Let's talk about religious editors

[iii]

Ad Orientem (T-C-L) is an interesting Wikipedian. Longtime contributor since 2010, made admin in 2016. Userpage indicates some fondness for the kind of politics and philosophies that seem to be overrepresented on Wikipedia as compared to, say, those academic-types normally tasked with writing encyclopedias. Self-identifies as an Orthodox Christian.

A typical bugbear for this poweruser has been concern over the WP:FTN (T-H-L) crowd creeping into articles about religion. I suspect that this is scary for Mr. Orientem who may see threatening movement possible on questions like whether or not Jesus rose bodily from the dead or the (lack of) evidence for various miracles.

Today, Mr. Orientem supervoted to shut down discussion about how the question of the Biblical Timeline should be treated. That discussion was probably not going to be particularly fruitful, but I suspect that Mr. Orientem may be worried that there may be some movement afoot to start applying some more rigorous standards of evidence to pages that deal directly with religious subjects where more "conservative" beliefs may run right up against empirical fact. He's tried to shut down discussions about religious subjects on WP:FTN before, after all.

This is not a forum for dealing with the supernatural

link

The "supernatural", more or less by definition, does not stand up to rigorous scrutiny about whether or not it is actually a thing.

[iii]

Presenting the Resurrection as a fact in wiki-voice would not be fringe insofar as the term applies to this board. It is neither provable nor disprovable. Again, we are dealing with the supernatural as a subject matter.

link
But the argument seems to be convincing to the wikipoloi:

I also agree with you below that belief in the resurrection is not a fringe belief. I honestly think this is fairly easy conceptually: the resurrection is not fringe because it is believed by just about every Christian in the world.

link
Deciding that something cannot be a fringe proposition simply because it is held by a majority of the world's Christians strikes me as profoundly misguided. But I think we've reached the summit! Praise be to Zombie Jesus!

[Yngvadottir]

I should preface this long and rather ranty post by noting that I advocate deprecating all the user boxes where editors label themselves as of a particular religion or particular political views. It's one of the few things on which I agree with Jimbo: they're divisive and they tend to imply that we should all have labels that we proudly proclaim. That said ...

While the quoted statement by Dumuzid (T-C-L), "the resurrection is not fringe because it is believed by just about every Christian in the world", made me wince, this is not so much a matter of individual editors as a matter of widely shared (more or less) unconscious bias ... colliding with another highly influential bloc on Wikipedia (en.wiki, at least), those who regard calling out fringe beliefs as so important, they riddle articles with disclaimers and try to get every person who ever espoused a non-standard viewpoint on a scientific topic labeled as a huckster in the article introduction and throughout. I believe that goes much too far in many cases. There's an important distinction between legitimisation of pseudoscience and especially potentially dangerous pseudo-medicine (Laetrile (T-H-L) in lieu of evidence-based cancer therapy) and informing the reader of the nature and theoretical basis of alternative medical approaches (acupuncture, (T-H-L)). There's less urgency, although it's still of great importance, that the encyclopaedia not appear to endorse geocentrism (T-H-L), climate change denialism (T-H-L), or Young Earth creationism (T-H-L). But it's not nearly so urgent that Wikipedia debunk any or all religions. One of the greatest services of a general encyclopaedia is explaining things like transubstantiation (T-H-L), animism (T-H-L), Wicca (T-H-L), and thetan (T-H-L), as opposed to either preaching or polemicising.

A few days ago in a different thread:

DYK ...

... that Maggio di Accettura (T-H-L), a festival in Italy dedicated to the Christian martyr Saint Julian, might have pagan origins or be linked to Langobard history?

Wikipedia once again endorsing claims of sainthood and this time martyrdom on the Main Page.

I think that was the second time within a week or two that it was implied that saints shouldn't be called saints in Wiki-voice. I think that's a ridiculous over-reaction. It's the technical term for a group that has no significance outside that religion (except I guess sociologically and for the personal disclosure that saints are by definition people I would not want to share an afterlife with). Wikipedia isn't endorsing a religious viewpoint by calling the guy a saint and martyr any more than it is by using the term "pope" for the current incumbent, or an earlier one in the standard recognised sequence. (Or any more than it implies endorsement of Trump by referring to him as a former president of the US.)

