Talk:Pious fiction

POV

This article is purely pushing a POV and can serve no other purpose. If you believe these are "pious fictions", that is your point of view. Others have vastly different points of view on this other than yours, as can easily be sourced. Wikipedia presents itself as neutral, and cannot have articles endorsing or pushing your point of view and denigrating others, sorry. This unreferenced third-rate article should be speedy deleted. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What this article could be is a place to compile what reliable sources have to say about pious fiction; just because it can be POV doesn't mean it's an attack page any more than any other article which could be POV (e.g., climate change). VernoWhitney (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Any source that applies a term like "fiction" to the doctrines of a major world religion is clearly a POV pushing source off the bat. I don't see much hope for this ever being a real article. Sadly, there will always be a few who see wp's role as being something like the new Council of Nicea, the final grand arbiter of which historical and religious views are to be adjudged "correct", and which are "heresy". That's about as far removed from the spirit of NPOV as it's possible to get. We have editors and readers of all religions here, and neutrality must be respected. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Scope

So it turns out that this isn't restricted to religious narratives, see comments about optimism during the Depression and Islamic law. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And I see it's used exclusively as a POV term to express a POV opinion in both cases. Transwiki to wiktionary. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are reading this article wrong (not that there is much to read :-) My point (I created it) was that the phrase "pious fiction" is used by many scholarly sources, and it is an important concept. There is no POV in documenting how the phrase is used by scholars. --Noleander (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Scholars might use all kinds of pejorative language, but we have to discuss such usage neutrally and indicate it as pejorative. It is similar in meaning to heresy - note that we refrain from making any pronouncements of our own as to what constitutes a heretical or proscribed belief, although we may look at what different significant groups or viewpoints have declared heresy or falsehood. We generally reserve the term "fiction" (in a non-pejorative sense) to mean writing that admits it is fiction, and does not pretend itself to be non-fiction. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, the places I've seen it used are not pejorative at all. Where have you seen it used that way? --Noleander (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If source A presents itself as fact, but B calls it "fiction" that is tantamount to calling it a "lie". There's a major difference between self-admitted fiction, which everyone agrees to be fiction, and works about which there is major controversy and dispute between different groups. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas about a better way to phrase the lead sentence? Obviously many of the examples are going to be controversial unless we can dig up a source which describes its own story as a fiction, but they are being clearly described as examples. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Added "under construction" tag

I'll be working on this article for the next couple of weeks, so Ive added a "under construction" tag. If anyone has some suggestions or content that would be helpful, let me know. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger

This article, as it stands, is little more than a definition of the term and a list of religious texts which some individuals have described as "pious fictions." The definition part of the article could clearly be included in some other article on religious texts, and the list part is possibly/probably going to be, virtually, equal to the list of all religious texts, with the possible inclusion of a few other works as well. Unfortunately, no clear criteria for inclusion, other than "someone called it that", seems to have been established, and, like I already said, it would probably, eventually, be effectively the equivalent of all religious texts, with the possible inclusion of a few scientific and advocacy texts as well.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wiktionary is. The definition would be better placed there.

If, as I suspect, the scope of the list is effectively identical to all religious texts, as well as a few advocacy texts of other types, there is a serious question as to whether a list of works called pious frauds would have any use. A category might have some utility, but even that would be, basically, often pushing a POV (based on the statements of "some" source) and the term is itself probably a word to avoid as per WP:AVOID. The same utility could be achieved by adding the definition of the term to some other directly relevant article, with perhaps a clause indicating that it has been used is some other contexts as well. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The original purpose of the article was merely yet another attempt to "officially" redefine the religious texts of major world religions into the category of "fiction" - which is of course nothing more than a controversial point-of-view. In order to be neutral to all point of view, the article had to be watered down considerably, but it still hardly warrants a separate article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree also. I blanked the article awaiting deletion but user:Syrthiss pointed out that only a major editor to an article should do that. Anyway, I see no value in retaining this article, and the content is not significant enough to warrant shifting it. Rumiton (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest the proposed merger article be Noble lie, as it is a closely related idea. It also have the benefit of not having the POV of a redirect to Religious text. Editor2020 (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good move. A neutral and informative article that would take the irritating POV out of this one. Rumiton (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed -- noble lie is the appropriate merger. Given that three of us agree on that, I'll change the merge template. In looking over the uses of the phrase in Google Books, I find that 'pious fiction' is used both in religious and non-religious contexts, and certainly doesn't refer only to religious texts. --Macrakis (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Merge to Noble lie. At least that seems to look like an article, even though I still don't get the purpose of the content. If we're gonna note what others say about each religious text, we can add that Atheists believe all religious texts are crap and Pious fiction. So what! The list will never end. And yep, Wiktionary is a dictionary, not Wikipedia. This page has less than 30 watchers, ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 18:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Merge seems to be the same thing.Teapeat (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like unanimous unopposed support for the merge - I'd say go ahead and merge it now, any time. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks in no way like there is "unanimous unopposed support for" a merge. The discussion began by noting that the "pious fiction" descriptor is a POV. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; nor is it an editorial page. However, if an author would present a reasoned article with scholarly support, it is conceivable that this could be a presentation of an existing movement in the non-religious sphere. But the term "pious fiction" does not belong in an article on sacred texts. A NO vote for merging anything related to the fiction/POV with the sacred texts article. December 3, 2011. Deebeebowing (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge with noble lie. I've put about an hour in on this article, and much of it's present form and refs, etc. depend on me, and now I see that the entire article is POV-pushing, as it essentially is, as stated above, a list of religious texts. I'm normally good at spotting POV-error, but I suppose I don't when it's on the scale of the entire article itself containing inherent bias (I'm obviously not a "big-picture" thinker): as is, the POV issues can not be resolved, as is obvious. Everything in this article is already stated under an appropriate heading or hypothesis on their respective pages, for the most part. No knowledge is lost by giving this one the boot altogether. JohnChrysostom (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As a previously uninvolved party who teaches on Plato, I'd prefer that this article be deleted rather than merged. The Platonic concept is specific enough as to be useful on its own, whereas nothing here seems particularly useful as an addition to it. ~~

Koran and "non-Islamic religions"

The article used to contain the claim that

but it is not considered to be divinely inspired by any non-Islamic religions

which I believe is not true. To the best of my knowledge, the Bahá'í Faith (a) is non-Islamic but (b) considers the Koran to be divinely inspired (though superseded by later revelations to later prophets in much the same way that the Bible was superseded by the Koran). -- pne (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge (likely incorrect), Baha'i'ism is an Islamic faith, alongside Druze, Ahmadi, Koranist, and even Ibadi, Sufi or Shi'a, as various strands of "orthodox" Muslims (i.e. Sunnis of various levels of strictness in interpretation of the Shariah, from Hanafis to Salafis) consider all of the above heretical or apostate in one way or another to a greater or lesser degree (i.e. Ahmadi persecution in Pakistan, Shi'a persecution in KSA), but they all consider themselves Islamic in the sense that (1) Muhammad is considered to be a prophet, and (2) the Koran is considered to have value or be inspired, and (3) they developed as branches from historical Islam. I can see from my writing the first two of my definitions are begging the question, seeing as it boils down to, "If the Koran is viewed favourably, and/or Muhammad accorded the status of a prophet, the religion is Islamic": belief in the Koran becomes the definition of "Islamic". The third, however, seems to hold. I'll have to look up the Bab and Baha'u'llah's views on the matter if they can be found in electronic form. If I can't cite my words (the Islamic-ness of all major religions that have a favourable view of the Koran) I'll leave it as you edited it.JohnChrysostom (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)