Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 30

< July 29	July 31 >

July 30

Template:Fuel economy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete

Template:Fuel economy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is pure original research. It appears to have been creating to be used in the Automobile infobox, despite this being heavily opposed on the Automobile infobox talk page. — swaq 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It was not created to be used in the infobox - it is a separate template that was created to visualize what fuel economy really means. It was taken from the discussion on the talk page but refined to even out the categories. It was also created so that it could be used in car articles since someone seems to have been holding the infobox template hostage and preventing mileage from being included, even though mileage has become very important today. Take your pick, keep this template or add fuel economy to the infobox. Or better, do both. Narnia205 (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC) — Narnia205 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is still original research. Wikipedia can't assign a letter grade for an arbitrary range of fuel economy. Adding fuel economy to the Automobile Infobox template is a separate issue and should be discussed on the appropriate talk page to gain consensus before making additions. swaq 19:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete and read the previous conversations why it is not included --— Typ932^{T | C}  19:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Original research, arbitrary criteria. This is more like a list in template space as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It might be nice to have an infobox (or add a template to the current auto infobox) with official economy figures and conversions, but making up your own rating/grade scale is a big no-no. --Vossanova ^o< 20:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  Those are official economy figures. Showing the scale allows easily telling how your car compares with others - A being better economy than F. As has been pointed out, if you are in the market for a Ferrari, economy is not something you are looking for in a car, although interestingly enough, the A+ rated Tesla has better performance than a Ferrari and is cheaper. New Zealand has recently adopted a similar system, rating each car with from one to six stars depending on how good the economy is - see the data for New Zealand. This rating is easier to understand than the New Zealand rating. Narnia205 (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Obvious OR. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Lacking credible sources and research. --piksi (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Arbitrary system that is also somewhat misleading. Only a handful of cars are going to earn even a "B" rating and I think the Tesla Roadster is the only production car available to the public that would get at least an "A," even most hybrid sedans only get 40-45 highway mpg. Mr.Z-man 21:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  You are demonstrating a US view of fuel economy, but it actually sounds like you are saying that the ranges are well chosen - with the bulk getting somewhere from B to D, which is what was intended. Volkswagen has announced that they are coming out with a 235 mpg car in a couple of years, but since you save the same amount of gas by going from 15 to 16 mpg as you do from 120 mpg to 235 mpg there didn't seem to be any need to add any higher range than better than 120 mpg. It isn't an arbitrary system at all, it is a uniform system, with 125 gallon/year steps above C and 250 gallon/year steps below C. You want a system where every car gets at least an A? What good would that be? Narnia205 (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  Uh, no, I'm demonstrating a practical view. Many automakers are planning electric and hydrogen fuel cell cars for production some time in the near-ish future. However, we live in the present, where only a handful of cars get 50+ mpg. Making a scale based on vehicles that don't yet exist is just nonsense. The other misleading bit is what you describe, the steps are different for different sections, which makes no sense at all with a plain ABCDEF scale. They should be linear. And nice straw man at the end of your reply there. I never said I wanted a system where every car gets an A, thanks. Mr.Z-man 03:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  I didn't see the point in having to re-do the ranges every few years. We know that VW is coming out with a 235 mpg car, and that electric cars will come in at 100-200 mpg or so, so they are covered, and hydrogen fuel cell cars come in at about 15 - 25 mpg, so the present ranges seem just fine. As you can see below, linear steps don't adequately cover the upper ranges which need small steps to delineate them and the lower ranges which need larger steps. 2 l/100km steps would only cover from 0 to 14 l/100km instead of 18, and those are the cars that it is most important to delineate, because they have the biggest impact on reducing CO2 emissions. Narnia205 (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• N Delete Author's responses confirm violation of WP:OR. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Y Keep Not OR - all the data is from reliable sources - all this does is present it in a histogram, which is allowed. When you label the bins in a histogram it doesn't matter how you choose the bins as long as you label them. In this case it was not meaningful to use uniform bins because the variation is too great, so two step sizes were chosen instead of one. Narnia205 (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • So, this ranking system isn't OR just because you found your data in reliable sources? Did you found the grades A-F in reliable sources too? This is similar to creating a template ranking Harry Potter books by the template author's liking of the books. Why is A+ below 2 l/100 km? Why isn't it below 1 or 5 l/100 km? I would have voted for this if it were a grading system in wide usage and published by a reliable auto-magazine. The grading system is totally OR and, BTW, not very useful, as Z-man also found out. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