Wikipedia ought to be well equipped to deal with matters of interreligious disagreement like the divinity of Jesus (T-H-L) or the historicity of the Bible (T-H-L) by being crowd-sourced from editors of differing backgrounds. That should be one of the things it's good at. Where I believe there's a major problem is not so much that there are individual influential editors operating on the basis of a Christian (or other religious) worldview, but that there's a largely unchallenged dominance of that worldview. It's pervasive. I have failed to find it to quote, but one of the things I am ashamed of about my Wikipedia career is that I didn't take this to a noticeboard and make the biggest stink I could ... Years ago, maybe a decade? Wikipedia ran a DYK on Western Easter Sunday using the hook "... that He is risen?", linking to a cantata by someone like Benjamin Britten with that as its title. I objected at ERRORS to this blatantly POV endorsement of Christianity on the main page and was told something like "Oh, let them have their day" (a response that also dismissed all the other religions celebrating spring festivals linked to the lunar calendar). That, to me, is a horrifying systematic failure. I think it demands a full searchlight array, not a roving spotlight on individual editors.

[iii]

his is not so much a matter of individual editors as a matter of widely shared (more or less) unconscious bias ... colliding with another highly influential bloc on Wikipedia (en.wiki, at least), those who regard calling out fringe beliefs as so important, they riddle articles with disclaimers and try to get every person who ever espoused a non-standard viewpoint on a scientific topic labeled as a huckster in the article introduction and throughout.

As someone who has been accused of being in the latter bloc, let me say that "huckster labeling" tends to be resisted at every turn even by simple implication. I have, in the past, distinguished between beating the reader over the head with the (lack of) factual basis for a claim and preventing the text from stating facts in plain wording. Sometimes the needle is hard to thread, but typically the argument is that one should not be offending the sensibilities. Calling the creation myths in Genesis the Creation myths in Genesis should not be controversial. It is not calling religions "hucksters". Yet go through the reams of discussions at Creation narrative according to Genesis (T-H-L) to read all about how any identification of the subject of that article as a "myth" in the title would be a bridge too far.

I believe that goes much too far in many cases. There's an important distinction between legitimisation of pseudoscience and especially potentially dangerous pseudo-medicine (Laetrile (T-H-L) in lieu of evidence-based cancer therapy) and informing the reader of the nature and theoretical basis of alternative medical approaches (acupuncture, (T-H-L)).

Acupuncture's "theoretical basis" is that there exists something for which there is no evidence, namely qi. See how easily that is stated? But we had for years an acupuncturist, Middle 8 (T-C-L), guarding against such plain language. But this is a minor distraction from your main point:

But it's not nearly so urgent that Wikipedia debunk any or all religions. One of the greatest services of a general encyclopaedia is explaining things like transubstantiation (T-H-L), animism (T-H-L), Wicca (T-H-L), and thetan (T-H-L), as opposed to either preaching or polemicising.

The problem is that Wikipedia does not explain much about these things plainly for fear of offense.

• Transubstantiation is a fun topic to explain because it hangs its hat on an Aristotelian notion of substance and accidents. The chemical structure of the bread and the wine (the accidents) are not believed by Catholics to transform.
• Animism is a catch-all term invented by racist/supremacist anthropologists for almost all indigenous practices
• Wicca was invented by Gerald Gardner in 1884 as a new religious movement rutinizing popular occult and spiritualist practices of the time
• L. Ron Hubbard incorporated the term "thetan" to mean "source of life and life itself" into his 1952 lecture series after his wife, Mary Sue Hubbard, coined the term. Scientologists now use it as a way to describe all manner of spirits in which they believe.

None of these points should be all that controversial. All of them would get pushback from offended beliefers.

A few days ago in a different thread:

DYK ...

... that Maggio di Accettura (T-H-L), a festival in Italy dedicated to the Christian martyr Saint Julian, might have pagan origins or be linked to Langobard history?

Wikipedia once again endorsing claims of sainthood and this time martyrdom on the Main Page.

I think that was the second time within a week or two that it was implied that saints shouldn't be called saints in Wiki-voice.

rnu is saying that Julian shouldn't be called a "martyr" in Wikipedia voice. Crucially, there is scant evidence that Julian actually existed. "Martyr" implies that the person existed and was killed for their belief. DYK could have said "venerated as a martyr and a saint by the Catholic and Orthodox churches" easily. Or just got rid of the "Christian martyr" descriptor and let the wikilink to the article on Saint Julian (T-H-L) do the heavy lifting. At least, that's what I read from rnu's critique. And I think that's a correct critique.

Wikipedia isn't endorsing a religious viewpoint by calling the guy a saint and martyr any more than it is by using the term "pope" for the current incumbent, or an earlier one in the standard recognised sequence.

Wikipedia is endorsing the claim that this person existed in spite of it being pretty obvious that it is a confabulation of, at the very least, a variety of different stories.

(Or any more than it implies endorsement of Trump by referring to him as a former president of the US.)

At least Donald Trump exists.

Where I believe there's a major problem is not so much that there are individual influential editors operating on the basis of a Christian (or other religious) worldview, but that there's a largely unchallenged dominance of that worldview. It's pervasive.

