User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion

This page is being constructed to serve as a point for discussion for the development of guidelines, and possibly policies, regarding content regarding religious beliefs, and other content which basically deals with "beliefs" of some sort or other, including political, scientific or pseudoscientific, etc. It is also, basically, being written rather badly, at least by me in the beginning. It is not my intention in any way, shape or form to attempt to either dictate what if any content the guidelines should have, or to attempt to write something which others might "rubber stamp." So, yes, no one should think that anything written here by me is intended to be seen as even an attempt for a final draft of any possible guidelines or other pages. Feel free to applaud, condemn, or I suppose ignore anything I say in the top here, although I do hope that some people read at least a little of it. Also, please feel free to add and or discuss specific proposals at the bottom of the page here.

Religion and beliefs in general

To various degrees, what has traditionally been called “religion” would now also, in many cases, share similar if not identical characteristics in some people to non-religious legends, their personal political or (broadly) philosophical views, views on topics related to pseudoscience, the paranormal or occult, conspiracy theories, and such. So, as required, the spirit, if not letter, of these proposals would also be reasonably applied when dealing with those subjects.

Religious texts

• Religious texts should be considered reliable sources for religious beliefs. However, there are several potential difficulties which should be taken into account.
• First, there should be a very good indication, if not outright proof, that the religious text is considered a “religious text” or “scripture” by the specific group being discussed. Christianity in particular, and other religions to a lesser degree, often have a wide variety of groups within a blanket classification, and it is obvious that the Book of Mormon, although nominally “Christian,” for instance, is probably not a reliable source for the Coptic Orthodox Church or most other “Christian” groups.
• Care should also be taken to ensure that if a specific translation of a scriptural text is being considered for inclusion in an article, that translation would best be one of the translations that particular church, denomination, or group uses or considers acceptable. For most of the major Christian groupings, reference sources do provide some sort of indication regarding which translations a group favors. For other groups where there is no such clear basis, within Christianity, it would probably be best, if the group is Reformation or after, to use a version of the King James Bible.
• In the event the phrasing of the scriptural quote does not necessarily unquestionably support the religious/theological point being made, use of creeds, confessions, catechisms, official doctrinal statements or expressed opinions of leading thinkers of that group, or other similar sources would probably be preferable, if those sources do unquestionably specifically address the point an editor wishes to make.
• For some religious groups, such as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, some sources which might not be considered to be “scripture” per se, such as the Kebra Nagast, but which are held in the same or higher regard as “official” scripture, their use is also acceptable as appropriate, provided that the text of the article in development, or the main article on the source in question, indicates that the work in question is given the authority of scripture.
• Some schools of thought are clearly and obviously organized in a way that makes it rather easy to speak in broad terms about them, like the Catholic Church. Others are not, including groups which adhere to prosperity theology, or what might be called the extreme conservative position regarding the Bible, such as is taken by the book The Bible As History, and others.
• Lastly, it is important to ensure that the group in question itself actually believes the statement made in the religious text. The Satanic verses of the Koran, for instance, are not necessarily considered to have scriptural authority. Also, in the case of large bodies of scripture, like Hindu scripture, the Bible, and others, it may well be the case that one particular quote supporting a given point is more regularly discussed and/or at least apparently given “higher” regard than another.

Revelation and inspiration

• Material which is received by a group or individual held in high esteem by a group should not be subject to the independent rational criticism. However, if there is regular significant discussion in independent reliable sources about the mental status of the person who has received the revelation or inspiration sufficient to meet WEIGHT requirements, such material on the person's mental state may well be relevant to more clearly biographical content, with, perhaps, a link in the text or the “see also” section to that other article in the article about the revelatory or inspirational material.

”Denominational” subarticles

• For many broad religious or other groups, there are an incredible number of “denominations” or other smaller groups within them. I remember having read that there are allegedly roughly 20,000 Christian denominations in the world, although I acknowledge I am not at all sure that all of them are notable, or that their beliefs are notable. If, for example, this number includes megachurches, which might be notable only as congregation-churches, not as groups of specific beliefs, this can present problems. In general, where there are highly regarded reference sources or other independent reliable sources held in high regard by the academic community, the material contained in those sources should possibly be considered as the most directly relevant to the main articles on the group in question.

