the conservative / evangelical Protestant camp — people who strongly believe, or tacitly accept as a given, that this religious view is right and that the groups described in Another Gospel are self-evidently wrong. But when I've tried to find sources discussing this book from an opposing point of view, I discovered there just don't seem to be any sources at all discussing, or even mentioning, Another Gospel that aren't coming from a Protestant / evangelical POV.

Technically, I suppose it could be said that the article satisfies NPOV because it does represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" — but when no one outside one specific viewpoint seems to consider the topic worth commenting on at all, I have to wonder if the result is truly neutral, as opposed to satisfying the letter of NPOV while downplaying the spirit of the policy.

Does anyone know of any sources not allied or sympathetic to the Protestant / evangelical community which could be drawn upon to give more balance to the treatment of this article? Or, alternatively, can anyone suggest other ways of handling an issue like this? Or do people here believe that, in fact, there is no "issue" and that what I'm seeing as a not-really-neutral treatment of the subject is in fact neutral (or, at least, as neutral as we can expect it to be) because what is currently being done is the only thing we can do?

Just to state my own possible biases here for completeness' sake: I proposed this article for deletion in early 2010, claiming that it "violates WP:NPOV to a possibly irredeemable extent". I was basically unanimously shot down, and the article was kept — and I accepted that result and moved on in an attempt to improve the article as best I could — and in my view, the article is better now than it originally was — and although (per my posting here) I still have reservations about the neutrality of the article, I am no longer hoping to get it deleted and would prefer to keep improving it instead. Additionally, I am LDS (Mormon), and my faith is one of the "cults" treated in Tucker's book, but I am committed to seeing this book treated in a balanced and neutral manner, and I am not following any sort of secret agenda to sabotage the article. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Assemblies of God USA

Please review the General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America and leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America/archive1. Thanks so much. Ltwin (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

New categories for organizations of Catholics. PLEASE comment!

Whether or not to add Catholics for Choice to the category Category:Roman Catholic Church organizations has led to a bitter edit war. At Wikiproject Catholicism, we agreed to make the some changes that could solve the problem. The idea is to add additional categories, which would differentiate official Catholic organizations from unofficial organizations. The idea is:

  • Create Category:Dissenting organizations of Roman Catholics as a subcat of Category:Organizations of Roman Catholics. This would include organizations of self-identified Catholics who are identified by reliable sources, eg. mainstream newspapers and academic books, as publicly dissenting against Catholic Faith (as in the Catechism) or Catholic discipline (as in the Canon Law), as long as the dissenting persists and has generated significant coverage. The threshold of coverage to include an organization in this subcat will be decided on a case-by-case basis. This shouldn't generate controversy, because dissenting organizations are often proud of their dissent.
  • Affirmative sourcing will be necessary to include an organization either in the "official" category or in the "dissenting" category. Such sourcing being absent, the organization will remain in Category:Organizations of Roman Catholics.

Anyone here objects? Please comment. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Another question: is there any other wikiproject that would be interested in this? We don't want to make such a sweeping change without community agreement. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Short comments

AFD

The discussion on the proposed deletion of Hindu gods and goddesses and Abrahamic religions could use some informed opinions from those familiar with the scholarship; you'll find it here. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism

Discussions as to what the article should and should not contain have restarted on Talk:Criticism of Judaism, and outside comments would be helpful. Please see the archives and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Discretionary sanctions for history and active sanctions. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Saint Agatha

Could someone knowledgable about the iconography of the saints take a look at Saint Agatha's article? Although the image chosen for the infobox is of historical value (its caption is footnoted) and I wouldn't argue against its being included in the article, my impression is that the more conventional image would be of Agatha serenely holding a platter bearing witness to her mutilation. (The article has a link to what's available on Commons.) Is there a principle of trying to choose something for the infobox that is most representative? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be standard practice to use an image that includes traditional iconography - some articles do, and some don't. Is there a specific image you think should be in the infobox? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
There are a few quality images on Commons of the "breasts on a platter" type. To be frank, the current image causes me to wonder whether it was chosen because it's by far the most sensational and evokes contemporary pornography; with mythology articles, I often find that the top image will be the one that displays the most nudity or sexuality, and not necessarily one that best illustrates the figure's attributes or has the most artistic fame. This may be the first time I've seen it with a saint. I don't see this as an issue of censorship, but of illustrative value. Perhaps I'm wrong to worry about it, so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The images currently in use are all from the same 100 year time period, and two out of four depict the mutilation itself. I think it would make sense to mix things up a bit on the page. A quick google image search shows quite a few images of Agatha with the breasts on the plate, and without any depiction of the mutilation at all. I'm not sure what image should be first, but I support changing the images up a bit in general.Griswaldo (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the emphasis on the act of mutilation without a representation of the platter iconography (which expresses the quality of "saintliness") is what bothered me as a matter of undue weight. I'll take a look at the options when I can if no one else does; I write on Christianity only rarely. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This requested move of the page Korban Olah to "Burnt offering (Bible)" may be of interest to those participating here. Comments are welcome.Griswaldo (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Griswaldo, I suppose I should have notified this here myself. The alternative proposals include burnt offering (Judaism), or simply to burnt offering as in WP:RS Ancient Israel context outnumbers Ancient Greek context 10x and the article already disambigs to holocaust (sacrifice) for Ancient Greece. FWIW Wikipedia:Requested moves also has a WP:EN proposal to move Korban Pesach to Passover sacrifice, and a few other sundry WikiProject Religion related moves including scandal (theology) to stumbling block. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Relevant RfC

There is an ongoing request for comment at Militant atheism that is relevant to this wikiproject. Please see Talk:Militant_atheism#Should_the_article_be_split_or_made_into_a_disambiguation_page.3F. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:International Society for Krishna Consciousness/Archive 1#Request Move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:International Society for Krishna Consciousness/Archive 1#Request Move. Elizium23 (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Elizium23 (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change a section title

There's a proposal to adjust one of the main section titles used in "Wikipedia's contents", which will also affect the order in which the section titles are presented. See Portal talk:Contents#Proposal for main section title adjustment. The Transhumanist 02:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Project article of deletion

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of new religious movements BigJim707 (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Art and Religion

I just noticed that WP's coverage on the relationship between art and religion seems kind of poor, considering how important the subject is. The best I could find for visual arts were: Sacred art and Cult image. Religious music is better. What's missing is a discussion on the influence of religion on art. That's got to be notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean? Our coverage of Christian art is very extensive, comprising a large number of very specific articles as well as a few top-level articles, and we also have a fantastic article on Islamic art. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we should have an article entitled Religion and art. (I don't know how else to express what I'm trying to communicate.)-Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment and contribution needed at Adolf Hitler's religious views.

There is a dispute at the article Adolf Hitler's religious views. HERE is the subject of the dispute. Comments and contribution would be helpful. Mamalujo (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh

We've been having trouble on the Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh page, an editor User:Vikas.insan want's to include honorifics in the article. According to what I understand, WP:Honorifics states that we should not include them. We're looking for guidance on the issue? What is correct according to policy and how should this be managed? Please post your responses on the Talk:Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh page. Thanks Gsingh (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad, visual depictions and the sore need for expert commentary

At AN/I there is currently a discussion that relates to whether or not it is appropriate or accurate/educational to have depictions of Muhammad throughout that entry. For the AN/I discussion see - HERE. For the discussion at the entry talk page see - Talk:Muhammad/images. The reason I'm posting here is that I'm surprised by some of the comments being made by various contributors. For instance, just now I was told that Muhammad is not a religious article, it is merely a biography. I clearly disagree completely. This discussion is in sore need of knowledgeable commentators. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Important Information regarding the Criticism of Religion sidebar

Just so more people know, I have launched an edit\delete nomination for the Template:Criticism of Religion sidebar on the grounds that it is phrased in a very POV way and encorages further POV in articles, as well as it being generally redundent.