Here we stand in agreement. I use Ad Orientem above as an example of the bias, and I submit that it is thoroughly pervasive. Further, I submit that believers themselves along with those who are in favor of "not offending religious sensibilities" are worried that they could start seeing more plain speak and less credulity about religious beliefs. This is Ad Orientem's attempt to head them off at the pass.

I might be wrong, but I suspect some consumption may be in order for those who follow Wikipedia's inner machinations.

[Kraken]

Wikipedia will happily ban you merely for having pseudoscientific beliefs where they are harmful to others. Don't even need to edit.

But holding religious beliefs that could harm others? Come right in.....

It took Wikipedia an embarrassingly long time to come around to the view that no, believing that marriage is between a man and a woman, is not merely a personal belief over which reasonable people can disagree. You can't wave that viewpoint in others people's faces like it's nothing.

Believe what you want, just keep it to yourself.

Wikipedia is not Ministry.

It is neutral ground. Literally.

[Cheryl]

<snip> this is not so much a matter of individual editors as a matter of widely shared (more or less) unconscious bias ... colliding with another highly influential bloc on Wikipedia (en.wiki, at least), those who regard calling out fringe beliefs as so important, they riddle articles with disclaimers and try to get every person who ever espoused a non-standard viewpoint on a scientific topic labeled as a huckster in the article introduction and throughout. I believe that goes much too far in many cases. <snip>

Bold added to highlight this observation. When I read "fringe" articles with their multiple instances of "pseudo-x" and laundry lists of contemptuous adjectives, it reminds me of reading Donaldson's The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant (T-H-L) with its constant incantation of "leper! unclean!"

The overkill approach treats readers like they're stupid. I think that bloc would be thrilled if they could brand certain articles with a modern equivalent of The Scarlet Letter (T-H-L).

[iii]

Crucially, there is scant evidence that Julian actually existed. "Martyr" implies that the person existed and was killed for their belief. DYK could have said "venerated as a martyr and a saint by the Catholic and Orthodox churches" easily. Or just got rid of the "Christian martyr" descriptor and let the wikilink to the article on Saint Julian (T-H-L) do the heavy lifting.

Though I am loath to turn this into "crap religious articles", an eagle-eyed viewer pointed out to me that I linked to the disambig page for Saint Julian while the actual Julian of Sora (T-H-L) being referenced by the DYK doesn't even get a shout out on that page!

Looking at the pitiful Julian of Sora article, I think, only serves to illustrate the kind of "overcoverage" nonsense in Wikipedia regarding these religious subjects. That stub is supported by paper-thin sourcing and only serves to show how embarrassing the bias at Wikipedia is when it comes to subjects related to the Christian faith.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Wikipedia is not Ministry.

[ScotFinnRadish]

Wikipedia is not Ministry.

Lava is better.

[arkon]

Religious editors, or editors that edit about a certain religion?

[Midsize Jake]

Religious editors, or editors that edit about a certain religion?

In this context it's "religious editors who write/edit about their own religion," isn't it?

At least in the English language, "religious editors who write about other people's religions" are usually only objected-to by right-wing Christian folks who catch Muslims writing about Christianity.

[Beeblebrox]

it reminds me of reading Donaldson's The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant (T-H-L) with its constant incantation of "leper! unclean!"

That's a deep cut right there.

[Ming]

The reason AO is posting is because the FTN regulars spent several pages going on about how bad the Methuselah (T-H-L) article was because it didn't say he was "alleged" to have lived 939 years. Other than that heinous act of credulity, it's not actually bad; it could be better written, of course, but that could be said of most WP articles, and naturally nobody cared about the "in popular culture" tumor dangling out the back.

It's not the first time they pearl-clutched about how some article or another wasn't specifically ham-handed enough about saying that people outside the religion don't believe it. One does get a bit tired over cleaning up the more enthusiastic versions of fanciful saints legendaria, and the various Hindus who can't leave out all the honorifics, but those can generally be dealt with without all the fuss. And really, it is possible even for nonbelievers to write about theology without editorializing about how it's all false. But that doesn't seem to be the way of things on FTN. They seem to have a bunch of atheists who are bent that theirs is, in reality, a minority faith.

[Cheryl]

it reminds me of reading Donaldson's The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant (T-H-L) with its constant incantation of "leper! unclean!"

That's a deep cut right there.

[iii]

And really, it is possible even for nonbelievers to write about theology without editorializing about how it's all false. But that doesn't seem to be the way of things on FTN. They seem to have a bunch of atheists who are bent that theirs is, in reality, a minority faith.