High quality sources

• In general, highly regarded, high quality reference sources are among the best possible sources out there for particularly religious subjects. Also, there seem to be a very large number of such sources available, covering not only major religious groupings, but also specific traditions within those groupings, as well as numerous “topical” reference books on such topics as myths, theology, different views of history of various religious and other groups, etc. I have started a list of those which have been regarded by the American Library Association as outstanding reference works at User:John Carter/ALA Reference Sources. I think that those sources might reasonably serve as maybe having, for lack of a better phrase, some reasonable indications as to what the essential or core content relating to their topics would be, and they might serve as a basic springboard for getting together a group of articles here which would cover the essential or "core" material regarding the subjects they relate to.
• However, as I myself have seen discussed in reviews of some of those reference sources considered most authoritative for the subject of religion, there are and almost certainly will be instances when the content in a religious reference book supports an opinion which is not necessarily broadly credited in the academic community. At least one review of The Encyclopedia of Religion by one of the editorial team of RGG says that he knows from his own history as an editor of the latter work that the editors rarely if ever really check that the article submitted by the individual author necessarily reflects only the “consensus” belief. This can be particularly problematic regarding topics which aren't really given a lot of broad academic attention, like, for instance, religious beliefs of a small group of Pacific islanders. In many such cases, it may well be that there really has been only one academic who is recognized as knowledgeable on a particular topic, and their individual conclusions, which may not be particularly highly regarded by academia, are included in the article by the author anyway. Sometimes, in their defense, they might think that, as they were the individuals chosen to write the article in question, that is to be an indicator that their opinions, not just their broad knowledge, are highly regarded. In general, academic reviews of these reference and other academic works will discuss, at least in broad terms, the strengths and weaknesses of the work. Particularly in religion, I have seen that there are sometimes individual issues of academic journals whose sole non-”column” content for that issue is a group of reviews of articles in a specific reference work, grouped by broad topics. Those reviews can be useful in finding where the individual article might deviate from the consensus academic view. Also, many of these works will get a second edition, which might in some ways be the preferred one because it gives editors a chance to revise the possibly non-consensus opinions of the earlier edition. Also, reviews or other discussions of the opinions of the author of a specific article, or the views expressed in a particular article, will generally get some degree of discussion in other academic content, and those other discussions of the relative degree of acceptance given specific beliefs in a broad field can be useful to determine if the specific belief is given broad or less broad support in the academic and belief communities later.

Nationalism questions

I'm of German blood. I am as aware as the rest of you that the Nazis ran with the ethnic and religious myths of the German people and turned them into a set or system of beliefs which really didn't resemble the original versions particularly well. That sort of thing has happened, and will almost certainly continue to happen, in other ethnic or nationalist groups. So far as I can see, in general, reference sources try to differentiate between earlier and later versions of stories. Luckily, we have an infinite amount of space, so we can have multiple articles on a specific myth or story, including one article on what might be apparently the earliest manifestion, and other articles on later versions. If they all meet notability, that's fine.

Favor “historical” development of an article

However, in many cases individual stories or myths which have gotten some “nationalist or ethnic development may not differ particularly notably from each other, except in certain details. This might include, for instance, stories of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament which are held as canonical by both Jews and Christians, and which are given pretty much the same interpretation by both. In those instances where the differences do not seem to be sufficient to make creation of spinout articles on the various versions indicated, we should try, as much as possible, to present the interpretations in chronological order. So, for instance, the main Jewish interpretation(s) of a Hebrew Bible text would probably be discussed first, and then, as indicated, maybe shorter sections on various Christian groups following, sometimes just saying “Church A supports Jewish Position 2” or similar, if the views of the Christian or other groups are virtually the same as one of the earlier Jewish interpretations.

”Distinctives”

This is a term used repeatedly by the Fahlbusch Encyclopedia of Christianity to describe those practices and related matters which are distinctly held by specific groups within the broad field of Christianity. I think it might make sense to structure a lot of our articles in roughly similar fashion, to avoid repetition, and “distinctive” is as good a word as any other to describe such distinctive beliefs.