    This is what steps of 1 and 5 l/100 km would look like:

1 l/100km steps (63.8 gal/year)

Fuel economy (mpg / L/100km)
Rating	mpg	L/(100 km)	City
A+	>235	<1	-
A	118 - 235	1 - 1.9	Highway
B	79 - 117	2 - 2.9	-
C	59 - 78	3 - 3.9	Combined
D	48 - 58	4 - 4.9	30 / 7.8
E	40 - 47	5 - 5.9	Combined rating
F	34 - 39	6 - 7	F-
F-	<34	>7

The 235 mpg VW and the 135 mpg Tesla would get an A, the Honda Insight a C, the Prius a D, and almost every other car an F-.

5 l/100km steps (318 gal, even greater step size than the two steps used 125 gal and 250 gal)

Fuel economy (mpg / L/100km)
Rating	mpg	L/(100 km)	City
A+	>47	<5	-
A	24 - 47	5 - 9	Highway
B	16 - 23	10 - 14	-
C	12 - 16	15 - 19	Combined
D	12 - 15	20 - 25	30 / 7.8
E	10 - 11	25 - 29	Combined rating
F	7 - 9	30 - 34	A
F-	<7	>34

And almost every car gets an A or B.

This one works much better: Narnia205 (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Fuel economy (mpg / L/100km)
Rating	mpg	L/(100 km)	City
A+	>120	<2	-
A	61 - 120	2 - 3.8	Highway
B	41 - 60	3.9 - 5.7	-
C	31 - 40	5.8 - 7.7	Combined
D	21 - 30	7.8 - 11.2	30 / 7.8
E	16 - 20	11.3 - 14.7	Combined rating
F	13 - 15	14.8 - 18	D
F-	<13	>18

• Delete - Wikipedia is not here to compare vehicles by rating them. This is an encyclopedia, the intent is to contain facts, not pretend we're Motor Trend. --Sable232 (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  And I thought we were better than Motor Trend. So you are saying we can present data but can't make it useful? Wouldn't you want to know if your car had better or worse fuel economy than average? I guess I'll just rename it the "Motor Trend Fuel Economy Rating". Narnia205 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Define "average?" "Average" compared to what? It appears you consider "average" to be 35 MPG. So a truck will always be below average. A car from the '70s will be below average regardless of how it performed compared to other cars of the era. There are too many variables to do what you're suggesting. --Sable232 (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. per my response to Narnia205. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SYN. Ratings are expressions of opinion. Opinions have to come from reliable sources just like facts do. As just one example of the difficulty, Ratings like "A" and "F" have connotations of excellence and failure. They represent more than a simple order of letters. Judgments like "excellence" or "failure" need to reflect the opinion of someone whose opinion is respected in the field (a reliable source for opinion). They can't simply come from an editor. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:In-religion-universe