Template:Criticism of Religion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Ion Zone (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Brahman#Brahman in Early Buddhism

Would anyone like to take a look at Talk:Brahman#Brahman in Early Buddhism? I've made a suggestion there for rewriting a section of the Brahman article. My rewrite wouldn't produce anything like a complete overview (it was cobbled together from what few sources I could find on short notice), but I think it's far superior to the current section, which seems to consist almost completely of original research. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

FAR Transhumanism

I have nominated Transhumanism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The article is within the scope of this WikiProject. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Religion in Africa

An Request for comment has been opened on Talk:Religion in Africa that may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject. We invite your input there. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article review for Katie Holmes

I have nominated Katie Holmes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed subcategories for clerical and/or academic converts

This may seem slightly pointless. However, I do think that religious converts who had earlier been members of the clergy of the faith from which they have converted and possibly academics in related academic subjects are, possibly, going to perhaps receive a greater degree of attention regarding their conversion from independent sources, and, possibly, either themselves discuss the reasons for their conversion more frequently and/or have such material discussed in biographical content regarding them written by others. Anyway, I was wondering what the rest of you might think about specific sub-categories for clergy and academics who may have converted to one religion or religious group who had earlier been members of the group from which they had converted, and, also, what phrasing for the category name(s) might be most useful. I have a feeling that this will most likely cover converts from one branch of Christianity to another, but still think it might be useful for other forms of conversion as well. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a category would be a good idea, but a list might work. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest having a look at Category:Religious converts and its subcategories for precedents. For example, Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism and Category:Anglican bishop converts to Roman Catholicism already exist. But for all I can tell that's the only "converting clergy" category, and I doubt there are many other pairings where we would have enough examples to necessitate a separate category. For example, the lone page in Category:Converts to Shintoism could arguably be put into Category:Jesuit converts to Shintoism, but why bother? Huon (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I would think that in some categories there may be enough population to justify the subcat. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, FWIW, while I personally would have no objections to creating lists/articles on the subject, I am not myself certain that they would necessarily meet notability requirements. I'm not sure that categories necessarily have to meet the same requirements. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate of help notice on WP Talk:WP Christianity

Already posted this note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. Please see Talk:Gospel. Fine to link to peripheral material articles and deal with theories at length there, but basic "Gospel" article needs to be kept mainstream. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Assistance identifying religious images on the International Space Station

There is a photo here Beware!, it's big and zoomed right in. There are pictures and a Crucifix, all Russian orthodox I would expect, I'd love to know how to properly describe the pictures, to label what they show. They've been numbered as picture one picture two and so forth when you hover the mouse over the top of them. Discussion about it could go on this page, or here, whichever is easy for you. Thank you everyone. Penyulap talk 21:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Religion will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in religion. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Free will for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious coercion in Israel. Borock (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Paganism articles AfD list?

Hi: I notice there are WikiProject deletion sorting listings under this project for Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism . . . but none for articles on pagan religions. May I suggest that this is needed? It should also include articles related to heathenry (Germanic paganism), such as the current Afd discussion of Swedish Forn Sed Assembly, which you do have listed in your general list, but many interested in our coverage of pagan religions are not going to have that general list watchlisted. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Christianity categories on Commons

If anyone expert on Eastern Orthodox Christianity would care to weigh in at Commons:Commons:Help_desk#Orthodox Churches that would be great. - Jmabel | Talk 08:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Dec 7 2010: fork, delete, restore, duplicate.. mess

Here's some fun :)

A year ago.. this fork was reversed but the new article created leaving duplicate content in both, and worse, both articles in a mess. One appears to be rabbinical exegesis on Ancient Israel's offerings - half written in English, the other badly sourced points about whole offerings in Greek religion and (?) Christianity. Does anyone want to enter WC with a brush? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

3rd parties and new eyes would be greatly appreciated. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Critics in Template:Criticism of religion

There's a discussion at Template talk:Criticism of religion on which critics to list in the template. Additional input would be appreciated. Huon (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

CfD

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_1#Category:Critics_of_religions_or_philosophies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Activity

OK, I have gone through both the original Eliade edition of The Encyclopedia of Religion, as well as the second edition edited by Jones. Waiting to go through Religion Past and Present and a few other high-quality, well-regarded reference sources.

Anyway, it seems to me that there are a number of articles in those sources which relate to multiple religions, and we could probably at least have "main" articles here on those topics, with where useful and possible additional "child" articles for various religious traditions. Of particular importance seem to me to be articles about "Religion in (continent)" and "Religion in (country)" type articles. The Military History project, so far as I can see, tags articles within their scope which fall within the scope of various child projects for all relevant subprojects, particularly those with at least a dedicated section to them regarding one of the subprojects, and I can see how it might be useful for us to do that as well. I have photocopied the lists of articles from both of the editions of the Encyclopedia of Religion, and a few other similar sources, and think they might be useful.

Also, I notice, having gone through reference works dealing with philosophy, that many of the articles relevant to religion also have entries in reference works on philosophy. Similarly, various gods, goddesses, heroes, and other mythological characters appear in reference works dealing with mythology. In both of the cases mentioned above, it looks like they often share similar material, but that they also will often have material in the article of a book in one field which does not appear in similar articles about books in a different field.

So, yeah, there does seem to me to be a lot of overlap between these various projects, both within the field of religion and in the broader mythology/philosophy/religion field, both in terms of our articles and in terms of applicable reference sources. That being the case, maybe we might benefit from having some degree of active cooperation between all the related projects.

Personally, I could see, maybe, if others would also find it acceptable, maybe having a monthly newsletter dealing with all the projects. It could perhaps include seperate sections for the various broader scope projects, like Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism in religion, Greco-Roman, Norse, and Egyptian mythologies in mythology, and some of the more frequently written about fields of philosophy, with maybe a common peer review process, and possibly common assessments. Also, I think that doing so might help develop some of the content apparently more within the scope of one project, but which also falls, to a perhaps lesser degree, in the scope of another.

Finally, if we were to do something like this, I think we might have maybe a few other options. Some have said that giving barnstars for article development may not be enough of a motivation in some cases, particularly articles which cross project lines and articles like some of the African religious traditions which are important in their fields, but which the understandable systemic bias of many of our editors might not encourage them to develop. We do, after all, tend to be most interested in things we know about, and many of us know rather little about several of these ethnoreligions. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, we could also arrange some sort of system whereby people who write an FA or GA during a given period could also be given the opportunity to write an essay on some other site which might be able to be included in the external links of some relevant articles here. One other criterion which could be used in the selection process would be the relative importance or priority of such articles, in the event there are multiple articles which qualify for a given time period. I personally have been pushing for some time for Wikibooks on topics like "Why I am (or am not) a Christian", for instance, and I think many editors might be willing to help develop some of the more obscure content, outside of their primary scope of knowledge, if they had such incentives. I myself have had a Facebook page for some time that I have never used, and would be more than willing to allow it to be used for such purposes if we could develop a system for it.