”hypotheses”

The Fahlbush Encyclopedia of Christianity also uses this word to describe specific beliefs held by one small grouping within a larger grouping. Such as, for instance, the Jehovah's Witnesses' belief regarding Michael and Jesus. “Theory”, in most of these cases, would be a misleading word to use, because it tends to be used to describe scientific theories, and most of these beliefs of various groups are not even roughly scientific. I think it might make sense for us to use it as well.

Broader questions

”outline” format

For the most part, the best of the reference books also share our own opinions about duplicating repetition. To do that, however, they often have to make either large “thematic” articles, or groups of articles of varying length, discussing major points once in the central article, and the “distinctives” in others. I think it would be not unreasonable for us to try to do the same here, maybe with a “Main article:” link at the top of some pages or something similar to indicate such.

WikiProjects

I also think it would be very, very useful for all of us if we were to encourage the individual WikiProjects to, where possible, develop lists of articles included in the better reference sources first, and then, as indicated, to perhaps “branch out” to more specific lists for subtopics within a broader topic. So, for instance, once all the relevant articles which meet our own guidelines and policies for a given broad topic, like “Religion” or “Christianity” are basically created and developed to a good level, then we can give more attention to the less “important” or “priority” articles, such as those covered in encyclopedic sources on the Jehovah's Witnesses, or Seventh-day Adventists, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc., but not in reference sources on the broader topic of Christianity in general. with at least some reason to believe that the “parent” articles contain most of the information they need, making it easier to determine what to cover in the spinout articles.

Simple English Wikipedia

I remember reading some months ago about how the Simple English Wikipedia had “lost its way.” I can myself understand that, because, so far as I could tell when I was momentarily involved in it some time ago, it is not entirely easy to determine exactly what its goals are. Is it intended to be a wikipedia for adults learning English, or a wikipedia for those in middle and high school? So far as I can tell, one of the few outstanding successful commercial encyclopedias out there, the World Book, rather clearly aims at the middle and high school students. It also tends to use primarily Simple English, but also includes a possibly disproportionate number of articles on dogs, careers, sports, and other topics which are of particular significance and importance to that audience. In all honesty, I think one of the better ways they could finish their “base set” of articles might be to look at what is included in World Book, and ensure that they have the material from the most recent print version. The online version includes some older articles, like on former US archbishops, which I think were, maybe, written for earlier editions and then dropped when those individuals died. Other than those, however, developing a list of articles and subarticles in World Book, and then developing articles to match them, would be at least one way to help get together a “base set” there as well. Yes, I know it is primarily geared toward students in the US and Canada, but, honestly, I think that group might include most of our own potential contributors as well. And, once those “base set” articles are done, it might be easier to determine what principles to apply to develop more content in other areas.

Limiting the number of articles

Yes, I know we don't want to limit the number of articles. Having said that, it really does us no good to have so many articles that any given subject becomes completely unmanagable. If we were to consult the better commercial reference books on a topic, seeing what they cover and at what length and trying to develop the same content, if possibly under different titles, ourselves, we would probably lessen the number of individuals who might develop “spinout” articles on a given “subtopic,” like, for instance, “Baptism in the Methodist churches,” if the major “Baptism” article set already covers the essentials to that topic. That would probably make it easier for all of us.

Community portal

I really think it would be wonderful if we could get together some “base lists” for most of the topics we cover, particularly those which aren't so much popular culture. Honestly, those so-called “academic” topics probably get less attention anyway, in several ways, so it frees up editors to do other, more “fun” articles. Also, having such lists of poorly developed and nonexistent “core” articles will make it easier for those who are primarily interested in “academic” topics to know what is and isn't already covered. If we could get WikiProjects to do this, then we might be able to list at the Community Portal or a subpage of it a list of articles on a given topic which we not only should have, but also a list of at least one or more reference sources which can be used at least as an indicator of what that article would cover. It also might get a larger number of editors working on specific articles at the same time, bringing them up to quality better.