And it is possible for believers to write about theology with the understanding that it's without empirical basis. Those believers who take the modernist approach take their faith as metaphor and symbolism and counter the fundamentalists and the literalists who believe that it must be history as the faith demands. The late John Selby Spong comes to mind as one such realist. But, as seems to be the fashion these days, that acknowledgement that this is the only rational basis for faith is decidedly in the minority among believers and, yea, even among the population of the world for whatever it is worth. The vast majority of people are convinced that supernatural events literally occur.

The issue I have is that there are experts who study these subjects, and there isn't much room for this kind of mythology-as-history or fairy-tale-as-fact kind of arguments in those venues. I spend most of my professional life studying a subject that too often gets appealed to as a possible evidence for supernatural plausibility. I have spent a lot of time explaining all over the place that, no, there is no evidence for any sort of god that monkeys around with the cosmos. But in terms of Wikipedia, the problem is that professionals who study the cosmos typically do not waste their time arguing with theologians about how we know this is the way things are. Even the physicists and astronomers I know who go to church on Sunday tend to agree with Sean Carroll's points.



Meanwhile, in these discussions, I haven't seen those complaining about the r/atheists even try to square that circle. Any attempt to point out that something is contrary to, y'know, how things actually are is met with resistance: it's clunky wording, it's editorializing, it's needlessly argumentative, it's not engaging in good faith, it's ignorant of theology, etc., etc.

Fine. Here's my question: Is it possible for a crowdsourced encyclopedia to provide good, accurate information for a reader who may not be aware that many faith-based claims are totally implausible?

[Ming]

And really, it is possible even for nonbelievers to write about theology without editorializing about how it's all false. But that doesn't seem to be the way of things on FTN. They seem to have a bunch of atheists who are bent that theirs is, in reality, a minority faith.

And it is possible for believers to write about theology with the understanding that it's without empirical basis. Those believers who take the modernist approach take their faith as metaphor and symbolism and counter the fundamentalists and the literalists who believe that it must be history as the faith demands. The late John Selby Spong comes to mind as one such realist. But, as seems to be the fashion these days, that acknowledgement that this is the only rational basis for faith is decidedly in the minority among believers and, yea, even among the population of the world for whatever it is worth. The vast majority of people are convinced that supernatural events literally occur.

Jack Spong turned out to be something of a publicity whore and took to taking ever more "offensive" positions, but his regurgitated Tillich has pretty much fallen by the wayside as people realized that, yes "modern men" actually could believe these things. He had trouble not sounding ridiculous even back in the day: there's a passage in Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism in which he muses about Jesus ascending at the speed of light, not having left the galaxy yet. It has never failed to elicit laughs when Ming has presented it, even among avowed atheists, not to mention that the notion ignores what the text actually says. There are probably a few Spong followers in his church, but Ming hasn't encountered one in years who wasn't a geriatric cleric.

And that's the thing: there is a great deal of ground between supposed literalism and spineless modernism, and most of Christendom has always fallen into the "some is not at all literal, and some is quite literal indeed." American pre-Trump Fundagelicalism and its fringier Protestant relatives is too big a camp to be called fringe, but it is a minority position and it always has been: an image like Christ the Geometer was never meant literally. Ming would also like to point out that belief in a supernatural, for Judaeochristian religion, presupposes belief in natural order in the first place.

The issue I have is that there are experts who study these subjects, and there isn't much room for this kind of mythology-as-history or fairy-tale-as-fact kind of arguments in those venues.

Ming really doesn't want to get into a philosophy wrestling match, but let us just agree to disagree as to who exactly the experts are. And Ming will also say that some of the most patently stupid things said about religion come out of the mouths of eminent scientists and especially popularizers.

Fine. Here's my question: Is it possible for a crowdsourced encyclopedia to provide good, accurate information for a reader who may not be aware that many faith-based claims are totally implausible?

Well, first, this is begging the question pretty hard, given the painful subjectivity of plausibility. That, after all, is why mid-20th century "liberal" theology has lost influence. But really, Ming's question is this: can an encyclopedia accurately explain religious tenets without having to constantly state that "most" people don't believe them (taking for granted that people in differing religions disbelieve each others' tenets)? The answer to that is yes, but it requires some degree of "in-world" explanation. For instance, one cannot properly explain transubstantiation (T-H-L) without putting it in the context of Thomism, even though that framework is largely rejected outside Catholicism. It's belaboring, and uninteresting, to state that atheists don't believe in it since, after all, they dogmatically reject the miracle it is supposed to explain in the first place.

So Ming doesn't see that it is somehow more "accurate" to emphasize that Methuselah couldn't have lived as long as Genesis says he did. It would be more accurate to say that most believers who aren't dogmatic literalists don't need to take the passage literally, and to go over how else it is taken (which the article presently does a decent if not particularly organized job of).

Ming is going to have to cut this off here, in favor of sleep.