Anyway, I would welcome any and all comments. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You might find these links and comments to be helpful.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The are many problems with this proposal. While on an idealistic theoretical plane User John Carter (talk · contribs)'s proposal to "unite" and streamline all these WikiProjects sounds "wonderful" (almost "messianic" in its editorial ambitions) the hard truth and reality is that it would undermine the creativity, uniqueness and freedom that each WikiProject currently enjoys because users in each one are committed to those fields as first loves and are not paid hirelings of WP to "streamline" information on WP. If the WikiMedia Foundation wants to spend money and hire editors to make one generic homogenized mish-mash blah of everything, then fine. So then do the same for all the Language WikiProjects and Math and Science WikiProjects and Country WikiProjects etc etc etc. Just leave well enough alone, and if it ain't broke don't fix it. There is till far too much to do in improving articles and editors are tired and getting bogged down with ever increasing policies and requests and the result is that good editors are leaving WP in droves. Editors are busy and hassled enough and do not need to be looking over their shoulders. For example Judaism editors should not be wondering, heck am I supposed to be doing this like the Islam editors, or should the Christianity editors be wondering if they should be doing things like the Atheism or Mythology editors. This is just another pie in the sky case where some overly-ambitious WP editors and proposals lose sight of the fact that reality is different to Wikipedia and the two often do not mix well. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I had sent an individual message to the above editor specifically because of his history of objections to any sort of proposals involving matters of this kind. I would note that there was actually no indication of "uniting" the projects in my proposal. However, as I indicated, here are a number of articles, and potential articles which can be found in print encyclopedias, which deal with topics which fall beyond the reach of any single dedicated project. These would include the "Religion by country" articles I mentioned above, as well as any number of similar articles, on, for instance, specific types of animals which are prominent in more than one religion. Nor was there any intention of any sort of policy changes implied or expressed. However, if there are not regular newsletters relevant to specific projects, and I myself am not aware of any, but would welcome finding out about them, then I do think it might make sense to have a single common newsletter. And, for what it might be worth, some of the first-level articles included in the Encyclopedia of Religions mentioned above still do not even exist here. To the extent that such is true, and recognizing that we should be, to some extent, trying to remove systemic bias, I believe that, to the degree that such is the case, there is evidence that the system is, if not broken, at least in need of some fine-tuning. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't agree that this is a problem. The articles will remain edited by diverse interests no matter what, and this won't change that. There does need to be more unity in these articles.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support a reduced version of proposal - it would do no harm at all for a more objective 3rd party, agnostic, detached eye to be treating all of the religion projects as needing significant improvement. Too many of the Hinduism/Buddhism/Islam/Christianity/Judaism pages read like blog/sermon/madrasa/Sunday-School/yeshiva content. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • In Ictu, how absurd to suggest that agnostics are now the "high and mighty" powers-that-be of being the "objective 3rd party" of religion -- that would be like proposing that religion editors need to be the required "final judges" of all scientific and secular WP articles for the sake of truth and fairness. Get real man, this is not a game. Leave well enough alone and just let the religion editors keep on writing and editing so that Wikipedia grows as an encyclopedia. When someone wants to read up about Christianity, as an example, they don't want to read what agnosticism or Judaism have to say about it, they want to read and learn first and foremost what Christianity says about itself from its own sources, of course following all the WP editorial policies. Then, only AFTER that has been done, they can ADD on any other legitimate perspectives and accepted points of view. There is already too much of mish-mashed wishy-washy academic secular critical scholarship that's inserted into too many articles pertaining to religion and no one can make heads or tails of what the actual religion has to say or preach about it, that basically kills any understanding of what the subject is about in the first place. IZAK (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - The problem is he opposite: many of these articles have too heavy of bias towards religious skepticism.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:PSTS. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This suggestion seems counterproductive to me. The problem that we have right now, in my opinion, is the forcing of one religion into a mold that may fit another religion quite well but does not fit the religion being written about. We should write from the perspective of the religion at hand, not a reference religion. We are supposed to maintain a global perspective. We should not be "homogenizing" the different religions into a "blah", if I can borrow those words from IZAK's post above. Bus stop (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Actually, I am not entirely sure what is meant by the above. No one was ever thinking about writing from the perspective of a "reference" religion, as is said above. The sources I mentioned at the beginning here, The Encyclopedia of Religion and Religion Past and Present, are basically counted as being the best general reference sources on religion out there, and the first of them actually made a point of having articles relating to specific religions written by adherents of that religion wherever possible. Obviously, for some where that might not be possible, like for instance Aleut religion, the articles are written by outsiders. Also, there was no intention or even implication of "homogenizing" religions. Certainly, for some articles in the sources, like for instance Cattle in religion, there may well be more than sufficient grounds for more specific articles of more limited scope, like for instance Cattle in Hinduism. So, honestly, I am myself still somewhat uncertain of the specific points being objected to above. Also, I note that both of those to whom I have responded are I believe primarily interested in Judaism. Certainly, if the Judaism WikiProject wished to opt out, there would be no objection. However, there was, at least so far as I can see, no real attempt to "homogenize", as per the comment above. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • John, you are making a big mistake. You are working under the wrong assumption that Judaism editors or Islam editors or many other religion's editors edit and write on WP with "The Encyclopedia of Religion and Religion Past and Present" as their "bibles" which they don't even know about. Many Judaic editors have vast academic training in all sorts of fields as well as equally deep classical Judaic training often times in advanced Talmudic Yeshivas, and in particular most Jewish Orthodox-oriented as well as Hasidic- and Haredi-oriented editors, and many of the most active active Judaic editors are like this, do not deem "The Encyclopedia of Religion and Religion Past and Present" as necessary and in fact they regard such non-Judaic sources as counter-productive and even destructive of the classical approach they are working hard to convey. Many of us are not university professors of religion nor do we approve of that kind of academic approach to religion in any way. It would not be Judaism or its teachings! It is dry and stultified. Far better to let the editors write and create articles for Wikipedia, and they have done a maginificent job thus far, as long as they adhere to all current WP policies, coming as they do from a vast and rich variety of disciplines that only enriches Wikipedia. You are making life difficult by proposing a whole new set of "rules and guidleenes" for all religion editors to ahere to (with the best of intentions) but that would make life even more difficult for an already tough editing enironment (unless your goal is to chase those people away and just have WP religion to yourself to rule the roost? That would not make a lot of people happy nor would it help WP credibility as it sinks deeper into yet another type of "political correctness".) But there will be no way to enforce it and its presence will only stifle and stunt good contributions from a vast array of directions. Wikipedia has enough rules and regulations, we don't need a whole new slew of nitpicking and stifling rules and guidelines. Leave that for the next genration of Wikipedians who may want to do it. IZAK (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • IZAK, I believe that, if individuals are, for whatever reason, ignorant of the volumes which have been described in at least one library journal as being among the "core collections" of religious content, then, perhaps, it might make sense that perhaps they acquaint themselves with what are considered the best reference sources out there. I also note that once again in your above statement you are still apparently obsessed with making comments about th motivations of others. I am sorry, by the way, that you seem to consider adhering to a core policy, WP:NPOV, as "political correctness" as well. Also, if you actually read the comments made, you might notice that I was referring not only to religion, but to philosophy. It has been said for several years that the Philosophy projects here are in a sorry state. This is, in part, because of the presence of other academic free websites on philosophy, like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. As most if not all historical philosophers are also prominent in their religions, and as such also fall within the scope of the various relevant religion projects, it seemed to me reasonable to perhaps make it easier for those editors who, apparently perhaps unlike you yourself?, might have some interest in perhaps editing outside of a very limited religious framework. And I am still wondering where I said anything which even remotely resembles the "rules and guidelines" you seem to be so convinced I have in mind. If I might be honest, as said before, the only serious objections have been from Jewish editors, at least one of whom's ability to edit today is I think in part due to my efforts to get his earlier ban lifted. You have made it clear that you personally believe that Judaism related material should perhaps only be even touched by editors who see to have an almost exclusive interest in that narrow subject. The point has been received. In all honesty, given your refusal to assume good faith, or even accurately report the comments made by others, I can honestly say I am very sorry that I made the proposal in the first place. And I acknowledge that I had not taken into account a certain editor's legendary love of picking fights for no apparent purpose other than picking fights. John Carter (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • John: Try to avoid spinning this please or making "me" into the issue, when it is you that comes with a proposal and now you must deal with the responses. Was it a yes-man audience you wanted? Sorry wrong address. We are all free and independent thinkers and editors coming from various schools of thought often some of us hold a few views from various points of view simultaneously. After all religion is not like a nice neat mathematical equation. In Judaism alone it teaches that it is PARDES (Jewish exegesis) -- four levels of understanding and perceiving things. My response matches the intent, both stated and implied, of your heavy-handed proposal because no one will agree who should lead this and how it should be done any time soon. Just as there is no requirement for editors editing Judaism articles to really understand what the original Jewish sources are about (such as the Talmud for example) there is no "requirement" to read up on every last self-declared encyclopedia of religion. You are jumping the gun and in fact the process of "homoginization" and creating a "moral equivalency" between all religions' articles on WP is a dangerous ploy and it harms the ability of WP to absorb and incorporate from all directions. No one is preaching the breaking of any WP policies or rules. It is a false charge and please withdraw it! What I am saying is that a predominantly secular POV cannot and should be the final voice-over and stamp of approval or even method for subjects that are not related to it. There is a NPOV way of present any and all religions and religious topics without skewing and skewering every article as if its "lampoon time" to ridicule the veneration that billions of humans regard their individual religions. IZAK (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment It sounds like the main gist of what is being proposed is (1) creation of a series of "Religion in..." articles, (2) a content guideline for article structure to promote standardization, (3) monthly newsletter. None of this seems unreasonable. I would point out, however, that a wikiproject is a group of people, not a collection of articles. And it doesn't appear that many editors are interested in religion in general, but tend to work on a specific faith whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. – Lionel (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know that the following is true: "…it doesn't appear that many editors are interested in religion in general, but tend to work on a specific faith whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc." I think editors in fact are interested in religion in general. The issue is that one religion cannot be understood in terms of another religion, and should not be forced to be understood in terms of another religion. That which is applicable to one religion may not be applicable to another religion. The features in one religion may not have exactly corresponding features in another religion. We don't have an absolutely thorough definition of religion. A collection of such entities called religions are grouped together but not like elements are grouped together in the periodic table. The problem with the proposal presented by John is the presumption that religions are comparable. Yes, to a degree they are. But to a degree they are not. This is important because we already have conflicts involving the incorrect assumption that if one religion functions in some way that another religion has to function that way too. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with IZAK and Bus stop. John Carter, your desire to rely on "the best references available" (i.e., modern academic scholarship) ignores the classical Jewish sources which are the basis for the whole religion. As it is, most Judaism pages are so weighted down with Bible criticism, modern "scholarship", and POV from the various forms of non-classical Judaism (Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Karaite, and maybe there are more out there?) that what Judaism has to say about itself is lost in the crowd. To create a template that all religions have to follow will water down the message even more. Yoninah (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Seven Point Counter Proposal

