User talk:Low Sea/sandbox/beliefs

Proposed new subsection RS:BELIEFS

I propose the following (draft wording)

===Reliable Sources for Descriptions of Beliefs===

While Wikipedia strives for objectivity by using secondary and tertiary sources for verification, any section or article with the primary purpose of explicitly describing the beliefs or belief systems of specific people or organizations should use primary sources only for purposes of WP:RS. This guideline applies only to describing what "X believes", not what "X did" or what "X is". In plain language: No one is more qualified to tell you what "X" thinks, than "X".

Comments? Low Sea (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its a good idea, but I'm not at all sure about the only. If there are no good primary sources we use secondary sources. Sometimes the secondary sources will be more understandable. . DGG (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WOW. I agree with this whole heartedly (I edit quite a bit on articles where what "X" believes is a big issue, so I would love to see this accepted)... Unfortunately, I have a feeling that this proposal will never be accepted. It is going to get a lot of resistance. There are too many people who strongly feel that WP:NPOV demands that we should be able to mention what "Y" says about "X"'s beliefs, as long as we make it clear that this is "Y" opinion. In any case... this needs to be bounced off of the folks at WP:V. That is the Policy under which this guideline opperates, and they need to approve it first. Blueboar (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

(1) What you propose has the advantage of avoiding distortion and interpretation by those who may not understand the beliefs very well, who are merely regurgitating other, potentially inaccurate third-party accounts, or who are unable to leave their own frame of reference to a sufficient degree to avoid making a-priori judgements.

(2) What you propose has the disadvantage of shifting the selection process (i.e. the decision as to what is central enough to be included in the article, and what is peripheral) to the editor, which can lead to a form of WP:OR. For example, if I were to summarise the Bible without reference to scholars, I could easily shift the balance by selecting the potentially embarrassing bits (from today's point of view), and vice versa.

Ultimately, I think the best solution is to find a religious scholar who has given a neutral description of the beliefs that a majority of adherents confirm is broadly accurate. These days, such neutral scholars can usually be found; I believe there has been progress in this area over the past 20 years or so. Jayen466 23:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• DGG, agreed .. "only" is too strict language, how about "preferably"? Low Sea (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Blueboar, WP:V is inter-related with WP:RS. WP:SELFPUB (under WP:V) is similar so you may have a point. Low Sea (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Jayen466, This policy would not apply to the Bible itself ("What X believes" = "What the Bible believes" = "What a book believes" is nonsense). This policy would apply to the various denominations which may use the Bible in their teachings but ultimately every denomination has certain teachings that differentiate one from the next. This proposed policy also would apply to a much broader range of subject including all faiths/denominations, philosophies, political ideologies, etc. Low Sea (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, in fact the opposite:

1. Wikipedia does not strive for objectivity: Wikipedia strives for neutrality (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity)
2. "While Wikipedia strives for neutrality by using secondary and tertiary sources for verification, any section or article with the primary purpose of explicitly describing the beliefs or belief systems of specific people or organizations should use primary sources only for purposes of illustration." --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a case of statements of fact ("X believes Y"), vs statements of opinion ("According to Z, 'X believes Y'"). I can see preferring a self-published primary source in support for blunt statements of fact. On the other hand... if we start getting into interpretations of that belief ("N is true because X believes Y") then we need to refer to third party scholars. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, "According to the Roman Catholic catechism <primary source statement>" - whether Roman Catholics in general actually believe that is something for which secondary/tertiary sources are needed (e.g. a sociologist who researched it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm mainly lurking on this, but was struck by a connection between this Francis Schonken comment and an earlier Low Sea comment: "("What X believes" = "What the Bible believes" = "What a book believes" is nonsense)". I'd recast part of this in its own: "What a book believes" is nonsense (books do not have beliefs). It strikes me that, similarly, "What an organization believes" is nonsense (organizations do not have beliefs). Also, "What an organization professes to believe" probably is a less than perfect reflection of what each individual member believes, and also probably is a less than perfect reflection of the general consensus of beliefs held by a given membership segment or by the overall membership. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Francis Schonken, I like the wording you provided in #2 above. You are correct, it should be neutrality and not objectivity. Thanks.
• Boracay Bill, You raise a good point. The proposed guideline as worded would be valid only for individual people. Organizational beliefs have two components: (A) the beliefs of their individual members which cannot be used under WP:BELIEFS unless a specific person is being cited as an individual, and (B) the "official" statement of belief position paper published by the central authority of their organization. Perhaps for the latter another paragraph is needed for this proposal. Usage examples might be:
  • "Organization XYZ's official position on the matter is:

    exact-non-interpreted-primary-source-text

OR

• • "Organization XYZ's official teaching is:

    exact-non-interpreted-primary-source-text

etc... Needs work I know. Low Sea (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am in general agreement with the concept but believes it needs a little bit of refinement. It makes complete sense as is when discussing a contemporary person or organization; we should be able to use that person's or organizations writings, so long as this is done fairly (e.g. we focus on writings intended to present views and avoid unduly emphasizing off-the-cuff or out-of context slips.) But there are several potentially difficult cases. One example, as DGG mentioned above, is a case where an editor may be applying the statement out of context, such as if an editor proposes to present what "the Bible says" about some topic. This road often leads editors to WP:SYN. A second issue involves claims that a source represents a viewpoint or organization. In general, in order not to be led to wiki-temptation and to keep far from WP:SYN, we need to ensure that any claims of representation are reliable. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see some issues here. In addition to those mentioned, there may be other exceptions to the principle that "No one is more qualified to tell you what X thinks, than X". Two that come to mind: where X's beliefs may have changed over time (and the statement is from the "old" X), and where X is widely peceived as being dishonest in making the claim (especially if there is evidence of this: X saying something different to his/her followers than to the general public). --Robert Stevens (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert Stevens, Good concerns but I think there are acceptable solutions. In the former case it would be to use WP:BELIEFS twice and rewrite the article stating something to the effect of:

On date A, X believed Y (CITE1), but then on date B, X believed Z (CITE2).

For the latter case WP:V makes it very clear that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". An appropriate response to such a situation would be to write the article using WP:BELIEFS with an equally verifiable source (most likely a secondary or tertiary one, and paying great heed to WP:BLP) providing refutation.

Mr. X has declared that "the only way to God is thru poverty" (CITE1), yet 2008 tax records show that he owns 47 vacation homes and 3 yachts (CITE2).

Low Sea 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Low Sea (talk • contribs)

WP:BELIEFS (revised)

I propose adding this section to WP:RS with the following (2nd draft) wording...

---

===Reliable Sources for Descriptions of Beliefs=== WP:RS#BELIEFS

In a nutshell: No one is more qualified to tell you what "X" thinks, than "X".

• While Wikipedia strives for neutrality by using secondary and tertiary sources for verification, any section or article with the primary purpose of explicitly describing the beliefs or belief systems of specific persons or organizations should preferably use primary sources for purposes of WP:Reliable Sources. This guideline applies only to describing what "X believes", not what "X did" or what "X is".

• When applying the guidelines in this section editors should try to use exact quotes when available and, when summarizing larger concepts, to take great care to avoid synthesis.

• The usage of this section should substantially use one of the following two formats:

1. When citing what an individual person's beliefs are the statement should basically be in the form:

Xperson believes --summary--/"--quote--".

or

Xperson states "--quote--".

2. When citing what an organization's official beliefs are the statement should basically be in the form:

The Xorg teaches --summary--/--list--/"--quote--".

or

The official Statement of Beliefs of the Xorg reads "--quote--".

• Any sentence structure that approximates the above examples is acceptable as long as it is not misleading as to the source or content of the material.

• No portion of this section is meant to imply any prohibition towards including additional secondary or tertiary sources which support a primary source reference in this context.

