99:
may or may not be appropriate. Many beliefs of a religion are disputed by most other religions, and by the irreligious; it is not usually necessary to state this. Thus avoid things like "Buddhists believe in reincarnation as some life-form. This is disputed by most atheists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, and by adherents to the
Australian Dreamtime myths". On the other hand in an article on a Christian denomination it may be appropriate to describe and compare, without need of proof, the beliefs of different denominations about the natures of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
313:
fringe should not be strictly applied to religious articles. Many belief systems may indeed be far-fetched when compared to other religions, but it is not the position of
Knowledge to make any claims against a belief system or to editorialize such. To balance an article that may appear to be fringe, proper sources should be located to support any claims made, and integrated into the article with appropriate references and straight-forward wording. Any statements that are not supported by reliable sources should be removed if no reliable sources can be found to support the statement.
171:: in the field of classical studies, for example, the fact that a given author never mentions a certain subject can be used to support the conclusion that he was ignorant of it. Arguments from silence are not useful in the field of religion when specific theological positions are being discussed: criticisms directed at the miraculous elements of a religion, for example, are not appropriate if they are used to question the truth-value of the belief. In articles on religious texts, properly sourced critical views that rely on an argument from silence may be presented, but must maintain a
492:
365:
326:
72:
standards are meant for physically testable or provable things. Religion often has concepts and beliefs that cannot be subjected to proper scientific scrutiny, due to the non-physical or spiritual nature of belief. Therefore an exception to the rule, concerning only this subset of
Knowledge, would be convenient for editors to refer to to alleviate personal attacks and stress when editing these articles and on the talk pages associated. The proposal is as follows:
299:(e.g., The Lord gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal."). However, inserting direct quotations from missionary materials or sacred texts meant to "challenge" or persuade the reader are inappropriate. For example, an article that reads, "At the end of services, you are offered the opportunity to make a decision," is not neutrally worded. Instead use, "At the end of services, worshipers are offered the opportunity to make a decision."
36:
386:
Articles cannot be written assuming
Western Judeo-Christian readers, and therefore should be explained from the perspective of "assume nothing." Readers of Knowledge come from all backgrounds and religions imaginable, so therefore the tone and scope of the article should state things that may not be
106:
Some beliefs may become conclusively proved or disproved, as, for example, a statue from which water drips, later found to be due to a leaking pipe. The belief that human cannibalism is wrong, although in itself a moral issue not susceptible of proof, is supported by the fact that eating brain tissue
102:
While many beliefs are by nature neither provable nor disprovable, much evidence has become available either supporting or casting doubt on some beliefs; for example, the belief in divine creation of living things, originally uncontroversial, has come into contradiction with such things as the fossil
85:
that tend to be quite cyclical. It is perhaps an unfortunate fact that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of Deity or faith or the historical provenance of a particular sacred document. Many good faith attempts have been made by both sides of an issue to explain or disprove a viewpoint, but
273:
may present his life as though he is a real person, all the while acknowledging the fact that he is a fictitious character. Arguments that may be presented could indeed acknowledge that he may not exist, and be valid. Arguments may be made that, except for the movies and books (under the direction
312:
within
Knowledge simply based on minority status. To the believer it may be viewed as insulting or disturbing that Knowledge take the stance of possibly belittling, or making a mockery, of a person's religious beliefs. Therefore, it is (proposed to be) the policy of Knowledge that the policies on
281:
The same can be said of any faith. You could argue for or against the existence of Deity, or argue for or against the accounts, the records, or revelations of the Deity or the believers therein, and your argument would be plausible and convincing; but the same statement may be made of believer and
261:
It is (proposed to be) Knowledge's stance that religious articles should be written to present the viewpoint of the religion and its followers, while making it clear that this is their perspective and that this is not a form of endorsement of any belief system. Knowledge makes no statements for or
98:
to establish that this is the case) is a fact. The actual belief, unless objectively verifiable and sourced, is not. If there is controversy about a belief and sources to verify it, the controversy is a fact (but the controversial issues are not). Including a controversy in an article on a religion
76:
It is within the scope of
Knowledge to report on various subjects of controversy, but perhaps nothing can ignite an editor's or reader's passions so much as a religious debate. While Knowledge encourages scholarly debate, too often this devolves into a bitter situation where personal attacks and
71:
It is the purpose of this proposed policy to create a new subset of rules, and interpretations of policies, on
Knowledge that apply solely to religious articles, since there are fundamentally different burdens of proof and reliability of sources within the scope of faith and religion. Scientific
80:
While acknowledging scientific principles of proof and testability, Knowledge also realizes there is a realm where these principles cannot be utilized in the traditional sense. Religion is one of these areas. Too often there is presented an argument against a specific religion, or belief, that
351:
world religions. This may be a drawback to dissent, but is a necessary balance to keep the sanity of any encyclopedia. Just remember that a "majority" of the world is not
Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. so therefore there is truly no "majority" that exists.