[Yngvadottir]

Fine. Here's my question: Is it possible for a crowdsourced encyclopedia to provide good, accurate information for a reader who may not be aware that many faith-based claims are totally implausible?

Well, first, this is begging the question pretty hard, given the painful subjectivity of plausibility. That, after all, is why mid-20th century "liberal" theology has lost influence. But really, Ming's question is this: can an encyclopedia accurately explain religious tenets without having to constantly state that "most" people don't believe them (taking for granted that people in differing religions disbelieve each others' tenets)? The answer to that is yes, but it requires some degree of "in-world" explanation. For instance, one cannot properly explain transubstantiation (T-H-L) without putting it in the context of Thomism, even though that framework is largely rejected outside Catholicism. It's belaboring, and uninteresting, to state that atheists don't believe in it since, after all, they dogmatically reject the miracle it is supposed to explain in the first place.

So Ming doesn't see that it is somehow more "accurate" to emphasize that Methuselah couldn't have lived as long as Genesis says he did. It would be more accurate to say that most believers who aren't dogmatic literalists don't need to take the passage literally, and to go over how else it is taken (which the article presently does a decent if not particularly organized job of).

Thank you, Ming. We reach.

But I probably need to take the time to find that exchange at WP:Errors, because it truly shook me.

[iii]

Ming really doesn't want to get into a philosophy wrestling match, but let us just agree to disagree as to who exactly the experts are. And Ming will also say that some of the most patently stupid things said about religion come out of the mouths of eminent scientists and especially popularizers.

Is that Ming's judgement of the talk I just posted? Because this kind of handwaving dismissal/willful changing of the subject is exactly the sort of rhetoric I have encountered from those who think that this kind of critique of the "God hypothesis" when it comes to physical reality is presented. I get that many New Atheist popularizers like Dawkins are creeps (literally), but the basic critiques of the miraculous and the supernatural are only risible to those not aware that this is the way those subjects are treated outside of catechisms and faith formation classes. Even seminaries more-or-less accept the basic point while being, I guess, a bit miffed like Ming that the harsh dismissal isn't via media enough.

But really, Ming's question is this: can an encyclopedia accurately explain religious tenets without having to constantly state that "most" people don't believe them (taking for granted that people in differing religions disbelieve each others' tenets)? The answer to that is yes, but it requires some degree of "in-world" explanation. For instance, one cannot properly explain transubstantiation (T-H-L) without putting it in the context of Thomism, even though that framework is largely rejected outside Catholicism. It's belaboring, and uninteresting, to state that atheists don't believe in it since, after all, they dogmatically reject the miracle it is supposed to explain in the first place.

Ming and I may be closer to agreement than some may suppose, but I think the bigger problem here is that there are often occasions in Wikipedia where the "in universe" treatment is the only treatment offered. For example:

So Ming doesn't see that it is somehow more "accurate" to emphasize that Methuselah couldn't have lived as long as Genesis says he did. It would be more accurate to say that most believers who aren't dogmatic literalists don't need to take the passage literally, and to go over how else it is taken (which the article presently does a decent if not particularly organized job of).

The fact of the matter is that scholars who spend any time at all on these ridiculous ages point out that the context for them follows other mythologies from the same part of the word. There are obvious comparisons to be made to the absurd number of years found in the Sumerian King List (T-H-L) which no one worth their druthers takes literally, but rather than pointing out that, for whatever reason lost to time, writers of these fantastical texts liked to put in giant numbers of years for the ages of important people, the basic explanation is couched in the article on Methuselah (T-H-L) as "just another theory" to provide bizarre one-hand-other-hand wording as though maybe, just maybe, there was a time in our past when people lived that long. Do I really need to ?

Give me a break, Ming. Just say the thing and let readers who are coming to learn about these subjects for the first time understand that no one takes these ages seriously. It doesn't need to be hammered again and again, but there is really not excuse for it not to be stated plainly without hedging.

[Kraken]

The cult of belief, which is pervasive in America, is an impediment to serious inquiry. It needs to be challenged rigorously by encyclopedia editors.

This seems to be a typical problem for Americans......

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... d-confront

With the help of science, this woman has understood most of what has happened to her. Yet she can't take. the final leap. She can't disavow God. Church and religion, sure. But belief, no. Even though the exact same science that has helped her, quite easily explains the things she still attributes to God. And more importantly, why she still needs God in her life.

It leads to the exact kind of perverse situations you see in that piece. She's now campaigning to unseal the confession where a priest confesses to abuse. For a start, how does one reconcile such a view if you believe in God? How dare she tap the phonelines. And second, how can she not see the paradox? If her abuser had confessed at the time, and there's reason to think he might have, then God's plan for this woman is completely shot.