WikiProject space pages for article development

I have tried to do a “create an article, win a barnstar” game in the Christianity project in the past. On that basis, I know that the problem with getting them to DYK level is the problem of giving some articles, which might not have that many sources immediately available to a lot of people, and the 5 day deadline at DYK can become a problem. Maybe, for “collaboration” candidates, we might be able to create some articles in the namespace of a given WikiProject, and then, when it becomes a good DYK candidate, move it to mainspace and nominate it. This might be particularly useful if only a few articles in a given field are in “development” at any given time. That would also probably make better developed articles for inclusion in DYKs.

WikiProject banner placement

I know this is an opinion with which some will disagree. But I really think it might be in everybody's best interests if we did not stand in the way of allowing all WikiProjects to tag articles if the reference books related to their main topic have content of significant length or significance on that topic in them. We have been, in the past, called a group of encyclopedias, rather than a single encyclopedia, which I think we want to be. This might be one way to change that for the better. Also, even if, in most cases, we would be facing the probability of much of the content from these less directly related encyclopedic or other sources in spinout articles, that would still assist us in our goal to be truly encyclopedic.

Encyclopedia pillar of wikipedia

Honestly, I really think that we would be better off if the link in the third pillar were to some sort of policy, guideline, or essay page. Should we be trying to build a “perfect” encyclopedia, the specific nature of which is going to be the source of a lot of disagreement, or should we be trying to build an encyclopedia basically like most others in kind if not in degree, at least regarding amount and depth of content? I think the latter is more reasonable, and, unfortunately, a link to an article which might not itself be in a really good condition isn't the best way to convey that.

Development of other Wikimedia Foundation projects

• Honestly, I can and do see a time, probably in the not too distant future, when most of the broadly “historical” content, or content which doesn't change dramatically given recent developments, will be, basically, finished. Yes, we do want individual biographies of every person who has helped cabinet level status in any major country, but I think it that many of us also realize that there probably won't be that many people willing to spend several weeks of their personal time reading up on them all. How can we basically keep those editors we do have who we will need to deal with unexpected changes in basically “historical” content as they occur? Probably one of the better ways would be to try to get them involved in other WF entities.
• WikiQuote, WikiNews, and WikiBooks are probably, in general, the related entities which have the most broadly similar content. I also believe that a lot of us, particularly those who deal with content related to “ideas,” have, at some level, a goal of maybe presenting some of our own opinions, or opinions we support, somewhere. And, yes, I do know of more than a few wikipedia editors who seem to be primarily, if not only, interested in content that supports their own opinions. Unfortunately, in a lot of areas, like the parscha fragments, really detailed scriptural interpretation, and certainly discussion from multiple viewpoints, internal and external, would probably be welcome to lots of readers and editors. Unfortunately, keeping such discussion under control might be tricky. I have started a draft of a kind of “discussion” relating to Scientology, which, so far as I can tell, is all pretty much verifiable, but discusses areas of that group which haven't been given much attention in independent reliable sources yet. The same thing holds for a lot of other newer movements which get even less attention than Scientology. Should we try to develop content of this type, which might cover, basically, “missing content” in IRS sources, and, if we do, how would we ensure that it doesn't get out of hand? Also, something that would probably be important to a lot of people, is there any way we could game the search engines to make these pages appear higher in their lists of related webpages?

Foreign wikipedias

Right now, I think it is probably generally recognized here, and in the outside world, that English is one of the languages closest to being a global language, and somewhat by extension that the English wikipedia is the most frequently accessed. Unfortunately, it has been, and still is, the case that a lot of potential encyclopedic content regarding subjects in a part of the world which is not particularly well covered by the English language might never be developed, because of the lack of English language sources. In many cases, there might be encyclopedias or similar reliable reference sources in one or more native languages on some of these topics. Provided that the guidelines for notability are roughly the same across all the linguistic wikipedias, might there be some way to encourage non-English wikipedias to try to create and develop encyclopedic articles on subjects which are covered in the reliable reference sources or other sources in their languages, perhaps by making lists of encyclopedic articles based on reference books in their language and perhaps have them make it a bit of a priority to develop that content which is more or less distinctive to their location and language first?