449:
A detailed debate with arguments, counter-arguments, counter-counter-arguments, etc. is not appropriate and neither the criticisms nor the apologia should focus on minutiae. Readers should be referred to appropriate detailed works in lieu of reproducing the exhaustive details in
Knowledge.
521:
did or said whatever," etc., to the extent that the article becomes wordy just for the sake of staving off critics. So, instead of writing brilliant and engaging prose, editors are relegated to blanket qualify all statements, which can severely affect the readability of an article. One
435:
All material regarding criticism of religion should be written in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion. Editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on the subject matter should make a special effort to be neutral and incorporate opposing views.
94:(Proposed text.) As for any article in Knowledge, facts rather than opinions are appropriate. Most beliefs of religions are opinions, and hence can neither be proved nor disproved as facts. That a religion believes certain things (with
81:
amounts to one simple statement: "Prove it." While individuals may have a passionate argument either for or against, the case is usually unprovable (in both directions). This leads to many arguments and the use of many
549:
307:
Although a following of believers within a certain religion may not number in some cases more than the tens or hundreds, religious articles about them or their beliefs should not be relegated to the realms of
290:
Religious articles should neutrally convey the viewpoint of the religion. The function of the article is not to convert or change a reader's point of view but to present information. To this end, the use of
387:
obvious to all readers. This should not be taken to any extreme, as to "dumb down" the article, but since we cannot assume any type of common religious background, deference should be given as such.
282:
non-believer alike: "Prove it." Since proof is not possible in most circumstances, from either side, the article should show the viewpoint of the religion, while also showing notable dissent.
121:
Within a religious article, a reliable source as to beliefs may include official or canonized sources, or accounts or writings of leaders or otherwise prominent persons within the religion.
589:
472:
Minor criticisms must be carefully considered before inclusion as to their notability and provenance and should never be afforded equal weight with more notable and substantial criticisms.
736:
295:
like "you/your/yours" should be avoided in religion articles. Some quotations may appropriately use the second person dependent upon the context of the article, in accordance with
129:
Due to the lack of physical verifiability of most religious beliefs, that which is "correct" and "incorrect" with regards to a religious ideology is often relative or tacit (i.e.,
475:
All critical comments should be thoroughly discussed on talk pages with both adherents and non-adherents participating to achieve the most neutral and fair wording possible.
190:, or "appeal to ignorance" is a logical fallacy that states that something is either false because it hasn't been proven true or true because it hasn't been proven false.
245:" that makes the error of condemning an entire religion or belief due to the actions of one person, or a small group of people. Perhaps a great example of this could be
983:
576:
86:
the end result is always the same. It is therefore (proposed to be) Knowledge policy that religious articles fall outside of the strict guidelines of verifiability.
898:
145:
115:
256:
137:
information, editors must assume that no one is correct. Articles should not try to prove or disprove religious theories but merely present them as they are.
1230:
265:
With no disrespect intended toward any religion or belief, the presentation of articles can be akin to what you may find in an "in-universe" article about a
163:, or "argument from silence", means a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence. The argument is classed among the fallacies in the study of
465:. Outside the context of the articles discussing those texts, however, the viewpoints of the texts on scientific or historical subjects are considered
729:
443:. However, if the primary article gets too large, it may be appropriate to break out the critical topics into a dedicated "Criticism of " article.