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)
  • Comment: again, WP:PSTS In ictu oculi (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    • In ictu, after your call for "agnostics" to sit in judgement on Biblical topics, that would be like asking for religions to approve of atheism topics. It won't work. WP rules are fine and there is nothing that goes against the rules by first and foremost presenting what the religions and their texts and their own scholars have to say on their religions and religious topics. Only after that is done should the floor be opened up to Bible critics and agnostics and whatnot who wish to pontificate on subjects they neither believe in nor are objective about quite often. Secular professors who are professed atheists and agnostics are not good starting points as a "source" on what the religions are about, no matter how many eloquent and popular books and journals they may have published. Honestly, far too many WP religion articles are currently awash in secular academic trivia and tangents that have nothing to do with how those religions function and view themselves.IZAK (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
IZAK, please address WP:PSTS. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Strongly support. I have some experience dealing with this problem, (right now with the exodus) so I have an understanding of how this problem works. The issue isn't unclear policies (Wikipedia policy is quite clear) but that a small number of secular-minded editors reinforce each other's work in a way that almost looks like they are coordinating. My issue right now in the talk page of the exodus is a good example of this: one editor is leading the effort against fixing the article, and a couple of other editors don't really comment but will revert any edit made by anyone but this one editor. One of these editors so reflexively reverts that he even reverted a completely unrelated edit I made to American Civil War. These editors don't see any view besides the secular or skeptical view as legitimate, so they won't even allow non-secular viewpoints to be mentioned. They will engage in acts that outright violate Wikipedia policy, like original research. Since no one will stop them, nothing prevents them from doing it. The solution is to have some kind of coordination, so that when such a dispute emerges, multiple editors of the religious and skeptical mindset can work out some kind of compromise. Right now, this lack of coordination allows one side (usually the secular one) to simply overpower the other since they typically have 2 or 3 editors working together.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
This is extremely unhelpful. I'm being accused of 'reflexively reverting'? And not really commenting? My comments at Talk:Exodus may not be as prolific as others, but they are 'real'. Just as Quark's edit-warring there to remove any mention of archaeology from the lead is real (and I've just reverted it). Quark hasn't mentioned that at American Civil War I wrote "Reverted good faith edits by Quarkgluonsoup (talk): Reverting only because the new edits majorly messed up references." Now that was my mistake. It's true that I should have reverted him as he left huge amount of red error messages in the article. Note that he doesn't mention my edit summary. Note that he doesn't mention my post to his talk page saying "don't take this personally, but your edits made a hash of the references with a long column of red warning notices." Note that he doesn't mention that he restored the problem and was reverted again by another editor. Or what a third editor said about his edits being irresponsible. Now I'm sorry if this if off-topic, but I don't think it actually is. If anyone is going to make decisions here (and I don't see how they can be imposed), let's not make them on the basis of misrepresentation of others editors actions and lack of good faith. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Right on, and the result is that this just leads to good editors leaving and WP becoming a reflection of an anti-religious POV so it's just ignored and not taken seriously, or even worse WP becomes a purveyor of twisted and false or very insufficient information. This reminds me of that old joke about a rabbi who took a new position. On the first Sabbath he preached about the Shabbat (Sabbath-observance), but they didn't like it, the next time he preached about Kashrut (Kosher laws), but they didn't like that either, he then preached about Tzedaka (Charity) but they just didn't like that. Finally the rabbi got smart and asked them out of frustration what they wanted to hear about, and they told him, "rabbi we want to hear about 'Judaism' !" (as a hypothetical construct) detached from reality and devoid of any meaning or context or worse, even falsified and changed into something it is not and was never meant to be and cannot be, cite as many secular encyclopedias you wish it just won't help. IZAK (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly. On Wikipedia, a couple of editors working together can enforce whatever bias they want on an article. This is what has happened with these religion articles, and why the only way to correct the bias is for multiple editors to work together to undo the damage.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I issue my full and most strong support - the strongest support I have ever issued anywhere on Wikipedia, and likely the strongest support I ever will - to both the seven-point proposal and the later comment by Quark. It's about time! If we can get organized, we need to also take a look at WP:RNPOV and either help change consensus or start enforcing it as it is written, as too many secularists quote it, while ignoring that it states that traditional religious views must be given airtime. Also, too many secularist editors misinterpret NPOV as it pertains to religion, and, especially WP:RS, and attempt to (and often succeed) become a reliable-source determinator unto themselves, where only secular sources and theologians who are so unorthodox as to be essentially secular are allowed (I am a Catholic - to the point where a secular atheist editor was telling me what I believed and what the Church teaches, incorrectly, based on a preponderance of secular sources about what is taught in the secular science classroom at schools that are in some way associated with the Church, and, assuming good faith, believing that actually constituted teaching of the Church). That is, there are many who would accept Dawkins or Carrier for an article on the Resurrection, but not Keener or Craig. This RS-filtering thereby allows them to claim WP:WEIGHT, and exclude virtually all religious view or interpretation, no matter how prevalent in reality, in favor of enforcing either the failed policy "Scientific Point of View" or the unspoken policy "Secular Point of View", that all articles should be written with the assumption that God Almighty is a fairy-tale. Not to mention, as many have, that atheists and secularists often need to be beaten badly with a clue-stick when it comes to religion, not understanding the subject in enough detail to be able to represent it correctly at any more than the broadest level (see my comment on the editor who misunderstood what "Church teaching" means above; e.g. "they are theists who believe in God and that Jesus rose from the dead, and miracles, and heaven and hell, and there are thousands of denominations that argue and split over trifling logic-chopping, and of course Mormons are Christians, because they believe in the same three gods"). St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 10:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Partially support. I agree that this is the first proposal for an outline for Judaism articles that makes sense. I disagree, however, with the inclusion of Bible criticism and modern academic/secular scholarship in the articles. As IZAK states, these sections already take up far too much space in present articles, but their inclusion at all serves to discredit the whole foundation on which the articles stand. I prefer, instead, to have separate, standardized articles for these subjects, which would automatically be listed under "See also". Yoninah (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Wholeheartedly, strongly, vociferously support. It's about time. Thank you, IZAK, for making this proposal. This problem is visible right now over at Genesis creation narrative, which just recently dodged another attempt by secular triumphalists to move it to Genesis creation myth. I also suggest that this proposal be cross-posted to all of the various religion WikiProjects, since it's pertinent. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Lisa: you do realize that I (probably) support a move to myth once the article has been sufficiently expanded? ;-) If you haven't read CS Lewis' writings on Christian mythology, you should (and no one could claim he wasn't an orthodox Nicene-Constantinopolito-Chalcedonian Christian), and save yourself some heartburn over the matter. It's important, with our reduced numbers and the secularists' great ones*, that we pick and choose our battles - a somewhat sub-optimal title that's no worse nor better than "narrative" is not one part in one hundred as important as the content of the article itself, as whoever reads the article is going to notice the content more than the title. I did try my damnedest to get "[symbolic] narrative of the world's creation" in the first sentence, but consensus is consensus - the most important of all above proposals is that we follow the preexisting Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I think actually enforcing what WP:RNPOV says would go a long way towards rectifying some bias, for that matter.
I've always thought this because there are few open atheists in real life, numerous studies have shown 18-24 year old men and college and post-graduate students have very high rates of atheism when compared with the real world, and the internet removes inhibitions, etc., and is a place for people who are not extremely well-accepted by culture at large to spread their views with impunity, like in blogs (or secular academia, for that matter, and from experience, religious academia - seminary - isn't that much different). Now, look at Alexa, and what it says about the demographics of this site: "College students: over-represented. Postgraduate students: severely over-represented. 18-24 year old: severely over-represented. Males: severely over-represented, with only 15% or less females". There's WP:Systemic Bias for you. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 05:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Those Alexa figures are for our readers, not our editors, so would you please revise your claim of systemic bias (not that I am saying there is none, there obviously are more educated English language male editors, but Alexa can't be used to back your claim). Dougweller (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe it can in a general sense. I know they measure audience, but do the divide by ten thing for the law of internet participation/content creation, and it's a decent representation. I'm not going for statistical precision - if anything, one would imagine those who edit to be the most opinionated and educated of the bunch (there's a study on one of the essays here, in a journal, about the skewed "big five" personality traits of Wikipedians). The bias applies to me to a T: I'm male, I'm 18-24, and I'm a postgraduate student. Nonetheless, I will state that my claim is WP:SYNTHESIS, because it relies on tying together studies of the prevalence of religion with Wikipedia demographics and drawing a half-ass conclusion. If there's that strong of a bias (if you've seen the Alexa page, it's the strongest biases I've ever seen for any web page for both college graduates and males), it's going to show up in the participants, as the participants are drawn out of the audience already. One can not be a participant without being a viewer.