It soon becoms the stuff of conspiracy theory, rationalizing the irrational, to sustain her belief system against such challenges. And so you look quite the fool if you add this to an encyclopedia as anything other than the testimony of a believer, as opposed that of even a witness or a victim.

Without God, such things come into crystal clarity. Their true meaning is apparent.

Revelation.

Come into the light people. It's warm and cozy. Once you get past the sheer destabilizing terror and sense you are falling into a bottomless void. But after that passes, its all good. And sure, you will be forever haunted by the terrible burden of knowledge. But hey. You chose to be a Wikipedia editor. You could have been anything else.

You've always known, haven't you? This world isn't right.

Follow the white rabbit.

[ArmasRebane]

The biggest obstacle to people "seeing the light" about atheism is that atheists tend to be as dogmatic and deeply unpleasant as the deeply pious. The cult of reason ain't any less of a cult.

As far Wikipedia's coverage, I don't think every article needs to talk about the historicity of Jesus, but I do expect each article to justify its existence. The LDS stuff is basically the extreme example, but a ton of what Phelps and co. wrote about was basically just official church documentation, and given that LDS topics are inherently more fringe than hundreds of years of more mainstream christian scholarship, that should be reflected in the coverage on Wikipedia. Broadly speaking, Christian scholarship however is a huge field and doesn't rely on official church documentation.

To take a disputed article on Wikipedia, I don't see the issue with Lazarus of Bethany (T-H-L) in broad strokes—it's clear where the stories are coming from, and doesn't present the idea that Lazarus was a real person or the miracle actually happened.

(And doesn't help that BilledMammal just did a drive-by tagging on this. Look for discussion on the talk page? There's absolutely nothing about that. But I'm sure he'd get bothered if someone rightfully removed the tag.)

[Randy from Boise]

The biggest obstacle to people "seeing the light" about atheism is that atheists tend to be as dogmatic and deeply unpleasant as the deeply pious. The cult of reason ain't any less of a cult.

As far Wikipedia's coverage, I don't think every article needs to talk about the historicity of Jesus, but I do expect each article to justify its existence. The LDS stuff is basically the extreme example, but a ton of what Phelps and co. wrote about was basically just official church documentation, and given that LDS topics are inherently more fringe than hundreds of years of more mainstream christian scholarship, that should be reflected in the coverage on Wikipedia. Broadly speaking, Christian scholarship however is a huge field and doesn't rely on official church documentation.

To take a disputed article on Wikipedia, I don't see the issue with Lazarus of Bethany (T-H-L) in broad strokes—it's clear where the stories are coming from, and doesn't present the idea that Lazarus was a real person or the miracle actually happened.

(And doesn't help that BilledMammal just did a drive-by tagging on this. Look for discussion on the talk page? There's absolutely nothing about that. But I'm sure he'd get bothered if someone rightfully removed the tag.)

I was just gonna chime in to say that evangelical atheists are an equal and parallel problem to evangelical religionists. Now that porn bios have been pretty much swept away by revision of the applicable Special Notability Guideline, I'd say that atheists with an agenda are probably more likely to abuse the deletion process than religionists with an agenda, just guessing.

Or, maybe this is more accurate: religionists are more apt to create crap articles and atheists are more apt to engage in tendentious deletions.

t

[iii]

The biggest obstacle to people "seeing the light" about atheism is that atheists tend to be as dogmatic and deeply unpleasant as the deeply pious. The cult of reason ain't any less of a cult.

This kind of critique is one I don't find convincing -- at least when it comes to a claim of "atheistic dogmatism". Sure, people telling the truth about certain things can seem unpleasant. And now Wikipedia movers and shakers have adopted this position as an editorial approach with WP:BRIE (T-H-L), I guess as a counterbalance to WP:CIR (T-H-L).

But just because someone accurately explains that a claim is mistaken in spite of it being earnestly held does not mean this explainer is being "dogmatic". When it comes to religion in particular, the dogmatism is held fairly monopolistically by the adherents. Being dogmatically atheist would be, for example, Doubting Thomas saying even though he saw the risen Christ he still would not believe because of his atheistic principles no matter the evidence. This simply is not the rhetorical position of any atheist that I have ever encountered.

Or, maybe this is more accurate: religionists are more apt to create crap articles and atheists are more apt to engage in tendentious deletions.

I would agree that religion=inclusion and secular=deletion on Wikipedia.

[Kraken]

Easier to convince someone to stop smoking than disavow their God in my experience. And I've never convinced anyone to stop smoking. Baffles me why that ex-nun can't take the final step given how far she's come. But I'd rather stick a pin in my eye than have a run at breaking it down for her. I also wouldn't like to be the one to give her a mental breakdown.

No amount of science, probability theory or horror stories can convince them to give up that powerful crutch and leap into the terrifying world of uncertainty and the sheer insignificance of this being all there is. Smokers and believers alike.

