Wikipedia:Religion

This is a failed proposal.

Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump. (August 2012.)

It is the purpose of this proposed policy to create a new subset of rules, and interpretations of policies, on Wikipedia 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 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 Wikipedia, 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:

It is within the scope of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia encourages scholarly debate, too often this devolves into a bitter situation where personal attacks and edit wars abound.

While acknowledging scientific principles of proof and testability, Wikipedia 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 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 logical fallacies 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 the end result is always the same. It is therefore (proposed to be) Wikipedia policy that religious articles fall outside of the strict guidelines of verifiability.

No proof necessary

(Proposed text.) As for any article in Wikipedia, 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 reliable sources 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 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.

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 record and molecular biology. These controversies may be relevant, as may active disputes between denominations, groups, or religions.

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 can transmit the fatal disease kuru.

As always, peacock and weasel language should not be used.

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.

No one is "correct"

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., "spiritual"). But since Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia of verifiable 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.

Editors who inappropriately attempt to corroborate or debunk a religious theory often utilize the following types of false logic to reach a point:

Argumentum ex silentio

Argumentum ex silentio, 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 pure logic, but it can be a valid and convincing form of abductive reasoning: 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 neutral point of view.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argumentum ad ignorantiam, 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.

Argumentum ad hominem

Argumentum ad hominem, 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 source making an argument or claim, rather than addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby sidetracked, and the ad hominem attack works by diverting scrutiny away from the subject. An example of this would be to "debunk" Scientology by simply claiming that L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the religion, was just a science fiction novelist.

Guilt by association

A variant of an ad hominem attack, also known as a "bad apples excuse" 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 Osama bin Laden, as a person who claims to be representative of Islam, but has created, for some, a negative image of the Muslim faith.

Articles should present the relevant religious perspective

It is (proposed to be) Wikipedia'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. Wikipedia makes no statements for or against any religion.

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 fictitious subject. For example, an article about Luke Skywalker 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 of George Lucas), he never existed at all, if you can discredit the original sources of the information.

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 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.

Articles are not missionary tracts

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 second-person pronouns 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 WP:QUOTE (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."

Religion is not Fringe

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 fringe within Wikipedia simply based on minority status. To the believer it may be viewed as insulting or disturbing that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia that the policies on 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 Wikipedia 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.

Religious "majority" does not rule

Religious articles cannot be written from the "majority" perspective, without discrediting all 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.

There is no "default" position

Articles cannot be written assuming Western Judeo-Christian readers, and therefore should be explained from the perspective of "assume nothing." Readers of Wikipedia come from all backgrounds and religions imaginable, so therefore the tone and scope of the article should state things that may not be 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.

Criticisms

Criticism of religion is an important and diverse area of human discourse. Describing criticisms of religion in Wikipedia is appropriate.

Any criticisms should conform to the relevant Wikipedia policies, such as WP:No original research, WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Verifiability, No censorship, WP:Undue weight, WP:Notability and Not-a-paper-encyclopedia.

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.

Criticisms should, as a general rule, be incorporated into the primary articles of the subject that they are criticising, thus avoiding point-of-view forks. However, if the primary article gets too large, it may be appropriate to break out the critical topics into a dedicated "Criticism of [subject]" article.

All critical material must be accompanied by verifiable citations, all cited sources must be notable.

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 Wikipedia.

While the religion's own viewpoint on the origin of its sacred texts is not considered to be WP:Fringe in the articles about those texts, since it is mainstream within the context of that religion, criticisms of the texts' origins are subject to the restrictions of WP:Fringe. Outside the context of the articles discussing those texts, however, the viewpoints of the texts on scientific or historical subjects are considered WP:Fringe.

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.

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. WP:Assuming good faith is as important during these discussions as anywhere else in Wikipedia.

Qualifying statements

Not every statement made in a religious article needs to be "qualified." Many articles are so attacked that every sentence becomes "So and so, claimed this, or that," or "someone supposedly 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 qualification statement per section is quite sufficient for this purpose. Qualifying statements should exhibit a neutral tone throughout the article. Weasel words should be avoided at all costs within the context of a religious article.