Talk:Religion and sexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Religion and sexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Deuteronomic code[edit]

It appears clear to me that the consensus is to leave the Deuteronomic material (since the removal was contested and undoed by multiple editors). On the other hand, we could probably agree that it should ideally be supported by secondary sources too. Smatrah Invites us to discuss it here, but has not yet accepted to open this thread here despite multiple undo by other editors. I have reverted your deletion as well, please discuss it here before reinstating your removal, to avoid disruptive editing. —PaleoNeonate - 07:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate I have answered both on my talk page and original research board. That it is original reseRch so remove it as per Wikipedia guidelines. Sir Any senior editor do not have right to add original research if you want to add such disjointed bullet list of primary sources then allow also other pages to do have readied deutronomic original research but have removed Islamic original research. A material such this disjointed bullet list was present on the islamic views on slavery which was removed by Eperoton by citing the same reason.Smatrah (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I have not removed any content, I restored the content you were deleting, which multiple editors agree should remain. Your material is another issue, but was removed in this edit. Restoring that is probably worth another discussion. The Quran is already there (primary sourced like the Deuteronomic, although the referencing style is clear). What you added appear to be the Hadith: if I look at it (i.e. here), it may be because I'm less used to these, but the referencing style seems unclear. We can request the input of other editors on if this should be included, as-is or in altered-form. I don't have a strong opinion about it personally. A question: why did you remove the Deuteronomic material after adding yours, which was not yet removed/contested? The claimed reason was that it was primary-sourced only, but so was your new material. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 08:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

paleoneonate issue is that why original research should be allowed to exist whether you add or i add when wikipedia guidelines and other pages do not for quran or hadith both are original research like deuotronomy . why we should discuss them separately.the point is that the primary sources in the form of disjointed bullet list are allowed or not?Smatrah (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Smatrah asked me to comment on this dispute. The Islam section clearly relies way too much on primary sources. Some of parts of it violate WP:PRIMARY more obviously than others, but it should be rewritten entirely based on non-primary sources. I'll tag it and put it on my to-do list.
The Bible sections are less objectionable at a glance because the paraphrase seems reasonably close and these sections make claims only about the text of the Bible, separately from discussions of Judaism and Christianity. However, that section should also be based on non-primary sources. I don't recall reading a RS on sexuality and the Bible, but I think it's safe to assume that sources on this topic aren't simply enumerations of rules. Eperoton (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
There are God and Sex by Michael Coogan and Unprotected Texts by Jennifer Wright Knust. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


This article is a mess, and fast becoming a WP:COATRACK of uncited WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. I suggest that it be limited to cited material from secondary and tertiary sources. That would entail taking an axe to a large part of the article, but as I said, it's an uncited mess of mostly primary OR, so that would be a good thing. Softlavender (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to some major trimming/stubbification of content with only primary sourcing. Eperoton (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Primary sources alone have the problem that we could not add any commentary, which should be supported by reliable secondary sources. Also, if the article was only a list of citations from primary sources, it would probably be considered an indiscriminate list or directory, which is also not acceptable. I agree that the current article is a mess. —PaleoNeonate - 05:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender, Eperoton, and PaleoNeonate: I've removed the lists for two reasons: first, prose is the default form of Wikipedia, and if we can't find sourcing to comment on things in a long list to the point where it can be weaved into the prose we shouldn't have it. Second, the vast majority of it is primary sourcing and it would be inappropriate to contain primary source lists from one religion and not others. If there is secondary and tertiary sourcing on the things contained here, we can add them into the text cited to them rather than directly to the respective scriptures. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that's a step in the right direction. Eperoton (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not even sure where to start. What a mismash of interconnect and disconnected topics. Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)