The weak will perish in the fires to come. Just as God intended it when he designed the human brain. Evil bastard. Or if there are no fires, will go through life not truly understanding who they are and why they do what they do.

Education is the key. Deep inquiry. It can't be a coincidence that the UK has become a majority atheist country and has enacted a rolling smoking ban in the same generation. My generation.

I was recently reminded that in our education system, in our religious education classes, at a surprisingly young age (eighth grade?) we were taught about all the major religions, and the broader concepts of faith and belief, and even encouraged to question whether there is a God. And in science we were being taught about evolution, the human brain, the universe and fuzzy logic.

This is all before you leave the mandatory (uniform curriculum) schooling years and make your merry way into whatever walk of life best suits your God given talents. So there's no excuse for the plumbers and hairdressers not to leave school with a well rounded view of the world and their place in it.

It's amusing to think this all happened largely under right wing governments, in a country which spent quite a few Centuries fighting religious wars, has a flag that evokes multiple literal Saints, and which still quite literally has a head of state who is apparently the embodiment of the (Church of England) God on this Earthly realm. And you know our anthem right?

None of this stops the Courts recently ruling that schools who exercise their legal right to be secular, often because they're now sited in massively multicultural areas, are under no obligation to provide time and space for prayer of any kind.

The sad part is that we still have Catholic schools and there's still this widespread belief they're better for your children. Ask that nun is my response. Somehow the Catholic God never seems to realise most of these parents are lying their asses off, and the Catholic Church sure seems fine with it all.

If only English Wikipedia was literally the Wikipedia for English people eh?

[iii]

To take a disputed article on Wikipedia, I don't see the issue with Lazarus of Bethany (T-H-L) in broad strokes—it's clear where the stories are coming from, and doesn't present the idea that Lazarus was a real person or the miracle actually happened.

Let's take that article, shall we?

Lazarus of Bethany (Latinised from Lazar, ultimately from Hebrew Eleazar, "God helped"), also venerated as Righteous Lazarus, the Four-Days Dead in the Eastern Orthodox Church,[4] is the subject of a sign of Jesus in the Gospel of John, in which it is written that Jesus restores Lazarus to life four days after his death. The Eastern Orthodox and Catholic traditions offer varying accounts of the later events of his life.

My god, do you find that paragraph easy to parse? "subject of a sign of Jesus in the Gospel of John"? How is that the definitional point for this character?

I think a person who knew absolutely nothing about this subject would be far better served with a summary that dispensed with the adornments, "Lazarus of Bethany (Latinised from Lazar, ultimately from Hebrew Eleazar, "God helped") is a character from Christian mythology, famously in the Gospel of John, who four days after his death is restored to life by Jesus."

[ArmasRebane]

To take a disputed article on Wikipedia, I don't see the issue with Lazarus of Bethany (T-H-L) in broad strokes—it's clear where the stories are coming from, and doesn't present the idea that Lazarus was a real person or the miracle actually happened.

Let's take that article, shall we?

Lazarus of Bethany (Latinised from Lazar, ultimately from Hebrew Eleazar, "God helped"), also venerated as Righteous Lazarus, the Four-Days Dead in the Eastern Orthodox Church,[4] is the subject of a sign of Jesus in the Gospel of John, in which it is written that Jesus restores Lazarus to life four days after his death. The Eastern Orthodox and Catholic traditions offer varying accounts of the later events of his life.

My god, do you find that paragraph easy to parse? "subject of a sign of Jesus in the Gospel of John"? How is that the definitional point for this character?

I think a person who knew absolutely nothing about this subject would be far better served with a summary that dispensed with the adornments, "Lazarus of Bethany (Latinised from Lazar, ultimately from Hebrew Eleazar, "God helped") is a character from Christian mythology, famously in the Gospel of John, who four days after his death is restored to life by Jesus."

The potential to be better written isn't what we're talking about in this thread.

[iii]

To take a disputed article on Wikipedia, I don't see the issue with Lazarus of Bethany (T-H-L) in broad strokes—it's clear where the stories are coming from, and doesn't present the idea that Lazarus was a real person or the miracle actually happened.

Let's take that article, shall we?

Lazarus of Bethany (Latinised from Lazar, ultimately from Hebrew Eleazar, "God helped"), also venerated as Righteous Lazarus, the Four-Days Dead in the Eastern Orthodox Church,[4] is the subject of a sign of Jesus in the Gospel of John, in which it is written that Jesus restores Lazarus to life four days after his death. The Eastern Orthodox and Catholic traditions offer varying accounts of the later events of his life.

My god, do you find that paragraph easy to parse? "subject of a sign of Jesus in the Gospel of John"? How is that the definitional point for this character?