---

Comments? -- Low Sea (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest one problem here may come from the need to summarize--the official beliefs of many organisations on many topics are quite extensive. There will sometimes be a suitably brief summary statement, but not necessarily. DGG (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, note the 2nd bullet item. Any suggestions on how to better phrase this? -- Low Sea (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

draft #3

Reliable Sources for Descriptions of Beliefs

While Wikipedia strives for neutrality by using secondary and tertiary sources for verification, any section or article with the primary purpose of explicitly describing the beliefs or belief systems of specific persons or organizations should preferably use primary sources for purposes of WP:Reliable Sources.

1. This section applies to all kinds of beliefs including (but not limited to) religious, philosophical, political, and personal beliefs.

2. This section applies only to describing what "X believes", not what "X did" or what "X is".

3. When applying this section editors should try to use exact quotes when available and, when summarizing larger concepts, to take very great care to avoid synthesis.

4. The usage of this section should substantially use one of the following two formats:

A. When citing what an individual person's beliefs are the statement should basically be in the form:

• Xperson believes --summary--/"--quote--".

or

• Xperson states "--quote--".

B. When citing what an organization's official beliefs are the statement should basically be in the form:

• The Xorg teaches --summary--/--list--/"--quote--".

or

• The official Statement of Beliefs of the Xorg reads "--quote--".

5. In cases where X's beliefs may have changed over time the appropriate usage of this section would be to use WP:BELIEFS twice (or more) and write the article text stating to the basic effect of:

• On date A, X believed "YYY" (CITE1), but then on date B, X believed "ZZZ" (CITE2).

6. In cases where X's stated beliefs conflict with verifiable facts to the contrary the appropriate usage if this section would be to write the article text using WP:BELIEFS in combination with a reliable secondary or tertiary source providing refutation. Example:

• Mrs. Xperson has declared she believes that "The only way to please God is thru poverty." (CITE1), yet 2008 tax records show that she owns 47 vacation homes and 3 yachts (CITE2).

IMPORTANT NOTE: Wikipedia makes it clear that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". Nonetheless, when faced with documenting contradictory situations between a stated belief and evidence to the opposite Wikipedia editors must pay great heed to the WP:V and WP:BLP policies, whether dealing with a living person or an active organization.

7. Editors must not attribute the source of a belief to an object. For example it would be incorrect to say:

• The Xorg Holy Book believes people were once green-skinned.

Books do not have beliefs. A more correct way this kind of statement might be handled would be to write:

• The Official Statement of Beliefs of the Xorg says "We believe every single word of our Holy Book to be absolute truth." (CITE1)' which could then be followed by an list of various scriptures. A reminder is in order to avoid synthesis or original research if such an approach is used.

8. Editors must not attribute the beliefs of an organization to individuals. For example it would be incorrect to write the following unless a direct statement by Mrs Z to that effect was citable as a primary source:

• Mrs. Z, a member of the Xorg Church, believes her ancestors had green-skin.

It would be equally incorrect to attribute an organizational belief to all members of that organization, even if such a belief was written as official doctrine:

• All Democrats believe the government should end the war immediately.

9. Any sentence structure that approximates one of the above examples is acceptable as long as it is not misleading as to the source or content of the material.

10. No portion of this section is meant to imply any prohibition towards including additional secondary or tertiary sources which support a primary source reference in this context.