  • Comment: I think IZAK has a valid point in terms of serving the readers, but I am not sure if that will work in certain parts of Wikipedia. I think one should accept that there are many people in the world who are not just agnostics, but for one reason or another are "unhappy with religion", whatever that might mean and will view that type of attempt at providing religious based information as a form of preaching. And those people have keyboards and modems and will debate the issues forever and a day. And I have a feeling that if the religious angle is pushed too far, it will just result in a backlash. As is, I see many articles that already have many errors and I would personally direct my efforts to fixing those rather than taking part in debates that are "surrogate arguments" about the existence of God. Neither side will be convinced in those debates but they will take effort that could go into fixing the glaring errors that persist in Wikipedia. That was why I would not take part in the naming of articles such as "Genesis creation ..." because the real debate is not about the article title, but a surrogate debate about the need to curb religious views in general. So I think from a practical point of view, we need to accept a balanced view in Wikipedia, focus on removing errors from articles, emphasize scholarship and avoid pushing the envelope to the point that energies that could go into productive development get archived on talk pages. History2007 (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
History2007—you speak of people being "unhappy with religion". It doesn't matter. We don't have to make everybody happy. You refer to "that type of attempt at providing religious based information as a form of preaching." There is nothing preachy at all about the perspective of an article being primarily the perspective of the subject of the article. Any reader is aware that they are reading an encyclopedia article explicating on the subject of the article. You mention the "Genesis creation …" article. What is the primary subject? The subject is not "myth" no matter how many academic sources choose to pigeonhole it that way. Its primary subject matter is firmly rooted in the field of religion. Wikipedia should not be hijacked by those who might be "unhappy with religion". Articles should be beholden primarily to the subject of that article. Only of secondary importance is material from other perspectives. An article is basically an independent entity. Other areas of study or seemingly similar subject matter should always be relegated to a position of secondary importance. Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
To be practical, I would note that "should" does not matter when the basic decision making mechanism is WP:CON. The sampling of the users who happen to be present on a Wikipage at a given time determine the direction. In any case, I will just restate my point and stop: if you "push the envelope" too much, there will be backlash, and time will be wasted before it all goes back to square one. History2007 (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The first point seems to be a rewrite of WP:LEAD. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." So although it might include "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." it will have to include much more than that.
  1. It also seems likely that 'what the religion says' won't be that easy to express in the lead. Obviously for the Abrahamic religions we have at least three 'religions', but even those aren't unanimous about what they say about every religious subject. This may not be a big problem. It seems to be handled at The Exodus without mentioning any particular religion with the first paragraph giving the religious viewpoint.
  2. Bottom line, this is why we have WP:LEAD. I see no reason for an exception for religious articles. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I note that the lead to The Exodus has been changed so that it no longer follows WP:LEAD and is not a summary of the article. It's been tagged for this since March 8th (by Lionelt, who I don't think meant this to happen), and it's worse now than it was then. Is this what people are trying to achieve? An exemption for religious related articles? Is anyone going to raise this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section? Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Quark, that was helpfulm not. People reading the article's talk page might see it differently however. Dougweller (talk)
To get an idea of how reflexively these editors revert anything and everything, please note Dougweller's reversion of my completely unrelated changes to American Civil War, a topic that his history suggests he otherwise has no interest in. It is no wonder fixing these articles is so hard when certain editors pretty much revert everything. This can help us understand why good edits on these religion articles get reverted so much: the editors who revert not only follow pages but even the actions of individual editors they like to revert. This is why coordination is the only solution.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
And I explained why on your talk page, and others agreed with me on the article talk page (or rather they went beyond my reasons) and I presume you saw the ANI discussion about you. And I've now raised a complaint at ANI sparked by your comments here. Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I would even go beyond Dougweller's statement that "I see no reason for an exception for religious articles." I would say: Don't even try to get a "religious exemption", be it for Buddhism, Christianity or Judaism. It will not work in Wikipedia, and one will just spin wheels and get nowhere. Wikipedia policies (except current issues and BLP) need to be uniform across the board. History2007 (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And as it was Izak who changed the lead at The Exodus to remove anything like a summary of the article, I presume that is meant to be an example of what he thinks a lead for a religious article should be. I'll wait to see if he brings this up at WP:LEAD (or any of its supporters). That would show good faith. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I had made a deliberate attempt not to read through the Exodus article, and not to comment on the talk page there except to state that I thought Pico valued scholarship, because I think he does. So I do not know what happened on that page, but I could tell that it could only result in a mini-Exodus for some editors out of frustration sooner or later. But perhaps that page (whatever it may say) is an example of how not to push the envelope. I do not want to get into technical details, but Wikipedia lives on a form of equilibrium that accommodates multiple user groups, and as a self organizing system, once it is pushed beyond the equilibrium state it will self correct towards the center. So I would advise everyone to forgo the word "should" for it means something different to almost everyone in most situations. Needless to say, Wikipolicies need to apply across the board: if WikiProjec Religion gets its own rules for ledes, WikiProject Finance will want its own, etc. and soon chaos will set in. Wikipedia is not perfect, but I think the way to make it better is to keep removing all the glaring errors that still persist across projects, not to start surrogate debates that consume energy. History2007 (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The Exodus talk page and this counterproposal want to decide that historians should no longer be in control of what constitutes historical fact, at least in what concerns Wikipedia. If professional historians would produce a great ROFLMAO at the theological-historical approaches which try to show that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, I don't see any reason for not following such scientific consensus. If there is any scientific consensus, we should render it as fact, this is one of the basic policies of Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I am still not going to read the Exodus page, but I do agree with you that in general it is necessary to say "group X believes Y" and have that clarified, regardless of historical validity issues. Examples are the Transfiguration of Jesus or the foretelling of the reaching of Parinirvana by Buddha. There is no historical evidence for either situation, but various groups believe various things and those can be clearly stated as "the beliefs" of specific groups, without getting mixed in with historical debates. But a discussion of the scholarly views on historicity can not be excluded from articles either, although it will need far less space in religious explanation articles and will need its own longer, separate article in many cases. History2007 (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
That ought not prevent our presenting an accurate account of what believers believe. Let me provide a neutral example. A small but charming group of people believe the Star Wars saga to be not simply a bunch of stories, but in fact a true historical account of events that transpired "a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away"; with George Lucas being the unwitting prophet of these events. Verily, it is impossible to prove these events didn't transpire, so we ought to neutrally report that this is what is believed (citing sources for the proposition that this account is indeed "believed"). It does us no good to pretend there can be definitive knowledge confirming or denying accounts relating to unverifiably distant past mythohistoric retellings, and it goes without saying that every religion inherently disbelieves or holds as insignificant accounts given by every other. And so, unless we are prepared to address, for example, what Hinduism teaches about the Exodus account, or what the Popol Vuh teaches about the life of the Buddha, all such accounts ought to be respected as presenting exactly equal degrees of probability. DeistCosmos (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
As above, I think "group X believes Y" can be clearly stated as a religious belief, provided group X is not just 35 people, or some small fringe group somewhere, per WP:Fringe, of course. However, addressing the question of historicity will also be needed in an article about "historicity of topic Y" given that there are scholars who write books on those topics. History2007 (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
That is the very definition of WP:RNPOV as stated in the guideline, and what I mean by vigorously enforcing it in spirit and in letter. As far as people leaving, in the one debate over Genesis, we had one secularist editor - probably the most cogent and respectable of the bunch - and one relatively neutral editor (I say neutral, as I couldn't tell if he had a religion or rejected it - the very definition of neutrality) quit Wikipedia permanently and another resign from contributing to that article (which he single-handedly wrote) respectively. And over a WP:BATTLE that wasn't even worth fighting, as, I've stated over there, I'm amazed (and got dragged in to it myself for a moment) at how myopic some of these wars can become - for example, three weeks' worth of RfXs (about 5 total), all about the title and first sentence, while the body of the article (and much of the lead) is an absolute hash. I've undertaken a rewriting of the article and several related ones that I feel won't satisfy the traditionalists here (and I am one, but since I signed up for a Wiki account, I agreed to work in good faith under all extant Wikipedia guidelines and policies, lest we degenerate in to anarchy and tyranny of the majority, which is what many religious editors have been pointing out as happening: I intend merely to write in accord with WP:RNPOV, and, surprisingly, got relatively sound support on Talk), but I've got severely bogged down - my rewrite of the 45k prose article now exceed 575k in prose, and has spilt over in to half a dozen adjacent subjects, a template for a series, etc. (Once I start writing, as you can probably tell from my comments, you need to smash my fingers in to the keyboard to get me to stop: that's why I have an IBM Model M, the best ever made.) St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 05:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
John, your Alexa figures