I think a person who knew absolutely nothing about this subject would be far better served with a summary that dispensed with the adornments, "Lazarus of Bethany (Latinised from Lazar, ultimately from Hebrew Eleazar, "God helped") is a character from Christian mythology, famously in the Gospel of John, who four days after his death is restored to life by Jesus."

The potential to be better written isn't what we're talking about in this thread.

I beg to differ. The reason that I think the lede is this way is because the religious people who wrote it think that this kind of wording is the sophisticated way to talk about their beliefs. I'm fairly certain that an atheist is not who wrote, as a definitional matter, that Lazarus of Bethany is the "subject of a sign of Jesus".

[Kraken]

"Lazarus of Bethany (Latinised from Lazar, ultimately from Hebrew Eleazar, "God helped") is a character from Christian mythology, famously in the Gospel of John, who four days after his death is restored to life by Jesus."

And you can go further still. Famously is a word to avoid on Wikipedia. Famous to who? And why? I dont know this man from Adam.

I do always wince at the word mythology. Although accurate, it does feel judgmental. Character too perhaps. Is that a common way for non-religious academia to refer to the Bible?

[iii]

I do always wince at the word mythology. Although accurate, it does feel judgmental. Character too perhaps. Is that a common way for non-religious academia to refer to the Bible?

It is absolutely the case that a common argument on Wikipedia is whether derivatives of the word "myth" are "judgmental" when applied to extant major religions. Somehow, no one has problems when they're applied to religions that no one believes in any more. As for "character", we could do worse than something like "Heracles (T-H-L) was a divine hero in Greek mythology". Alas, Lazarus doesn't fit into the hero trope. He is rather a kind of "audience surrogate".

[Jester]

...
I was recently reminded that in our education system, in our religious education classes, at a surprisingly young age (eighth grade?) we were taught about all the major religions, and the broader concepts of faith and belief, and even encouraged to question whether there is a God. And in science we were being taught about evolution, the human brain, the universe and fuzzy logic.

IIRC here in the US I only learned about the Abrahamic religions, and that too in history, not in specific classes about religion. No Hinduism or Buddhism. Perhaps that's a cause (and effect) of why we're more religious typically. I went to fairly large schools all my life and I don't think religious studies classes were an option anywhere till undergrad.

[lonza leggiera]

To take a disputed article on Wikipedia, I don't see the issue with Lazarus of Bethany (T-H-L) in broad strokes—it's clear where the stories are coming from, and doesn't present the idea that Lazarus was a real person or the miracle actually happened.

Let's take that article, shall we?

Lazarus of Bethany (Latinised from Lazar, ultimately from Hebrew Eleazar, "God helped"), also venerated as Righteous Lazarus, the Four-Days Dead in the Eastern Orthodox Church,[4] is the subject of a sign of Jesus in the Gospel of John, in which it is written that Jesus restores Lazarus to life four days after his death. The Eastern Orthodox and Catholic traditions offer varying accounts of the later events of his life.

My god, do you find that paragraph easy to parse? "subject of a sign of Jesus in the Gospel of John"? How is that the definitional point for this character?

I think a person who knew absolutely nothing about this subject would be far better served with a summary that dispensed with the adornments, "Lazarus of Bethany (Latinised from Lazar, ultimately from Hebrew Eleazar, "God helped") is a character from Christian mythology, famously in the Gospel of John, who four days after his death is restored to life by Jesus."

The potential to be better written isn't what we're talking about in this thread.

I beg to differ. The reason that I think the lede is this way is because the religious people who wrote it think that this kind of wording is the sophisticated way to talk about their beliefs. I'm fairly certain that an atheist is not who wrote, as a definitional matter, that Lazarus of Bethany is the "subject of a sign of Jesus".

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Before June 2020 the text read "the subject of a prominent miracle of Jesus." The word "miracle" was changed to "sign" by this edit on the completely spurious grounds that "Gospel of John does not use the term 'miracle'. The acts were called 'signs'." The word "prominent" was removed later. In fact, however, the word "sign" used in English versions of the Gospel of John is a translation of the Greek word "σημεῖον". According to this concordance the Authorized Version uses the translation "miracle" in the Gospel of John more often than it uses the translation "sign".

I doubt that the sort of ill-informed pedanticism behind this edit is more common among religious believers than among atheists. I'd agree, however, that the ignoramus responsible for the edit is rather more likely to be a believer with a bee in his bonnet about the word "miracle" than he is to be an atheist.

[iii]

more likely to be a believer with a bee in his bonnet about the word "miracle" than he is to be an atheist.

Seems a reasonable supposition. Seminarian maybe.

[Ming]

The thing with the Lazarus article is that it begins badly in the way that WP articles are written badly, not because of anything having to do with religion.