---

Reply - work in progress

---

Comments? -- Low Sea (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• (Comment 1:) Too detailed for a guideline;
• (Comment 2:) Contradicts existing content policy (notably, the idea that unless mentioned in secondary sources content lacks *notability* for inclusion in Wikipedia: as written this 10-point proposal would be a free pass for remote beliefs, or detaillistic belief points of better known beliefs, *but never, or depreciatingly, commented upon in secondary sources*, to be disproportionally publicised via Wikipedia)
• (Comment 3:) DESPITE the extraordinary level of detail of this proposal, it is useless for a concrete issue I'm currently involved in accidentally, and that should be covered if you amount to so much detail: what if the *leader* of a religious movement is ambiguous, and his followers contradict themselves regarding what they actually believe, and all this also evolves significantly in a period of time? Well, easy: one can only use *secondary* sources regarding what is notable about the beliefs of this group.
• (Comment 4:) Even for less marginal beliefs the proposed text is hardly helpful, example: Assumption of Mary#The Assumption in Catholic teaching:
  • DESPITE being an organization's official formulation of a belief (case 4.B above), the issue is presented in the format Xperson states "--quote--", case 4.A ([...] Pope Pius XII solemnly declared: "<quote from Munificentissimus Deus §44>"), which is absolutely correct in this case, because of Papal infallibility in this belief system (Pastor Aeternus 1870). Applying point 4 of the proposed guideline would make the Wikipedia text less adequate.
  • What is thaught by the catholic church in this respect needs to be explained in article text (based on secondary sources of course): just quoting catholic Apostolic and Dogmatic Constitutions would hardly satisfy the needs of a readible encyclopedia. Note that the only exception allowing to add other sources in the proposal above is when the other sources contradict the original belief (point 6), with a disingenious example (contrasting two primary sources, where the whole issue should be based on secondary sources, irrespective of being contradicting or affirmating. As currently proposed in point 6: WP:NOR problem, trying to draw conclusions based on primary sources exclusively, "tax records" for blimeys sake).
• (Comment 5:) self-contradiction of the proposed text: books do not have beliefs, OK, but neither do organisations (which is nonetheless assumed for points 4B, 7 second example and 8): the organisation can carry a belief, but only persons can *have* a belief. Compare example in comment 4: Munificentissimus Deus §45 makes it quite clear that if you don't believe in the Assumption of Mary as defined by the pope you can't call yourself a Catholic. I assure you, what people actually believe can be quite different from what the organisation prescribes them to believe. And neither (nor the prescription by the organisation, nor the individual catholic's belief) is the "belief" of the organisation, while organisations tend to be inanimate (and are only personified exceptionally in a poetical sense, not the kind of language used for encyclopedia text).

Summary and recommendation: This can not be inserted in WP:RS for its obvious contradictions with core content policy (WP:NOR; WP:V, WP:UNDUE,...). If anything, I'd recommend to move this to an *essay* page, finetune and simplify it, and make it coherent with content policy, and then see afterwards what can be done with it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Ms. Schonken. Some examples of problems:

• Organisations that are widely agreed to lie about some of their beliefs. For instance, for legal reasons, the Discovery Institute are known to claim their views and goals are not religious in "official" channels, but have been documented (partially in leaked secret documents) and otherwise shown in secondary sources as having a strong religious purpose.
• Cases where an organisation or individual's belief attacks some other belief system are dangerous, as unmoderated versions of their comments might be misleading about the other belief system unless great care is taken. Using primary sources and quotes would make NPOV very difficult, particularly if we're required to give their official beliefs IN A QUOTE, including all the false attacks on another group. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply - work in progress

Francis Schonken: Thank you for the detailed comments. Let me see if I can provide meaningful views and/or counterpoints on these:

Comment 1. "Too detailed" ? ... By what guideline is that determined? As far as I am concerned WP:BELIEFS is a close cousin to WP:BLP because when talking about personal beliefs an extra level of care must be taken to use such information very accurately and appropriately. I do not see BLP as being "too detailed" and while I seriously doubt BELIEFS could ever grow to such complexity the fact that BLP exists says that policies can be detailed.

Comment 2. Respectfully this is in error. Notability applies to permitting an ARTICLE, not to allowing specific sections or content within an article.

Comment 3. As in anything else in WP, if something is ambiguous the solution is to use verifiable sources. If the leader's words are written or very clearly recorded there is no problem with using this proposed policy to repeat those words as an exact quote. The caution on WP:SYN and WP:OR still applies with full force so if the leader contradicts himself you will still need a secondary or tertiary source to evaluate what the meaning is of these contradictions.