205:, or "argument against the man" consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the
1156:
569:
513:
Not every statement made in a religious article needs to be "qualified." Many articles are so attacked that every sentence becomes "So and so,
401:
Criticism of religion is an important and diverse area of human discourse. Describing criticisms of religion in
Knowledge is appropriate.
164:
1189:
439:
Criticisms should, as a general rule, be incorporated into the primary articles of the subject that they are criticising, thus avoiding
213:
of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby sidetracked, and the
913:
562:
103:
record and molecular biology. These controversies may be relevant, as may active disputes between denominations, groups, or religions.
1389:
316:
1184:
923:
665:
457:
in the articles about those texts, since it is mainstream within the context of that religion, criticisms of the texts' origins
1204:
990:
859:
53:
for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
43:
355:
178:
1450:
1287:
1366:
1177:
58:
17:
1209:
586:
140:
Editors who inappropriately attempt to corroborate or debunk a religious theory often utilize the following types of
526:
is quite sufficient for this purpose. Qualifying statements should exhibit a neutral tone throughout the article.
151:
1199:
1194:
193:
1214:
1151:
660:
655:
409:
232:
928:
888:
829:
746:
674:
650:
544:
405:
21:
285:
824:
1361:
1419:
1240:
918:
893:
839:
776:
1282:
1058:
1005:
978:
908:
883:
503:
376:
337:
446:
All critical material must be accompanied by verifiable citations, all cited sources must be notable.
296:
1404:
854:
849:
819:
724:
680:
608:
622:
1172:
1053:
973:
756:
751:
186:
124:
1235:
1141:
1096:
1048:
1043:
761:
719:
685:
217:
attack works by diverting scrutiny away from the subject. An example of this would be to "debunk"
1129:
950:
714:
645:
413:
134:
54:
1124:
844:
834:
601:
421:
159:
1371:
995:
453:
While the religion's own viewpoint on the origin of its sacred texts is not considered to be
417:
201:
554:
1428:
1294:
933:
809:
741:
709:
670:
425:
347:
Religious articles cannot be written from the "majority" perspective, without discrediting
1351:
278:), he never existed at all, if you can discredit the original sources of the information.
8:
1299:
1000:
903:
814:
804:
396:
168:
50:
25:
1311:
1306:
799:
429:
292:
302:
1146:
1136:
1020:
440:
242:
1328:
482:
539:
527:
466:
462:
454:
309:
1356:
550:
Knowledge:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group/Manual of Style
246:
226:
141:
82:
1073:
270:
222:
172:
108:
89:
1444:
476:
266:
275:
130:
95:
530:
should be avoided at all costs within the context of a religious article.
404:
Any criticisms should conform to the relevant Knowledge policies, such as
218:
491:
479:
is as important during these discussions as anywhere else in Knowledge.
364:
325:
253:, but has created, for some, a negative image of the Muslim faith.
390:
584:
250:
1259:
533:
257:
Articles should present the relevant religious perspective
209:
making an argument or claim, rather than addressing the
133:). But since Knowledge aims to be an encyclopedia of
249:, as a person who claims to be representative of
1442:
737:Do not include copies of lengthy primary sources
167:, but it can be a valid and convincing form of
899:Do not disrupt Knowledge to illustrate a point
570:
1325:
1231:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
577:
563:
225:, the founder of the religion, was just a
1443:
558:
486:
359:
320:
30:
1390:List of all policies and guidelines
13:
1429:Summaries of values and principles
1270:
1108:
871:
697:
317:Religious "majority" does not rule
286:Articles are not missionary tracts
18:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Religion
14:
1462:
269:. For example, an article about
1339:
1336:
1267:
1084:
1031:
1028:
961:
958:
914:Please do not bite the newcomers
787:
633:
490:
363:
324:
34:
461:subject to the restrictions of
107:can transmit the fatal disease
545:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion
356:There is no "default" position
22:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion
1:
924:Responding to threats of harm
666:Biographies of living persons
118:language should not be used.