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. use {{technical}} instead. Happy‑melon 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:In-religion-universe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Companion nomination to Template:BibleAsFact, but being done as a separate nomination as editors may think the issues different. Whatever one might think of the wording of the template, the name of the template itself, which is an analogy to the Template:in-universe used for fiction and was created after Template:in-universe was removed from religion articles, presents an editorial POV of religion as fiction that is contentious and inappropriate for a maintenance tag. --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete because it is an open and shut case of a violation of Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles and it also violates WP:NPOV policies since Wikipedia is neither pro nor anti religion or any subject really, it is NEUTRAL. It's actually funny because most of the world's people are part of religions established for millenia while the secular world is something very new and putting the billions of readers who are part of religions on the spot actually violates WP:CIVIL and even WP:NPA. It would look very funny if articles about scientific theories would carry the request that they are not understood without more context from a religious perspective. IZAK (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete because its name and content violate WP:NPOV. It possibly encourages uncritical "flyby" editing of pages on a religious theme. It is non-specific, rolling together issues of accessibility and general style. Instead, use more specific, NPOV templates requesting required changes if appropriate, e.g. {{Technical}} {{Inappropriate tone}}. --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There doesn't seem to be any need the template serves that {{Technical}} and {{Context}} don't fill, and if the issue is that articles are perceived as too specialized, a neutral template that says this simply and directly, would be best. There's simply no need to create special, potentially contentious templates when neutral, general, well-accepted ones completely address the issue. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NDA --rogerd (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. per IZAK. I don't see how can this be useful. Religion is not something as obscure as, say, Dungeons and Dragons universe. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional character-related deletion discussions. --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Rename and Rewrite -- AS currently written the template is judgemental and expressing a POV in respect of the article. AS such it ought to be deleted. However, I suspect that this template does exist to deal with a real problem - that an article will be understood by the adherents of a particular religion, but not by outsiders. {{Technical}} probably raises this issue in other contexts, but is inappropriate to the kind of article to which a template of this sort might be applied. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe this problem is common to all subjects involving specialized knowledge, and I'm not sure I understand what makes religion different from anything else. There'll be a gap between people who majored in Physics and those who didn't, between people who've read the Silmarillion and those who haven't, and so forth. Those most familiar with a subject tend to be the most interested and involved, in any field. Technical specialists, whether in Talmudic concepts or physics particles, often don't have good command of English. Our reliable sources policy encourages peer reviewed sources, and these tend to be written for specialists, inaccessible and full of jargon. Religion sources are no different. They often assume familiarity with classical languages, theological jargon, etc. The problem exists across Wikipedia. We can try to define and explain the specialists' jargon to outsiders as best we can. But ultimately the concepts and jargon used by the field's insiders, the specialists who write the reliable sources, are the ones that define the field, and we're stuck with them. I don't believe treating religion differently, or confusing this issue with any debate about the validity of religion, would serve Wikipedia. The problem with the template is that "in-universe" doesn't just mean inaccessible language, it conveys the idea that the insiders aren't living in the real world. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BibleAsFact