Comment 4 (sub-bullet 1). In this example the only application of WP:BELIEFS would go to what Pope Pius XII believes, not what the church believes. Papal Infallibility is a doctrine (a statement of belief) of the church and has had enough written about it that it has its own article. However, WP is not subject to accepting church doctrines in its policies. :)

Comment 4 (sub-bullet 2). You are 100% correct on everything you say in this section. If a topic is complex enough (which will often be the case in organizational beliefs) there is VERY LIKELY to be secondary and tertiary material that establishes notability and can be used to expound on such a complex topic. See my comments under the Talk Section below ("Why WP:BELIEFS is needed") on why I say "VERY LIKELY" and not "will".

Comment 5. Again, respectfully, this is in error. Organizations "have" many things not the least of which include collections of intellectual property which include official writings or teachings. While the verb "have" may be applied in slightly different contexts it is still very applicable to this policy. Under WP:BELIEFS it would be equally valid to say "Person A states they believe B" and "Organization Y states they believe Z". The key point this would NOT apply to is the inference that "Members of Organization Y believe Z" which would be supposition at most. Ultimately I trust that the competent editors here will clean up any grammatical problems which may arise in the application of this policy.

Comment Summary & Recommendations. While I do not fully agree with what you see as contradictions, the very fact that they can be perceived as such does recommend that this idea needs lots of work before it is "ready for prime time" ... based on what, if any, response I get here I am likely to move it to an essay page in the near future and begin the slow and painful process of policy proposal. This page is just a test-bed for the idea to see if it is worth the bother.

Subsequent Comments by Shoemaker's Holiday. The solutions to the problems you raise are answered within your own descriptions of the problems:

• "... widely agreed to lie ..." -- In WP terms widely agreed means you can substantiate that with WP:RS - thus enabling you to address the NPOV issue.
• "... have been documented (partially in leaked secret documents) ..." -- Same answer.
• "... shown in secondary sources ..." -- Same answer.

Nothing in this proposal prevents an editor from showing contradictions and countering viewpoints as long as they do not get into WP:SYN or WP:OR, and that is long standing normal policy for WP.

• "Using primary sources and quotes would make NPOV very difficult..." -- Yes, it might make it difficult but good work is not always easy. We must take great care when working with BLP but that leads to high quality articles on those persons. Why should we not take similar great care in something as delicate as personal beliefs in order to create a quality encyclopedia?
• "... particularly if we're required to give their official beliefs IN A QUOTE, including all the false attacks on another group." -- Nothing in the proposal requires you to include anything a person believes at all. But IF you want to include Mr.X's beliefs in an article for some purpose ... then what other source besides the horse's mouth would be superior for such an inclusion?

As has already been stated: "No one knows more about what Mr.X believes than Mr.X himself." The nutshell of this policy is to provide guidance on what is the BEST source for such material if included at all, and how to apply this policy when used.

End of comments / counterpoints. Low Sea (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WHOA: Can't prove intent, only actions

19-April-2008: Whoa. Wait a while. Stop. Quit. HALT. What is this attempt to ascribe beliefs, thoughts, motives or intent inside someone's head? NO. NO. NO. Stop this. I had no idea, after working on 10,000 articles, that people were inferring beliefs. All that can truly be verified is someone's actions: what someone actively stated or wrote as beliefs, not what they actually believed, thought, or felt internally:

• "The computer billionaire believed he was saving humanity when he used the tax-exempt foundation, as an educational charity, to teach thousands to use and become dependent upon his company's computer products." (based on a true story)

Oh, yes, that is absolutely true, because the billionaire wrote, "I believe...I believe" (uh-huh). It is NOT possible to verify and ascribe beliefs, thoughts, motives or intent inside someone's head by using what they said. I'm not done yet:

• "The man believed, when he sold the immigrant the Brooklyn Bridge for $50, that he was empowering the American Dream, because he told the immigrant, 'I believe you can make a fortune quickly by charging admission to your bridge now.' "