991:Criteria for speedy deletion
860:Paid-contribution disclosure
517:this, or that," or "someone
7:
10:
1467:
1451:Knowledge failed proposals
394:
15:
1384:
1324:
1257:
1223:
1165:
1120:
1105:
1081:
1071:
1018:
948:
868:
784:
774:
694:
630:
620:
596:
241:attack, also known as a "
187:Argumentum ad ignorantiam
180:Argumentum ad ignorantiam
522:qualification statement
430:Not-a-paper-encyclopedia
410:WP:Neutral point of view
221:by simply claiming that
57:or initiate a thread at
1367:Licensing and copyright
587:policies and guidelines
406:WP:No original research
16:You may be looking for
477:WP:Assuming good faith
303:Religion is not Fringe
293:second-person pronouns
262:against any religion.
160:Argumentum ex silentio
153:Argumentum ex silentio
1362:Friendly space policy
1152:Broad-concept article
661:What Knowledge is not
656:Neutral point of view
483:Qualifying statements
202:Argumentum ad hominem
195:Argumentum ad hominem
173:neutral point of view
929:Talk page guidelines
889:Conflict of interest
830:Ownership of content
675:Copyright violations
651:No original research
233:Guilt by association
825:No personal attacks
747:Don't create hoaxes
441:point-of-view forks
397:Knowledge:Criticism
169:abductive reasoning
125:No one is "correct"
26:Knowledge:Relevance
1420:List of guidelines
1241:Template namespace
919:Courtesy vanishing
894:Disruptive editing
840:Dispute resolution
502:. You can help by
375:. You can help by
336:. You can help by
267:fictitious subject
116:peacock and weasel
90:No proof necessary
77:edit wars abound.
1438:
1437:
1380:
1379:
1320:
1319:
1283:Project namespace
1253:
1252:
1249:
1248:
1190:Dates and numbers
1157:Understandability
1067:
1066:
1014:
1013:
1006:Revision deletion
979:Proposed deletion
944:
943:
909:Gaming the system
884:Assume good faith
770:
769:
511:
510:
384:
383:
345:
344:
243:bad apples excuse
83:logical fallacies
69:
68:
1458:
1415:
1414:
1405:List of policies
1400:
1399:
1357:List of policies
1344:
1343:
1342:
1334:
1333:
1330:
1327:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1265:
1264:
1261:
1258:Project content
1118:
1117:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1079:
1078:
1075:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1026:
1025:
1022:
966:
965:
964:
956:
955:
952:
876:
875:
874:
855:Child protection
850:No legal threats
820:Ignore all rules
792:
791:
790:
782:
781:
778:
725:Reliable sources
702:
701:
700:
638:
637:
636:
628:
627:
624:
609:Ignore all rules
591:
579:
572:
565:
556:
555:
540:Knowledge:Belief
494:
487:
414:WP:Verifiability
367:
360:
328:
321:
237:A variant of an
96:reliable sources
64:
59:the village pump
38:
37:
31:
1466:
1465:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1434:
1412:
1411:
1397:
1396:
1376:
1340:
1338:
1316:
1271:
1269:
1245:
1219:
1173:Manual of Style
1161:
1109:
1107:
1101:
1085:
1083:
1063:
1059:Page protection
1032:
1030:
1010:
974:Deletion policy
962:
960:
940:
872:
870:
864:
788:
786:
766:
757:Patent nonsense
752:Fringe theories
698:
696:
690:
634:
632:
616:
592:
583:
536:
507:
500:needs expansion
485:
422:WP:Undue weight
399:
393:
380:
373:needs expansion