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. While I fully agree with the sentiment of not treating the Bible as an authoritative historical source but rather as primary evidence, the title and sometime content of this template are POV and offensive to some. The new template {{Bible-Primary}} is much more neutral and should be used instead; we can do without the divisive history of this template. Happy‑melon 19:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:BibleAsFact (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template was created by a user who objects to Wikipedia religion editors' longstanding policy of neutrality as to whether or not various narratives in the Bible are true and has taken an ultra-minimalist position, insisting that Biblical narratives such as the existence of Solomon's Temple be characterized as "fiction". Even archaeologists such as Israel Finkelstein, perhaps the most notable advocate of the minimalist school critical of the factual accuracy of many Biblical narratives, have not taken a position as strong as assuming that everything the Bible says about history should be presumed false, as this editor has. This template incorporating this extreme position, created and wielded without discussion, runs counter to religion editors' considered consensus. With the possible exception of certain portions of Genesis, consensus has been to report Biblical narratives describing the ancient monarchies and the like with neutrality as to their factual accuracy, and then give various perspectives including both theologians and historians/archaeologists. — Shirahadasha (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Used for POV pushing and when incapable of actually writing relevant content. JFW | T@lk 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The point is that all too often on Wikipedia biblical content is presented as fact without any real extra-biblical perspectives. If the accuracy of the biblical narrative cannot be supported with references to evidence (such as excavations or textual sources from the respective time period) there is no reason to present religious/ideological content as factual. The neutrality of almost all articles about biblical stories is in fact nonexistent and represents only the POV of believers (or religious groups) or simply rephrases the biblical text, so a template like the one at issue is definitely necessary. As for Solomon's Temple: all there is is the biblical text. Neither any inscription, nor text from the 10th century BCE, nor a single stone exist to confirm the biblical tale in any aspect. And as long as that is so, the biblical account has no more reality to it than, say, the Silmarillion. Cush (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you address the specific question of what is wrong with {{NPOV}}? And could you address my point that a template is not a replacement for actually writing the content that is deemed by you to be lacking? And will you accept that you can't prove a negative? JFW | T@lk 06:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per JFW - this is obviously being used to push a certain agenda; besides, I strongly feel Wikipedia should always go way out of its way to obey the "prime directive" - of strictly observing what various peoples actually do believe, but NEVER trying to influence or change what various peoples actually do believe. This is a good formula for ensuring this project remains NPOV, and is not hijacked by the many groups that do want to do this, in one direction or another... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there are far too many articles - eg Kingdom of Judah - where what the Bible says is presented uncritically as historical fact, rather than belief. Where no attempt is made to distinguish what has support from outside the Bible from what may be contested; and where no attempt is made to present the opinions of non Biblically-driven academics. That is the policy compliance issue that this template flags. Jheald (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Cush's comments. Why is it when someone wants an article to be balanced someone else claims they have an "agenda"? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • See {{NPOV}} JFW | T@lk 06:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete if the minimalist scholars aren't so hardline on this issue, then the template and position are OR. Cush is arguing at Israelites that there never were any Israelites. He has a strong position that he is pushing without providing academic sources which back him up. NJGW (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What do you want? Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. How academic could that position possibly be elaborated on? If there were indeed Israelites as the Bible/Tanakh depicts them (which is what the article reflects) then it should not be so hard for you to present an academically sound net of evidence, should it? I am not arguing that there were no Israelites at all, I am arguing that there is no evidence confirming the biblical narrative about them. No artifacts, no texts, no buildings. So don't tell me the article is keeping any form of neutrality. Cush (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I said the template was OR. Do you have evidence which contradicts this? You might want to read wp:or before you answer. NJGW (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
      • How can a template that asks for reliable sources be OR ? Cush (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I had previously objected to the use of Template:in-universe, which refers explicitly to fiction, being inserted into articles on these topics. A template called Template:in-religion-universe was constructed and used on that article to instruct that it should not be presented as if it were possible fact. Israel Finkelstein argued the Israelites flourished as a civilization centuries later than the traditional accounts indicated, but he didn't say they never existed. The fact that the name of this template is based on the one used for fiction, and its insertion in a article like Israelites, suggests serious WP:NPOV issues. Maintenance tags like this are not the way to make these kinds of arguments. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, but right now the Israelites article exclusively reflects Jewish and Christian tradition, i.e. POV, mainly because of lack of extra-biblical sources. All I ask for is reliable extra-biblical sources that confirm the biblical account. So far you have failed to provide or reference any evidence. And when I read an Wikipedia articel I afterwards want to know about the issue, and not just believe what the bible claims. If you cannot establish a real connection between the biblical accounts and hard evidence (preferably excavation findings), then you cannot present the biblical narrative, which is always religiously interprteted history at best, as fact. And there is also a difference between claims of the Israelites' existence (in whatever chronological setting) and the details given in the Bible/Tanakh. Biblical Israelites come with social, political, cultural/religious circumstances that simply are without any archeological or historical confirmation. Hence the Template is justified. And btw, the agenda is rather found in the "believers" among editors who try to present their teachings as reality. Wikipedia must strictly separate history from religion. Cush (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the many good reasons elucidated above. There's little I can say to improve on those. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Ugh. I hate POV-pushing templates. - Merzbow (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I hate POV, or minority-perspecive pushing articles. And I hate religious interpretations inside an article that is supposed to be about real history. Cush (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete PoV pushing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for all the reasons explained above. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep BUT! Watch where it is used. On the Solomon's Temple article where it is used, there are sections on the Temple's archaeology, and each section that is based on the Bible usually begins with some phrase as "According to the Bible..." And where else exactly would this template be used? An article like Abishag is always going to "present biblical accounts as fact without referring to archeological or historical sources that confirm the assertions of the narrative." Do you put the template there? Never to be taken down? But there could be a place where this template might be necessary. If the Solomon's Temple article, for instance, had nothing about the archaeology of the site, and didn't use the phrase "According to the Bible..." anywhere, then slap it up. See my new comments below. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Will you accept that {{NPOV}}, with a clear explanation on the talkpage, is just as good? JFW | T@lk 06:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above arguments, and per the fact Template:NPOV can be used in its place. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - it doesn't need a template of its own. Where there are imbalances in the prose, employ attribution. If areas do need to be flagged, then I don't really see any inadequacy in the current selection of templates available. ITAQALLAH 02:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I would object to the deletion, but luckily the template is not being used very much, so no big deal. --Simpsons fan 66 04:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It has the potential of being used to advance a POV. Some users seem keen to use it when they feel like it. JFW | T@lk 06:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I think we can assume that our readers have at least minimal intelligence and can understand that a biblical account is different from archaeological evidence without being smacked in the face with the fact at the top of an article. It's hard to believe that anyone could look at an article like Abishag and think that it implies that archaeological evidence exists when none is mentioned. The template seems like a WP:POINTy thing to put in an article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It serves a very useful purpose in alerting readers to articles that use simple reference "According the Bible" as authoritative. It quickly identifies the nature of a common dispute. In the article mentioned above, the template is more than justified. The template could be reworded, though. You have to be careful that it isn't used to discount or delete relevant biblical accounts and references. That would be POV pushing. That's not the case here, though. --soulscanner (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "According to the Bible" is authoritative for the content of the Bible. The point of the template is that according to some archaeologists, the Biblical narrative cannot be confirmed from the archaeological record, and that every article on the Bible should somehow contain the warning that "please remember that the Bible was written by a bunch of bearded folk in 5th Century BCE Babylonia and therefore cannot be historical". JFW | T@lk 06:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    • "According to the Bible" does mean what exactly? After all, the basic claim of the Bible is that its content is real history. If people believe that the God of the Bible is real, they also believe that the history in it is accurate. "According to the Bible" is definitely not enough to make clear that a particular biblical issue may be made up or may not reflect actual historical settings and circumstances. Cush (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • But of course, it Wikipedia can't present this as fact. It can only present archaeologists views that it may not represent real history. Archaeologists views may or not represent real hisory either. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I think everyone agrees that articles that simply paraphrase dubious sources are a bad thing. This applies to many ancient or mediaeval sources besides the Bible – one editor wrote a large number of articles based on Boccaccio's On Famous Women. But we shouldn't fix these articles by insisting on "archeological or historical sources", since an editor's judgement about whether a given source is "historical" or needs external confirmation can only be original research. We should be insisting on references to reliable modern scholarship, for which Template:Primarysources is adequate. EALacey (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename. The reworded template addresses my main objections – the template is no longer asserting that the Bible is not "historical" or encouraging editors to make original comparisons with other ancient evidence. I'm still not sure that Template:Primarysources couldn't do the same job, but if some editors think this template would be useful, I've no objection to keeping it. But it needs to be renamed to, say, Template:Bible-as-source. EALacey (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- this is crazy. Having outside references is fine, but when you're talking about the Israelites in the context of the Exodus, the Torah should be the prime reference. This template only serves to push a POV. We are observers, not deciders. Sometimes we forget that. L'Aquatique[talk] 07:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • But we are not just talking about the Israelites in the context of the Exodus, we are talking about at least 600 years of Levantine history. The Bible is POV, so what about the neutrality of articles about Levantine history that include biblical accounts? Cush (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see that the BibleAsFact template as well as the in-religion-universe template have been flagged for deletion. Why? Does Wikipedia leave the field now to Evangelicals and all the others who seek to present the Bible as factual history? What is really going on here? Cush (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Because they push a point of view. What exactly do you see wrong with using the {{NPOV}} template? And please refrain from ad hominem attacks on the delete !voters. L'Aquatique[talk] 08:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - because, unfortunately, I think there are enough articles where this template could be appropriate; in those cases, I think the specific message is useful. Is this template pushing a POV? I don't think so. As per TuckerResearch above, it seems to me that where the source is solely the Bible then clarification "According to the Bible" is needed (as per WP:PRIMARY); and per WP:NPOV articles should be presenting a rounded view of the subject - the presence or not of supporting evidence outwith the Bible will usually be solidly on topic, and something the article should discuss. With regard to Shirahadasha's original nom, I think she misreads the template - the point is not that "the Bible is necessarily false", it is that "the Bible may not necessarily be true". There is a difference. But given that the Bible may not necessarily always reflect history, WP articles should where relevant examine this (and mostly, they do).