Under no circumstances, except in a solely auto-biographical article, should Wikipedia state what someone believed, thought or intended. Please stick to the facts: report actions only, as to what they professed, stated, wrote, or did (according to witnesses). It is very troublesome to enter the path of ascribing beliefs, thoughts, motives or intent inside someone's head. Strictly report what they said ("I believe I am not a crook"), but stick to the facts. If necessary, report the statement was made during a lie-detector test, but never claim what they actually believed. This should lead to a guideline to deter such wording in all articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikid77, You seem to have jumped to a conclusion that simply does not apply here. There is no desire to "prove intent", only to clearly report beliefs when a person or organization has made public statements on what they believe. WP:BELIEFS is not (as you put it) about "ascribing beliefs, thoughts, motives or intent inside someone's head." WP:BELIEFS is only about accurately reporting factual statements that are made in direct relation to a publicly professed belief. Writing an article about a religion, ANY religion, almost virtually requires a section on beliefs in some form. The question therefor is NOT "Should there be such a section?" but rather "Which is the better source on this subject, an outsider's opinion or an internal and official one?". Low Sea (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps use the words "doctrine" or "policy" (not "beliefs"). The use of the word "beliefs" would be a slippery slope, leading to concepts of inner thoughts, motives, hidden agendas, etc. I can see the wish to describe "religious beliefs" but, instead, consider the term as "religious doctrines" or such. Also, using the term "church policies" would allow similar focusing on "political policies" of an activist group, so that could be considered as a broader guideline about using sources from an activist group to document their mission statement, goals, etc.

Again you misunderstand what is being discussed on this page. When the Pope stands in front of a camera at a press conference and says "The past year has been spent in a deep and secretive debate with all of the Cardinals and High Officials of the Church to examine new archaeological evidence. We have concluded that the Book of Revelations is a forgery and must be excised from the Bible." then THAT is doctrine. But when the Pope stands in front of the cameras and says "I believe the Second Coming will be on my birthday next year." then that is a belief. Low Sea (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Long overdue replies

I have been away from making any major contributions for WP for a long time, and especially from this proposal. I am going to reply to the last few discussions in this article now and wait and see if there is still anyone with interest in this idea. I will be on WP only a little as time permits so do not expect fast replies. Low Sea (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Why WP:BELIEFS is needed

Allow me to add an observation of my own to help clarify things. Part of the genesis of this policy proposal was a set of articles I was working on a couple years ago concerning a moderately sized religious movement that has been around about 100 years and has a small but respectable number of adherents in various denominations around the world. One of the more intriguing aspects of the research arose when it became clear that this little group while certainly not "mainstream" was also not fringe and was generally non-controversial except to certain fundamentalist authors (who basically attacked all non-mainstream religions). The net effect was that because they were "harmless" nobody outside the organization wrote anything deep or analytical about their teachings. The only outside writings were from fundamentalist authors who asserted the "wrongness" of said teachings without really exploring them. Attempts to add facts of the belief systems of the various denominations met with resistance due to assertions of WP:SELFPUB item 5 ( "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: ... 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." ) You see the problem is a WP:NOTABLE religious organization has an article (actually a set of articles) but their teachings (an appropriate and significant section for such articles) have generated little to no controversy and therefor little to no secondary/tertiary sources on that topic. It is my opinion that there is nothing wrong with using SELFPUB sources as primary material for a beliefs section within an article, even if that section is a significant portion of the overall article, as long as notability for the whole article is clearly established using proper secondary sources. Low Sea (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

the actual problem comes when there are various sources all claiming to be the authentic primary source. For the RC church, there is in fact an accepted source, but the details there are of various degrees of absolute certainty. Many of them represent compromises, many of them represent reinterpretations. Some even represent contradictions of other equally valid sources. Thus the RC insistence that the words do not speak for themselves, that the letter of the sources needs interpretation by the magisterium, the accepted teaching authority. Orthodox Judaism has a similar problem, complicated by the fact that there are different schools of thought, and no absolutely authoritative source to reconcile them in the last 1500 years sine the closing of the Talmud (or 2000, since the last sitting of the Sanhedrin--depending on your view). Again, like the RC church, the letter does not speak for itself. It is standard doctrine among all Orthodox Jews that only an religiously observant Jew can properly interpret or understand or rule which of the different statements are right. To the best of my knowledge, other religions are even more divergent. Consider a secular example: the United States Constitution. Again the letter does not speak for itself--even those who theories of interpretation say that it does find it necessary to interpret it. As an example of the problems I've actually encountered, there is no individual or group that has authority to pronounce on the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church. There are a number of different people who think they have. Even a primary source must be qualified with, according to the 19xx edition of...., the official doctrine is.... DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