358:
341:
334:needs expansion
319:
305:
288:
259:
247:Osama bin Laden
235:
227:science fiction
198:
183:
156:
127:
92:
65:
62:
35:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1464:
1454:
1453:
1436:
1435:
1433:
1432:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1408:
1385:
1382:
1381:
1378:
1377:
1375:
1374:
1372:Privacy policy
1369:
1364:
1359:
1354:
1348:
1346:
1331:
1322:
1321:
1318:
1317:
1315:
1314:
1309:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1279:
1277:
1262:
1255:
1254:
1251:
1250:
1247:
1246:
1244:
1243:
1238:
1236:Categorization
1233:
1227:
1225:
1224:Classification
1221:
1220:
1218:
1217:
1212:
1207:
1202:
1197:
1192:
1187:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1169:
1167:
1163:
1162:
1160:
1159:
1154:
1149:
1144:
1142:Disambiguation
1139:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1121:
1115:
1103:
1102:
1100:
1099:
1097:Editing policy
1093:
1091:
1076:
1069:
1068:
1065:
1064:
1062:
1061:
1056:
1051:
1046:
1044:Administrators
1040:
1038:
1023:
1016:
1015:
1012:
1011:
1009:
1008:
1003:
998:
993:
988:
987:
986:
976:
970:
968:
953:
946:
945:
942:
941:
939:
938:
937:
936:
926:
921:
916:
911:
906:
901:
896:
891:
886:
880:
878:
866:
865:
863:
862:
857:
852:
847:
842:
837:
832:
827:
822:
817:
812:
807:
802:
796:
794:
779:
772:
771:
768:
767:
765:
764:
762:External links
759:
754:
749:
744:
739:
734:
733:
732:
722:
720:Citing sources
717:
712:
706:
704:
692:
691:
689:
688:
686:Article titles
683:
678:
668:
663:
658:
653:
648:
642:
640:
625:
618:
617:
615:
614:
613:
612:
597:
594:
593:
585:Knowledge key
582:
581:
574:
567:
559:
553:
552:
547:
542:
535:
532:
509:
508:
497:
495:
484:
481:
392:
389:
382:
381:
370:
368:
357:
354:
343:
342:
331:
329:
318:
315:
304:
301:
287:
284:
271:Luke Skywalker
258:
255:
234:
231:
223:L. Ron Hubbard
197:
192:
182:
177:
155:
150:
126:
123:
91:
88:
74:
67:
66:
63:(August 2012.)
49:
48:
39:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1463:
1452:
1449:
1448:
1446:
1431:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1421:
1416:
1409:
1407:
1406:
1401:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1387:
1386:
1383:
1373:
1370:
1368:
1365:
1363:
1360:
1358:
1355:
1353:
1350:
1349:
1347:
1345:
1335:
1332:
1323:
1313:
1310:
1308:
1305:
1301:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1293:
1289:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1281:
1280:
1278:
1276:
1266:
1263:
1256:
1242:
1239:
1237:
1234:
1232:
1229:
1228:
1226:
1222:
1216:
1213:
1211:
1208:
1206:
1203:
1201:
1198:
1196:
1193:
1191:
1188:
1186:
1185:Accessibility
1183:
1179:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1171:
1170:
1168:
1164:
1158:
1155:
1153:
1150:
1148:
1145:
1143:
1140:
1138:
1135:
1131:
1130:Summary style
1128:
1127:
1126:
1123:
1122:
1119:
1116:
1114:
1104:
1098:
1095:
1094:
1092:
1090:
1080:
1077:
1070:
1060:
1057:
1055:
1052:
1050:
1047:
1045:
1042:
1041:
1039:
1037:
1027:
1024:
1017:
1007:
1004:
1002:
999:
997:
994:
992:
989:
985:
982:
981:
980:
977:
975:
972:
971:
969:
967:
957:
954:
947:
935:
932:
931:
930:
927:
925:
922:
920:
917:
915:
912:
910:
907:
905:
902:
900:
897:
895:
892:
890:
887:
885:
882:
881:
879:
877:
867:
861:
858:
856:
853:
851:
848:
846:
843:
841:
838:
836:
833:
831:
828:
826:
823:
821:
818:
816:
813:
811:
808:
806:
803:
801:
798:
797:
795:
793:
783:
780:
773:
763:
760:
758:
755:
753:
750:
748:
745:
743:
740:
738:
735:
731:
728:
727:
726:
723:
721:
718:
716:
715:Autobiography
713:
711:
708:
707:
705:
703:
693:
687:
684:
682:
679:
676:
672:
669:
667:
664:
662:
659:
657:
654:
652:
649:
647:
646:Verifiability
644:
643:
641:
639:
629:
626:
619:
611:
610:
606:
605:
604:
603:
599:
598:
595:
588:
580:
575:
573:
568:
566:
561:
560:
557:
551:
548:
546:
543:
541:
538:
537:
531:
529:
525:
520:
516:
505:
501:
498:This section
496:
493:
489:
488:
480:
478:
473:
470:
468:
464:
460:
456:
451:
447:
444:
442:
437:
433:
431:
427:
426:WP:Notability
423:
419:
418:No censorship
415:
411:
407:
402:
398:
388:
378:
374:
371:This section
369:
366:
362:
361:
353:
350:
339:
335:
332:This section
330:
327:
323:
322:
314:
311:
300:
298:
294:
283:
279:
277:
272:
268:
263:
254:
252:
248:
244:
240:
230:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
203:
196:
191:
189:
188:
181:
176:
174:
170:
166:
162:
161:
154:
149:
147:
143:
138:
136:
132:
122:
119:
117:
112:
110:
104:
100:
97:
87:
84:
78:
73:
60:
56:
55:the talk page
52:
47:
45:
40:
33:
32:
27:
23:
19:
1427:
1418:
1410:
1403:
1395:
1388:
1352:Terms of Use
1337:
1288:WikiProjects
1268:
1205:Lead section
1125:Article size
1106:
1082:
1029:
1019:Enforcement
959:
869:
845:Sockpuppetry
835:Edit warring
785:
695:
631:
607:
602:Five pillars
600:
528:Weasel words
523:
518:
514:
512:
504:adding to it
499:
474:
471:
458:
452:
448:
445:
438:
434:
403:
400:
385:
377:adding to it
372:
348:
346:
338:adding to it
333:
306:
289:
280:
276:George Lucas
264:
260:
238:
236:
214:
210:
206:
200:
199:
194:
185:
184:
179:
158:
157:
152:
139:
128:
120:
113:
105:
101:
93:
79:
75:
70:
41:
996:Attack page
984:Biographies
524:per section
219:Scientology
144:to reach a
142:false logic
131:"spiritual"
114:As always,
1300:User boxes
1295:User pages
934:Signatures
810:Harassment
742:Plagiarism
710:Notability
519:supposedly
395:See also:
391:Criticisms
239:ad hominem
229:novelist.
215:ad hominem
165:pure logic
135:verifiable
42:This is a
1307:Shortcuts
1001:Oversight
949:Deletion
904:Etiquette
815:Vandalism
805:Consensus
681:Image use
671:Copyright
467:WP:Fringe
463:WP:Fringe
455:WP:Fringe
211:substance
51:Consensus
46:proposal.
1445:Category
1312:Subpages
1178:Contents
1147:Hatnotes
1072:Editing
1054:Blocking
800:Civility
775:Conduct
730:Medicine
621:Content
534:See also
297:WP:QUOTE
1210:Linking
1137:Be bold
1049:Banning
515:claimed
1200:Layout
1195:Images
310:fringe
207:source
44:failed
1215:Lists
1166:Style
251:Islam
146:point
24:, or
428:and
109:kuru
1329:(?)
1326:WMF
1260:(?)
1074:(?)
1021:(?)
951:(?)
777:(?)
623:(?)
590:(?)
459:are
349:all
274:of
1447::
1417::
1402::
469:.
432:.
424:,
420:,
416:,
412:,
408:,
175:.
148::
111:.
20:,
1413:G
1398:P
1341:P
1272:G
1110:G
1086:P
1033:P
963:P
873:G
789:P
699:G
677:)
673:(
635:P
578:e
571:t
564:v
506:.
379:.
340:.
61:.
28:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.