[WikiEN-l] NPOV and religion

[Poor, Edmund W]

I agree wholeheartedly with RK:

* Wikipedia's [[NPOV]] policy often means multiple points
of view. This means providing not only the points of view
of different groups today, but different groups in the
past.

*Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for
articles is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs
and practices, explanation encompasses not only what
motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices,
but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be
and took shape. 

*Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a
religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history
and religion also draw from modern archaeological,
historical and scientific sources

The above three points should go directly into the [[Wikipedia:NPOV]]
article, if they're not there already. Good work, Robert!

As for dealing with they way adherents view their own religions, we can
also apply the W's neutrality policy. Even if believers "would prefer
that the articles describe their faith as they see it," I suggest we
regard THE WAY THEY SEE IT as merely their own point of view. 

This has worked well with the Unification Church, with its prime
Wikipedian adherent (yours truly!) satisfied to have the article
describe Rev. Moon as "regarded by his followers to be the Messiah" --
which is the POV of Unificationists. The article also satisfies other
readers by reporting that non-adherents often vigorously dispute Moon's
claim of Messiahship.

Moreover, _all_ the articles on religion take a step back and avoid
endorsing or condemning the view that "there is one God", don't they?
(If not, they should, right?) Christians, Jews and atheists are all
satisfied with a statement like "Judaism teaches that God creating
everything." 

This statement is really a paradigm of NPOV: it _attributes_ a claim to
a source.

SOURCE: Judaism, the Bible and/or Jews
CLAIM:  That God exists as a supreme being who created everything

Note that there are many variations, minor and major, on what that claim
is; and who precisely makes that claim. Which is really the meat and
potatoes of any article on religion: readers want to know just exactly
WHAT is believed and WHO believes it. And it's a good thing W is not
paper, because it takes a lot of words to describe these beliefs and
believers.

Finally, the belief that "the way things are is the
way things have always been; any differences are from
heretical sects that don't represent the real religion" is sometimes a
component or major current of thought in religions or sects. This belief
or point of view should be _mentioned_ in the article, but neither
endorsed or condemned.

If some religion like -- oh, I dunno, Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day
Adventists? -- asserts that their teachings have NEVER evolved since
first being articulated by their founder; well, then, simply state that
_they_ assert _that_.

SOURCE: certain JWs
CLAIM:  that the core teachings have never varied

If some critics insist on calling this an "ahistorical perspective", we
should name these critics and mention (or better summarize) their
claims.

Jimbo and Larry's NPOV policy stands the test of time. It handles all
cases. It's the basis for resolving even the most difficult of disputes
over articles.

All we ever have to do is say that THIS SIDE claims THIS, and that
ANOTHER SIDE claims ANOTHER THING.

Uncle Ed