DGG, Wouldn't the correct WP approach on such a situation be to says something like; "There are differing opinions on the subject. According to A the correct belief is X1, and according to B the correct belief is X2." ? The one thing that I guess needs to be in such a policy is a strong guidance on WHEN to use this policy ... if the source does not make it clear that this is an official (or personal) belief then this policy is not the one to use. A good example where this might apply is the issue of transubstantiation where the various Christian denominations have differing teachings on (A) is it a real event or just a symbolic concept, and (B) are congregants required to try and believe it or is that a non-requisite to being allowed to participate in communion. Going one step further let us say that a celebrity priest, "Father Snoopy", is RC and in an interview is asked about his views on transubstantiation. If he says "I think that is a symbolic thing, not real" then his reply would be usable under this policy. If his Bishop was asked "Does Father Snoopy believe that transubstantiation is real?" and the Bishop says "He's a priest, of course he does." even though that is a secondary source it is not as reliable as the primary source. Low Sea (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, a major problem is saying, "(personal) belief" about a person. For example, even if sources could be found, there could be a WP:BLP vio in stating, "Even though Bill Gates was a college dropout, he believes that no college dropouts should be hired in a computer company". The danger rises when a belief (or motive) ascribed to a person enters into a controversial (or non-politically correct) viewpoint: this is akin to stating that John Q. Sample believes that wives should be beaten as long as no one else witnesses the aggravated assault. As soon as an article pretends to know the mind of a person, it enters into a totally un-verifiable area of knowledge. This is a loophole in WP:Verifiable, not true, which omits the part about "not false" and requires thinking more deeply than many people might care to ponder. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikid: You continue to miss the key point. This policy would only apply if the SOURCE used the phrase "I believe..." or words of highly similar definition -- absolutely under no circumstances would an editor be allowed to ascribe a motive, that would not only be WP:OR but worse it would be pure speculation and not allowed under ANY stretch of wikipedia policy. Low Sea (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• I would also focus on official "doctrine" as being an issue to trace to sources. It is my understanding that Christian teachings note that the Bible can only be fully understood by an awareness, of perspective or viewpoint, which comes from guidance after having received the Holy Spirit (one of the 3 parts of the Holy Trinity. In such cases, I would suggest quoting from various translations of the Bible (as a primary source) to describe such doctrines, if set within the Bible. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Finding sources for forensic evidence

13-Oct-2010: The issues of forensic evidence might seem off-topic, but a heated debate arose about the new Amanda Knox re-trial/appeal (beginning 24-Nov-2010), where some say that any Italian judge's report should not be used to list forensic evidence, because in the case of a guilty verdict, the judge's report is likely to push to defend the verdict for guilt, not innocence. A problem ensued where Amanda called her missing roommate (Meredith), and her mobile phone "rang & rang" for 16 seconds, but only the court document noted "16 seconds" as a source about those phone calls. Other sources imply that the call was shorter, implying why let the phone ring too long if being involved with the murder. The evidence listed in the court document dispels many other notions of guilty behavior, helping to explain why many people think Amanda Knox is innocent; however, the overall Massei Judgment document is explaining the verdict "guilty" so that seems to be a puzzlement. In a similar way, the Bible could be used as a source to list which of the 12 Apostles had traveled, say, to Greece or Egypt. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikid77: You are right ... this is off-topic. The subject here on this page is about a policy to determine WHAT is the best source for using in relation to what a particular person or organization "believes" in an article about that person or organization ... inferences (which by the way are never allowed in WP as they are factual synthesis) of Biblical geographical journeys are completely unrelated to this topic. Please stay on topic. Low Sea (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Related issue: Listing allowable synthesis actions