I know they measure audience, but do the divide by ten thing for the law of internet participation/content creation, and it's a decent representation. I'm not going for statistical precision - if anything, one would imagine those who edit to be the most opinionated and educated of the bunch. If there's that strong of a bias (if you've seen the Alexa page, it's the strongest biases I've ever seen for any web page for both college graduates and males), it's going to show up in the participants, as the participants are drawn out of the audience already. One can not be a participant without being a viewer.

I think there was a typo above that deleted some comments, and a signature disappeared. That aside, I will stop now, but I would agree with two points:
  • First, without looking at that article, I think John's comment that there is 90% more talk about the title and the first few sentences of an article rather than improving the content is a good observation. I would believe that even without looking at the article. As I said there will always be "surrogate debates" that hardly affect article content, and we must just expect them given the diverse backgrounds of those who read and edit Wikipedia.
  • Secondly, I also miss the Model M keyboard.... If only the iPad had one...
Anyway, I think this discussion will consume time, but in the end will not have a major impact on content quality, for whatever this project decides can not over run general Wiki-policies. History2007 (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
You are probably right. But the fact it's being exported to Talk:Exodus where Izak has written "here are some links to the way "Exodus denial" and Holocaust denial" are linked up: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6])" is going to poison that discussion. If that, and the change of the lead to The Exodus so that it is nothing like a summary of the article or NPOV]], is where this proposal is heading then we have problems ahead. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed Izak had posted his comparison below. Anyway, someone accidentally deleted my stuff about Alexa that John replied to. I wonder what Wikipedia woould be like if the majority of its editors were from a very different demographic, eg not much education beyond high school? I can't see it having WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV etc. In fact it is probably in part our policies and guidelines that attract well-educated editors. Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I figured you posted the same stuff twice, and I replied twice - the full comment you left about Alexa is up in the beginning of the post, under my first or second reply threaded. I saw your edit summary in my watchlist, so I knew who I was replying to. Second item on the agenda: Biblical minimalism = holocaust denial? Godwin's law. Third item on the agenda: there's no way this site would approach the level of quality it does if the average editors were of a different demographic, but that same demographic gives rise to a strong systemic bias - the same men who edit here are those who have received their first taste of philosophy, of "objectivity is impossible", and of freedom of information, and attempt to rid themselves of biases they didn't know they had (and probably don't, except for the ones the undergrad philosophy Doctor Professor God implanted). I'm pretty sure Larry Sanger realized that when he helped start this up, and realized its implications. This wouldn't be even a tyranny of the majority with a benevolent despot (Jimmy Wales) at the top, it would be mass anarchy. Fourth item on the agenda: if we can get even half organized, because we tend not to be where other editors are, we don't need to change any policies, but merely enforce both the spirit and the letter of WP:RNPOV - a sub-article of a core policy - across the encyclopedia, and do it more aggressively if needs be. I'm an arguer and debater but also a conciliator, so I'm probably not best suited for it. Fifth item on the agenda: shut up, John. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 08:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Lol. I'm not sure what happened to my post. But it looks like we agree. at least on all your points above. Policies and guidelines aren't going to be changed here, and they don't need to be changed, they need to be followed. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

