I have two major points in the following: - As religions are disputed as fact, articles about them should conform to the same style guidelines as articles about fiction. - These style guidelines can be cumbersome and suffocating for articles, and disclaimers might be a better way to preserve NPOV.
As a (once) active participant in WikiProject Stargate, which tries to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles related to the science-fiction media franchise Stargate, I am all too aware of the importance of contextual tone when writing about what is non-factual. It's not correct in an encyclopedia to have an article about a fictional character, e.g. "Sokar", and then state that "Sokar took over the universe in 2003." The article should come from the perspective of "Sokar is a character from the science-fiction series Stargate..... .....and during a major story arc written by Martin Gero spanning 3 episodes, the character took over the universe."
It is clear why this kind of clarification is needed. Sokar has not taken over the universe. If the claims were about "Jack Bauer" "defeating terrorists" it would sound more plausible of course: it is imperative to clearly mark what is fact and fiction! It is a fact that "24", the fiction, depicts certain fictional events.
Most articles do this to a fair extent already. However, I am concerned that the focus for the Writing About Fiction guidelines is only on things like Stargate. Religions apply to. Seen as these are disputed as fact, statements cannot read "If the pilgrim dies before entering Mecca, their soul is sent into limbo, where Allah will judge them by the purity of their soul and their lifetime devotion to Islam and the words of Muhammad" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajj). It is not encyclopedic fact that people who've never been to the Hajj will have their souls sent to limbo for Islamic judgment. This needs to be clarified as "Muslims believe that..."
It's either all or none: either fiction and religion articles must both contain these clarifications, or none. And I think none might actually be easier:
There are some types of articles (or just sections in articles) that by their very nature are going to be 95% a documentation of non-factual things. These include articles (or sections) about plots or religions, etc., etc. Seen as there are so many articles/sections of this type, and prepending every line with "It is believed..." or "It was depicted..." can suffocate content, I was wondering if it might not be better to just have a disclaimer template? Something to place at the top of a section, reading "The following section discusses fictional events as depicted in [Stargate]" or "The following section discusses the beliefs and opinions held by [Muslims]." The template can be taken as temporary until someone rewords the section purely factually.
Hoi!
This needs to be clarified as "Muslims believe that..."
I support this. It should apply to economic theories and political views, too. Local views should always include a link to the POV producing them, no matter what they describe.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
I think readers will understand that an article about a particular religion will be primarily about the religion as seen in its own lights. If I am reading an article about a religion, and it says what the fate of the righteous will be, I know perfectly well that I am talking about what that religion thinks it will be. The description is factual: we are saying what actually are the beliefs held on the subject, not whether the beliefs are correct. The requirement for NPOV is a requirement that the beliefs be accurately described.
The attitude that others take towards these beliefs needs discussion, but this should be separate from a coherent presentation of what the beliefs are. This too is factual.
There is obviously a ned for a general statement at the beginning for orientation: just whose beliefs they are, and the source they are taken from. I do not think it was intended to suggest that every sentence be qualified--that might reasonably be taken as offensive--and I suggest would seem excessive in any article, no matter how objectionable the view being presented.
A reminder every section would seem reasonable.
DGG
On 02/03/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I think readers will understand that an article about a particular religion will be primarily about the religion as seen in its own lights. If I am reading an article about a religion, and it says what the fate of the righteous will be, I know perfectly well that I am talking about what that religion thinks it will be.
Well, when I'm reading a Stargate article about Sokar the master of the universe, I too understand that it's just telling me what the show's story is about. However, that WikiProject is constantly dogged by having to state everything factually - "In episode 13, Sokar took over the universe - a plot arc unpopular with fans [1]." etc etc.
The point here is NPOV, and religions apply to NPOV most of all. "If the pilgrim dies before entering Mecca, their soul is sent into limbo, where Allah will judge them by the purity of their soul and their lifetime devotion to Islam and the words of Muhammad" is just simply NOT TRUE from the position of any religion other than Islam. This line is thus completely POV.
So what I'm saying is that any guideline articles about factual perspectives (relevent to writing about fiction) should also apply to religions, and should say so. Either that, or all articles (tv shows as well as religions) should be allowed to make do with disclaimer templates.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org