13-Oct-2010: The WP policy for WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH rejects text that synthesizes statements from 2 sources to support a novel conclusion which "advances a cause", but other types of allowable synthesis are not listed there. For example, if someone found a primary-source birth certificate which said Mozart was born in Poland, not Austria, might an article claim that Mozart's birthplace was disputed, or not. I don't think other issues about reliable sources should be considered without also noting the allowable actions to synthesize text from those sources. Meanwhile, remember that Encyclopaedia Britannica, for decades, has allowed essays, by known experts, to appear as articles. Perhaps we should discuss changing WP policies, to allow some types of articles which are synthesized using highly expert knowledge. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

While your question lies outside the scope of this page's topic let me take a minute and try to answer it. Regarding your theoretical Mozart scenario ... from what data do you determine his birthplace is in dispute? Perhaps the pedigree of the newly found birth certificate is beyond dispute? Let us say the certificate was was found in his casket during an exhumation with a childhood diary written by young Mozart in Polish and a handwritten letter in German explaining his reasons for the deception? You are as the lawyers say, "assuming facts not in evidence" when you synthesize anything without facts (WP:RS) to back it up. WP's standard of "verification not truth" is the absolute cornerstone of this project. No matter what I think I know, or even know I know, it has to be traceable to a published sources of reliable stature so that OTHERS can verify it later on and possibly add to or correct my entry with ADDITIONAL facts from yet more verifiable sources. The only area of "wiggle room" on this policy is what is called "common knowledge" and even that can be subject to challenge in theory. Assumptions no matter how small are the seeds of error and potential liability. Adhering to WP:V can be difficult at times but it is the one thing that is rock solid here among all the other chaos ... if you cannot show a reliable source for your statements then be prepared to have your work challenged and possibly deleted. Low Sea (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I see it, the "other chaos" is all part of the problem to be addressed. I don't think anything should be considered "rock solid" because the problem is more complicated than that. Do not be deceived: these issues, I fear, are extremely complex to be debated in the limited time of volunteer ruminations. See more below under "#Verifiable, not false". -Wikid77 (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Verifiable, not false

First, among the related issues to ponder, is the notion of multiple levels of truth, which are often ignored by WP policies. An article should not state everything claimed by reliable sources. Of course, many outsiders have been alarmed to hear, "Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability". The reason for the alarm is the oversimplification about truth. In reality, truth is very important in Wikipedia, and editors must be sure that an article is:

• true to its sources - An editor should not cite a source which does not support, or contradicts, the article text. A false reference is not acceptable.

ACCURATE not true

• true to the facts - If 5 reliable sources repeat an incorrect fact, then that does not justify repeating a known falsehood. This often occurs when later news reports have corrected the early versions of events, which appeared in "5" major newspapers. An article should not repeat the incorrect versions.

ACCURATE not true

• true to the present - Editors should not be allowed to claim out-dated facts: "The R.M.S. Titanic is a ship which sails mainly between the U.S. and England" or state "The NYC World Trade Center has 2 large skyscrapers standing in lower Manhattan" (not after September 2001). Quoting from outdated sources is not acceptable.

COMPLETE not true

• true to common sense - An article cannot claim, "All Americans think Hitler was evil" or "All marriages have rough periods", or any other issue which applies to all members of a vast group. There are limits to what is logically verifiable, even if stated in 17 sources. Text should not contradict common sense.

RELIABLE not true

Those are some issues which reveal the true complexity about why truth is an important concern to WP editors. It is very difficult to trace actual beliefs or doctrines to various sources. Just because a reliable source claims something does not justify stating it in Wikipedia. We should consider if the text is true enough to be in Wikipedia. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that you are the one using "true" as synonyms (see above) for other words. Since the "many levels of truth" are partially based on philosophy and partially based on linguistic issues ... much like the word "love" has many meanings depending on context ... the choice of wikipedia to avoid truth as a standard is both wise and practical.

Since you continue to try and drag this topic off-topic I am politely asking you to either stay on topic or else I will shrink your comments as non-helpful to the discussion being attempted. Low Sea (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)