Current discussions which might relate to some proposed guidelines

I am including below links to a number of articles which seem to me, in some way, to be good indicators of the problems related to these topics we face today, areas which guidelines of the type being proposed for drafting here might be useful. Yes, I have been involved in a lot of them – that's why I know about them. I am all but certain that in at least a few cases others involved in those discussions will have impolite things to say about me, too, sometimes, perhaps, even poorly founded impolite things. That's fine, and not really the reason for selecting them. And, FWIW, yes, I have chosen some of you to take part in these discussions primarily because of your involvement in those broad areas, Anyway, a few indicators of specific areas where having guidelines in place regarding specifically “religious” ideas follow. I imagine that there are any number of others in the areas of politics, philosophy, and other “idea” areas as well. Feel free to add them.

• Talk:Christ myth theory#Questions regarding notability, synth, etc. - How to deal with broad topical articles of more or lest a "list" type in cases where the notability of the "list" itself might be less than clearly established as notable in its own right. This would also apply to other cases where there seem to be a number of slightly variant proposals all along the same basic lines, but where the specific topic of the article itself might be itself less than notable, or, perhaps, less notable than some of the specific items included in the list might be in their own right.
• Talk:Deism#Contemporary deism? - There does seem to be a number of new non-notable religious groups which call themselves deism, but there is, so far as I can tell, little if any independent reliably sourced material on them. Where should content related to the topic be placed, and what should be included about it?
• Talk:Saint Peter#Cephas and Peter? - Various old martyrologies have separate listings for Saint Cephas, who is apparently thought by the writers to be a separate person than Peter. Few if any recent scholars support the idea of them being different, but it seems to have been apparently the subject of significant discussion earlier. How should it be dealt with here?
• Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites#Question of POV - Among other things, this deals with both the apparent religious beliefs of non-notable groups, the presumptive religious beliefs of non-notable "movements" of groups (the multiple non-notable neo-Ebionite groups), and certainly the degree of reliability to be given highly regarded academic reference sources.
• Talk:Kebra Nagast#Questioning regarding weight - How to deal with sources which are considered to be, basically, sacred documents by one movement within a larger grouping, but are given little if any particular support in either the academic community or the broader religious communities to which the smaller groups belong. This sort of problem is one that recurs virtually constantly.
• Talk:Scientology#Degree of attention to be given Urban's work - This is a question about statements made by an academic in an academic work about the subject which are dissonant with much of what is known both from the group itself and from other academic sources. Questions of this sort arise regarding a lot of newer religious groups at various times.

Proposed drafts

(feel free to subdivide as called for)

Comments about proposed drafts

(again, feel free to subdivide as called for)

Comments by DGG

• With respect to religious beliefs, I very much support your attempt to bring some degree of intelligence and nuance to the way people write here. But there are things where I do not accept your statements, tho I agree with what I understand as your general intentions.

1. I do not agree that "what has traditionally been called 'religion'" or philosophy can be discussed for Wikipedia purposes in the same terms as pseudoscience or conspiracy theories. Not everything that is not in the narrow sense "science" is homogeneous. For pseudoscience or c.t. a chief concern is presenting them clearly while making sure that they are not mistaken for the consensus view of reality in the fields to which they relate--science,and history. Religion and philosophy are not unaccepted attempts to be science or history, but a different approach to the world altogether. There's an overlap of certain aspects, such as the view that the Bible represents science, but we are not concerned showing a religion or a philosophy is not generally accepted as true.
2. It is not the case that religious texts accepted by a group say what the group believes. They say what the writers of the text wish the readers of that text to think the group believes. For example, all Christians accept the Bible in some measure does not mean they agree of what it says or the authority it holds. Both the traditional and the contemporary academic understandings of the religion are also relevant to what the group actually believe. One of the key differences between Protestants and Catholics in the Reformation was whether what theProtestants thought plain meaning of the Bible was definitive, or whether instead it was the Bible as interpreted by the Roman Catholic academic religious tradition.
   1. The KJ Bible has no preferred religious position, except when used for its general cultural significance as in discussing English literature.
   2. The RC Church has not believed the same throughout its history, and makes no claim that it has: see progressive revelation
3. The individual psychologies of religious and philosophical leaders is relevant to their opinions, tho --as for the psychology of anyone else--does not determine their merit or their meaning.
4. The historical development of a tradition is not necessarily the best introductory presentation, through it is generally the best way to develop the details of a subject. The current Jewish understanding of the Old Testament is not preferred to the Christian view, though it is certainly correct that the traditional Christian view is related on the Jewish view as understood in the period where the Christian view developed. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