When articles drift from being about a subject into denial of the subject

Any fool can see that The Exodus article has lost it's way and now reads like an article that should rightly be called Exodus denial (see Holocaust denial as an example of how this works -- here are some links to the way "Exodus denial" and Holocaust denial" are linked up: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) as if it's sole real aim is to demolish the original ideas and events and replace them with cockamamie prejudiced and jaundiced anti-religious "theories" (at best) and outright canards and Quackery cloaked in academic jargon that's being cooked up as we sit here. How about making a little room for editors who do not share just a secular POV about a key topic important to three faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam (with billions of followers) and who wish to contribute more from the ORIGINAL classic sources in a NPOV manner. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I been sitting out awhile but seriously? Comparing other editors to Holocaust deniers simply for not suiting your point of view is absurd. That is really crossing the lines of civility. Systems Theorist (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Is being compared to a Holocaust denier uncivil? – Lionel (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Is this a serious question? Of course it's uncivil. It's telling those who think there was no Exodus that they are the same as Holocaust deniers. How can it not be uncivil unless you support Holocaust denial? Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Back to the question as a point not specific to any one article: It isn't only a matter of outside sources discounting religious claims, but also of some religious bodies adamantly denying their own activities, their documented histories, that they hold certain beliefs (even those they've acknowledged elsewhere), substantiated accounts of their practices and even their names. The question cuts both ways. It would be good to include some sort of notice that the solution to edit warring that seeks to impose one or another PoV is to follow policy: i.e., that we summarize in a balanced way, all significant views as reported in the published sources, and in proportion to their prominence in available sources, and without interjecting synthesis or legitimizing fringe material. I think the original question is a valid one, and it would be nice to sum up the policies in one place that could be pointed to when articles begin to sink into warring in these cases. • Astynax talk 18:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it is notable that there are even numerous Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahai, etc., who do not necessarily accept the accuracy of the narrative of the Exodus, so a comparison to Holocaust denial seems rather a stretch. There are, regretably, several religions which in some way or another advocate beliefs which have little if any acceptance outside their own base, and, sometimes, even within their own current base. I believe that content can and must be structured in ways to address that when such is required. We cannot be a soapbox for, basically, fundamentalist beliefs. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that articles should not be used to legitimize fringe beliefs (whether fundamentalist, minimalist, fringy or the latest fad theory). We can note them, however, in proportion to their appearance in the literature and reflecting how they are treated in those sources. If we are using Exodus as an example, there is a wide range of scholarly views, and the article should take account of those (I'm not saying it doesn't, I have yet to even look at that article). There are solid scholars who believe the events are completely mythic inventions, there are solid scholars who believe the events are based in factual events, and there are those who come down in-between (i.e., that the events are very loosely based upon, often in highly exaggerated form, a core of remembered events). Because physical and early textual evidence is scanty at best, these positions will likely continue to be argued ad infinitum among scholars without true consensus—and any detectable conclusions are lacking even in the published opinions of some highly respected individual scholars who tend to treat the subject as a largely open question. Those should be reported. There are also junk-science/pop-lit claims (such things as The Search for the Real Mt. Sinai) that pop up from time to time and that should not appear in articles unless and until they appear in the wider scholarly literature. My point is not aimed at the Exodus article, but rather that if the project is to have a guideline/MoS, then I would think it should prominently point to a listing of policies that may be applied to writing articles free of PoV and to edit-warring where editors (on one or both sides) insist on slanting towards a PoV that doesn't reflect the overall sources. I don't think there is any need to invent a special framework for articles dealing with religion, and I view the proposals as being perhaps more involved and confusing than need be. I do, however, think there is value in collecting applicable policies that cover situations (including in a broad sense, the one in the title of this subsection) into one place, neatly summarizing them and illustrating how and why they apply. Policies already address these situations, but it is frustrating for newer editors to find, decipher and apply them. • Astynax talk 22:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Writing the draft

Well it seems there is ample support to write a draft and submit it to the project for approval. Here are some links of interest:

  • WP:RNPOV (policy) - the policy governing treatment of religious topics
  • WP:RELIGION (draft guideline) - previous attempt at a religious content guideline
  • WP:XPLAIN (essay) - very preliminary essay about differences in Christian denominations
  • MOS:ISLAM (guideline) - Islam style guideline
  • MOS:LDS (guideline) - LDS style guideline

Should use WP:RELIGION as a starting point? – Lionel (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I took IZAK's, PiCo's and Lisa's suggestions and created our brand new Manual of Style here: WP:RELMOS. Doug's point about weight in the lede has some merit. The solution is to significantly expand articles with religious scholarship. Thus the lede will represent the religious scholarship, not the anti-religious. But to do this we will have to develop a comprehensive list of sources and be disciplined enough to use it. – Lionel (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added to the bit about the lead, saying we must follow WP:LEAD and NPOV (which is often a problem with leads in religious articles as we've seen). This contradict's Lisa's suggestion, but we really have no choice as we can't change this by local consensus. I've also mentioned NPOV in the bit about balance of sources, as we still have to adhere to what NPOV says about balance. Leads will always have to represent any significant disputes, religious or anti-religious or disagreements within religious sources.
What concerns me is that we need more input. We need to put a notice up on all associated wikiprojects and maybe the main MOS talk page. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

For editors who are concerned about anti-religious POV in leads--creating unbalance--we should keep in mind the following:

  1. The invocation of WP:RNPOV is crucial. It permits a religion to be described from the POV of adherents. It can be used to counter when anti-religious content is added under the authority of NPOV.
  2. Balance in WP:LEAD goes both ways. If an article is composed primarily of religious scholarship then an adequate summary of the article will naturally be mostly religious scholarship. Conversely anti-religious and secular treatment in the lead will be marginalized. It is of the utmost importance that members of this project make the addition of scholarly religious sources a top priority.
  3. Obtaining consensus for WP:RELMOS will be the most important undertaking of this project to date. Even as only WP:LOCALCONSENSUS this guideline will have a broad impact. True it will not be binding, but if only a fraction of project members voluntarily adhere to its precepts the effect on the leads of contentious articles will be dramatic. And the longer this guideline holds consensus here, the chances increase of adding it to WP:MOS as binding upon all editors, just as MOS:ISLAM and MOS:LDS.

Note: If WP:RELIGION members haven't yet realized this guideline will change the way anti-religious POV is handled in articles within the scope of this project. It will certainly come under sustained and relentless criticism from editors who add anti-religious POV to articles. Whether or not the members rise to the challenge is yet to be seen. – Lionel (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Revised Seven Point Proposal

User IZAK's draft proposal contains many valuable suggestions, but from the comments it is clear that it remains controversial. Before we drop it, however, I think we should try to save those aspects which are most positive and potentially workable, while still ensuring that Wikipedia retains its primary goal, i.e., to be encyclopediac, unbiased (or "npov" in the jargon") and up to date. I therefore put forward for comment the following revision of IZAK's points for articles on religious subjects:

  • Article should open with a brief, objective description of the subject. (For example, an article on the Buddhist concept of dharma should state, in clear terms comprehensible to ordinary readers, the essence of what Buddhism means by this term). This is not the lead of the article, simply the first sentence/paragraph - article leads for religious articles should be no different from the leads of other articles.
  • The information given in the body of the article should touch on all relevant aspects of the subject, with due weight to each, and without attempting to argue the "truth value" of any of them. (We should describe beliefs, not argue for or against them).
  • The history and practices of the religion/subject in question should be described using reliable sources. What those sources may be will vary from article to article, but in general we should avoid primary sources (as is already normal wikipedia policy) in favour of secondary and , best, tertiary ones. (Tertiary sources are major encyclopedias/college level textbooks and the like, as these are least likely to be arguing a case; primary sources are to be avoided because we will then inevitably find ourselves interpreting these sources, and this is a job best left to experts).
  • As is usual in encyclopedias, there should not be "criticism" sections - we should simply describe practices such as suttee, we should not criticise them, no matter what our personal feelings may be.

I would like to see some vigorous debate on these proposals. PiCo (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Before we drop it"? What are you talking about? The members want this. – Lionel (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Some do, but there's no consensus :) PiCo (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I see one oppose above. In any case, nice to see you didn't quit Wikipedia altogether, PiCo, over the interminable bickering (still going) about the first sentence of GCN. I issue my tentative and preliminary support to the R7PP, but still support 7PP1 more strongly. I believe a revision could be undertaken to combine the best of both proposals, and, to repeat myself repeatedly (sic), I believe that most of all of this would be solved by a one-point proposal: vigorous enforcement of WP:RNPOV as it stands written (or at least as it stood a week ago). St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 08:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:RNPOV looks good to me :). I know that IZAK's proposal won't stand up in the wicked world of Wiki - can you imagine people like some of those in the talk at GCN meekly abiding by that approach? If you simply direct them to RNPOV it should do the trick - I support RNPOV, but 7PP1 is impractical. PiCo (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
John, who are you counting as opposing? I count myself, History2007 and now Pico. And given the very small number of editors participating, I'd say there's clearly no consensus. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
As I counted it, you opposed, History was on the fence (he seemed to support it partially, but not fully), and didn't see PiCo up there at all. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 21:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstood History2007. I actually see you on the fence as you've also said, I think, that making sure NPOV was met would suffice. And could you please clarify your position on the proposal for a version of the lead that would not be a summary of the article as described in WP:LEAD? In any case, as I'm opposing and with reasons based on our guidelines, there is no consensus and I also think there have been far too few participants in this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Doug, I detect, no doubt wrongly, a note of hostility to John, and I'd just like to point out that I've had quite a lot of dealings with him and I've always found him very reasonable and level-headed.
Nevertheless, Doug is right about the lack of unanimity about this idea of IZAK's. Even Lisa doesn't seem to be a hundred percent behind it, and she would sooner eat blunt razor blades than find herself on the same side of an argument as me. My problem with IZAK's draft, as I said before, is that it just won't work in the real world of wiki (is that a contradiction in terms?), where there are indeed anti-religionists as rabid as one could wish (or not wish) to come across. (I name no names). My thanks to John for alerting me to the WP:RNPOV, which is a very sensible little set of basic guidelines, and I suggest that any Seven Points be based on that. PiCo (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Just saw this - no hostility to John. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
PiCo, I've mostly agreed with you for some time now. I don't know if you've changed or I have, but I think we can probably leave the past in the past. But actually, I did agree 100% with 7PP1. I only disagreed with someone who suggested an 8th point.
I think it should be a no-brainer that the lede of an article should describe its subject, and not immediately launch into why the subject is stupid. That's a clear violation of WP:LEDE and WP:NPOV. But there are militant anti-religionists here who have an agenda that they're pursuing. They want Wikipedia to take a strong atheist position.
Scholarship. When it comes to biology, of course scholarship by biologists is considered basic. Why, then, is rabbinic scholarship, or the scholarship of Christian or Muslim theologians -- when it comes to those religions -- held to be invalid, or of lesser value? I've seen it stated numerous times that such scholarship is merely "preaching". But the study of Judaism is best explained by rabbinic scholars. The study of Christianity and Islam is best described by their theologians and experts. When did Wikipedia adopt the idea that when it comes to religion, and religion alone, the primary experts are those who analyze it from the outside like anthropologists with primitive tribes? Yes, militant anti-religionists see all religions as being on par with primitive tribes. But that's their POV. A POV, I might add, which is loud, and very well represented in academia, but is still just one POV, and not a very populous one.
I'd like to suggest a synthesis of IZAK's and PiCo's proposals:
7PP1:
  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.)
R7PP (4PP1):
  • Article should open with a brief, objective description of the subject. (For example, an article on the Buddhist concept of dharma should state, in clear terms comprehensible to ordinary readers, the essence of what Buddhism means by this term). This is not the lead of the article, simply the first sentence/paragraph - article leads for religious articles should be no different from the leads of other articles.
  • The information given in the body of the article should touch on all relevant aspects of the subject, with due weight to each, and without attempting to argue the "truth value" of any of them. (We should describe beliefs, not argue for or against them).
  • The history and practices of the religion/subject in question should be described using reliable sources. What those sources may be will vary from article to article, but in general we should avoid primary sources (as is already normal wikipedia policy) in favour of secondary and , best, tertiary ones. (Tertiary sources are major encyclopedias/college level textbooks and the like, as these are least likely to be arguing a case; primary sources are to be avoided because we will then inevitably find ourselves interpreting these sources, and this is a job best left to experts).
  • As is usual in encyclopedias, there should not be "criticism" sections - we should simply describe practices such as suttee, we should not criticise them, no matter what our personal feelings may be.
IZAK suggests that the lede should be entirely about the religion's own self-definition. PiCo suggests that the lede begin with an objective description, but not be limited to it. Let's be honest, okay? The anti-religionists consider any description of a religious view from the POV of that religion to be the equivalent of "in world" descriptions of works of fiction. To them, describing Judaism from Judaism's point of view is akin to describing Lord of the Rings from Gandalf's [sic - Sauron's -Ed.] point of view. So IZAK's idea of using only a religion's self-definition in the lede is problematic. But PiCo's idea of limiting the objective description of a religion to only the beginning of the lede is also problematic. What else would be in the lede, after all? Non-objective descriptions? So I suggest we combine these proposals as follows:
  • 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. That material should be included in the article, if reliable sources exist, but should not appear in the lede. Apologetics, in this context, means explaining or making excuses for facets of the religion/subject which are the subject of critique by others, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere.
IZAK's second point is that all known religious and classical sources be cited. I think that may be overdoing it. PiCo makes a good point about reliable sources. But I think we need additional clarification on what exactly constitutes a primary, secondary, or tertiary source. Rashi (for Judaism) or Thomas Aquinas (for Christianity) would be primary sources in articles about themselves, but are secondary sources when it comes to their respective religions and the beliefs of those religions. So I'd like to suggest the following combination of these points:
  • The religious scholarship of experts in these religions should not be considered primary sources, and should not be considered inferior to academic scholarship of these religions. However, it should be clearly noted in the text of the article (and not only via wikilink) whether experts in a religion or religious subject are internal experts (rabbis, theologians) or external experts (academics). Or both. Let the reader decide who they prefer to believe. It isn't the place of Wikipedia to make that decision for them.
IZAK's points 3-7 are about what should appear in these articles after the lede. (3) Differences within the religion, (4) history and practice, (5) the views of other schools of thought and other religions, (6) the academic view, and (7) criticism and rebuttal of the religion itself. PiCo thinks there shouldn't be criticism sections. I want to draw a strong distinction between critique and criticism, as defined above. I agree with PiCo that there should not be criticism sections in these articles. But critique is another matter. So I'd remove IZAK's seventh point altogether. And his points 3-6 needn't be in that order, necessarily, but should all be included. And I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) that PiCo would disagree with this. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
This still looks like an attempt to exempt religious articles from WP:LEAD. That can't be done here. If editors are going to attempt this I'll take it to WT:LEAD as it's obviously something that editors there need to know about. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no such attempt, but rather we want to subject the articles to the same standards (reflecting current scholarly opinion) as any other wikipedia page.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

How is Lisa's suggestion that the lead only "The lede of an article on religion or religious subjects should be comprised entirely of an objective description of the religion/subject." How is that in line with "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences."? Dougweller (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment: As the person who, admittedly unintentionally and unwittingly, seems to have created this brouhaha, I would also oppose the above proposals. I can see so many difficulties, both regarding policy and even choosing which perspective from within a given religious tradition, that I honestly cannot see how it could ever be workable. However, I also think that in my original proposal I may have suggested something which might be a moderately acceptable alternative. I mentioned that I have been pushing for creation of Wikibooks for some time along the lines of "Why I Am a (Christian, Atheist, Jew, Marxist, Scientologist, Baptist, whatever)". Some years ago, there was a rather successful and useful series of such books published. Why I Am a Unitarian Universalist here is one example of such. Such books would be extremely useful for anyone, insiders or outsiders, who would be interested in understanding why people are affiliated with such religious or secular faiths. Admittedly, I might personally prefer it if such books were presented in a discussion format, where non-adherents could briefly and respectably present their reasons for disagreeing, but such content could be I think rather easily constructued, and would certainly be able to serve as at least a beginning for what I believe would be a useful collection of material regarding why people adhere to specific beliefs. John Carter (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion/Archive_7&oldid=1190245006"