For the most part, I included the conspiracy theories and pseudoscience because, in many cases, they themselves involve religion or philosophy to some degree. And I hope you realize, like I think I said, that everyone I listed above was just to start the ball rolling. I would myself veryt much hope that others with more experience in drafting things like policies and guidelines might be interested in doing so. That's something I've never really done before. Personally, in almost all cases, actually, my most preferred option would be to, basically, find as many reference sources on a topic as possible, try to determine which if any are outdated or express minority opinions, and try to "average out" the rest. For some groups, like the Roman Catholics, yeah, they have changed beliefs, although I'm fairly sure that they would themselves deny that, but it's independent opinions that count. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Pedantic note - "see progressive revelation" - it doesn't mean that according to our article, which I think is right. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Komioko

In part I agree with DGG that declaring them a pseudoscience or conspiracy theory might be going a little far but I agree with many of the points that you make.

1. I think that often times articles about a religion or religious figures seem to be controlled by those who practice that faith. We should not be in the habit of or complacently allow this to happen. There are several articles this has happened too and I think it violates the principle of our being. We shouldn't complacently allow POV just because it may or may not offend one group. The article needs to be balanced and if that means it has to include some reference flaws in the character or principle of that religion, deity or prophet then so be it. This was a hot topic for a long time with the article for Mohamed and is an ongoing issue regarding articles pertaining to Wicca and other faiths that appear unfavorable. We need to try and put out personal feelings and beliefs aside as hard as that might be.
2. I also agree with your comments that we need to let WikiProjects tag the articles that they feel are in their scope. This has been a major bone of contention with me when I see people remove tags from articles and declaring its outside that projects scope. It happens a lot and I find it irritating and believe its a blatant violation of article ownership. Kumioko (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Your experience with broadbased WikiProjects was one of the reasons I wanted your input, actually. I think we would probably be best served if we had the material relating to an individual topic from reference or other reliable sources from across the spectrum of topics before making judgments. I've started a few lists of articles in given encyclopedic sources, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles, along those lines already. Having both the tags, and lists of articles, would be in my opinion probably the best way to address POV and weight concerns. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Maunus

• I think it is a problem that you say that religious texts can be used to describe beliefs. That assumes a somewhat naive literalist/fundementalist stance that sees belief as necessarily determined by the religious texts. Most religious groups don't share that view of the relation between text and belief and even for those that do share the view it is not really a useful way of describing their beliefs because the belief are always an interpretation of what the texts say. The solution is to use reliable academic sources that describe how specific religious groups mediate between text and belief. very often there may also be significant differences between the actual beliefs of congregants and practitioners and the official doctrines. We must be able to write about such differences also. Again the solution is reliable academic sources. So no, I don't think religious texts should be considered reliable sources for religious beliefs. They are reliable guides to what the religious texts say - but it requires a secondary source to say what beliefs are in fact derived from the text.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Similarly regarding the mental status of people who claim to have revelation, should be based on the prominence of discussions of their mental status in reliable academic sources. It should of course not be used in a biased way to try to discredit the validity of the revelastion - but if the mental state of the prophet in question is a notable topic in the literature it should be given due weight.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Good points above as well, considering some cases like Sabbati Zevi and Elizabeth Clare Prophet's mental states. I think "scriptures" should probably, wherever possible, not be the preferred "source" for statements of religious opinions, but rather some creedal or confessional or other statement from the group itself. So, for instance, saying something like the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that Genesis X:Y is one of the reasons they hold belief Z would probably be the best way to go, IMHO. If you have a way to phrase what you said above in the form of a guideline, he said, woefully misquoting Alex Trebeck, I think that having some such definite at least draft proposals to present to the community would be the first goal, even if there were in some cases multiple choices for any particular proposal. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

• There is a lot here, & many things I don't agree with. I'm far from sure what problems you are trying to fix, and rather dubious that such a wide-ranging guideline will be accepted by the community. Generally I'm happy with our attitude to primary sources & the use of religious texts to reference beliefs. "Reliable sources" are very problemmatic for religion, as often they will support a vast range of contradictory statements, but we have to deal with that as best we can. "Honestly, I can and do see a time, probably in the not too distant future, when most of the broadly “historical” content, or content which doesn't change dramatically given recent developments, will be, basically, finished." - that is more true for religious topics than most, but I would still strongly disagree. We fill the screens, but large amounts of the content is of pretty low quality, and we still have gaps. If you are saying that editors are too fond of creating new articles rather than improving old ones, then I agree. I agree with many of the comments by others above. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Adjwilley

• On the part about using religious text as source, I would have to say that I am against that, with exceptions. Religious text is almost always oracular and open to interpretation, which is why you can have thousands of Christian denominations all using the same Bible. As a guideline to using religious texts as sources, I suggest something along the lines of the following:

  "Religious texts may be used as sources, but must be used with caution. Like primary sources, religious text should be supplemented with secondary sources that support any interpretations made. Drawing any conclusions based only on religious text is original research, and is not allowed."

• On matters of religious belief, WP:SELFSOURCE should be allowed. For instance, you can use an official denominational webpage to source information about the denomination (beliefs, creeds, missions, etc.) Exceptions to this are where the information is unduly self-serving, controversial, or where it applies to the organization but not the individual members (eg. Catholic church is against birth control, members not so much).
• Matters of religious belief should be discussed objectively from a neutral point of view, as opposed to apologetically or polemically. Matters of religious belief should not be treated as fringe or fact, and editors should not waste space trying to demonstrate that they are true or false. Instead, the beliefs should be presented simply as beliefs. Words like believe, say, according to, and state are helpful when describing beliefs, while loaded terms like reveal, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, deny" should be avoided. For guidance, editors should look to the best sources on the subject to see how it is treated there.

~Adjwilley (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by jc37

Wow, there's a lot here. Kudos for all the work so far : )

I'll just start with comments concerning religious text sourcing.

I'm a strong proponent of allowing the usage of primary sources on Wikipedia.

So for example if I were to view in a film that "a blue car crashed into a green lamppost" (and presuming that that moment was of note in the film), then I should be able to note that in the related article. blue, car, green, lamppost are all fairly clear in the context, as is the action of crashing into something.

That said, there can be semantic interpretation to the situation - shades of colour, type of car, type of lamppost, state of the car and lamppost before, during, and after the crash, the type of crash, etc.

Likely of no major concern in conveying the event in an article (see also purple prose), but when we turn our eye to a religious text, the interpretation, and the semantic reading can be, to at least some, of vital importance. It seems to me that, by their nature, such works almost require interpretation of the text or synthesis in order to convey what is being written. (Not unlike analysing poetry.) So unless merely conveying the story or history clearly noted in the text (and even there, there may be difficulties), secondary and tertiary sourcing would seem to be required. - jc37 16:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Nishidani

All ancient pre-modern texts should, optimally, be cited through a secondary source where commentary is provided. I've had to correct things like citations of direct modern translations of, say Herodotus on 'Palestine', for example, because no one reference there can be cited as reliable, he often appears to be contradicting himself, and you only get close to the consensually accepted sense by looking at the technical commentaries which discuss all relevant passages and the various interpretations. This is especially true of religious texts given the contentiousness of hermeneutics. Genesis 1:1, as translated, to cite the simplest instance, is subject to controversies of grammatical construal. Tertiary sources are fine as well, though the problem there is that encyclopedias, reference texts and the like are always slighted dated compared to cutting-edge scholarship (b) are often too synthetic and gloss over the details and controversies in a generic way, and, (c) in fields, and I'm sure many colleagues here have the experience, where I have a thorough knowledge, I rarely leave off reading a generic encyclopedic entry on some aspect of it without an irritated feeling that much is missing, or at a too high level of synthesis. Thus secondary sources, and by that, optimally, peer-reviewed contemporary scholarship, should form the basis of our transcriptive work. There the only relevant issue is covered byWP:Undue.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)