Finally, JFW's claim that the template should be deleted because one should simply fix the problem doesn't stand up -- otherwise you could apply that argument to any of the warning templates. It's a useful service to the encycopedia for somebody to be easily able to flag a gap in an article, even if that body themselves either doesn't have the time to fix it, or access to the best sources to fix it, or thinks that some discussion is needed as to the best approach to fixing it. This template is usefully much clearer in identifying the problem than a generic NPOV; it does fill a need; it could be useful. In my view it should be kept. Jheald (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• One change I would however suggest would be to reword the template, to seek "archeological or historical sources that investigate the assertions of the narrative", rather than demanding sources "confirm" it. Jheald (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: since I wrote that, the template has subsequently been re-worded, and is now much better. Jheald (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. --soulscanner (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Re-word: Along the same lines as user Jheald suggested, perhaps "Bible as Fact" is too strenuous a title and the wording a bit contentious. Perhaps the wording could be toned down to say something along the lines of: ::"This article or section on an archaeological site or historical event uses only the Bible as a primary source, without referring to archaeological or historical sources that analyze the assertions of the biblical narrative."

Then something about please add these sources, etc. Still, though, I think the Solomon's Temple article is fine as is, but again, I think that this template might be necessary on some articles.

Opinions? :TuckerResearch (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that Tuckerresearch has already entered one vote to "keep" further up the page; this should not be counted twice! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I had second thoughts about the wording, thus I'm changing my seconf "keep" to "re-word."TuckerResearch (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is a great template for showing people POV text which is pushed as a fact when there are no reliable sources to back it up. --piksi (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Template:POV should be used instead. swaq 16:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment In religion articles, I attempt to make the language say "According to archaeologist X (etc.) ..." in exactly the same way it says "according to the Bible" in a relatively smooth and unobtrusive way, so as not to convey an idea that one should be considered more authoratative than the other. If we are to have a maintenance tag, the tag should not convey the idea that belief in the Bible is wrong. Rather, it should convey the idea that the content involved is not receiving proper attribution. The corresponding Bible passage is essentially always relevant to a Biblical subject, so the issue isn't that the content is incorrect or unauthorative or shouldn't be there. The issue is that it isn't being properly attributed. If an article mixed Biblical and archaelogical sources willy-nilly, the issue would be the same -- content isn't being properly attributed to explain where it comes from. This would be equally true of both kinds of sources. If we had maintenance tags that strictly reflected the real policy issues -- addressing attribution and balance -- there would be no need for contention or the use of maintenance tags to introduce editorial opinions about religion. I wouldn't recommend a special tag for the Bible, I would recommend neutral tags that strictly address the policy issues. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This disclaimer can be adequately made and in fact far better made as text within the article. (The current usage at the top of the Solomon's Temple article, for example, could be completely replaced with a single carefully-worded sentence in the introductory paragraph.) Big, ugly infoboxes at the top of the page are hostile to our readers and damage the credibilty of the project. They should be limited to those few situations where the dispute about the content is so serious that the intrusion upon our readers is justified. Rossami (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

But consider an article like Israelites, where there is extensive archaelogy now known about the early Israelites, living in very small basic hilltop communities from circa 1200 BCE in the uplands between the Judaean hills and Samaria, with over 250 sites now identified and investigated. This is something where a disclaimer is not enough - the article should review the archaeology in detail. This template represents a useful flag that that angle should be added. Jheald (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. There maybe extensive archeology showing that somebody was living in very small basic hilltop communities, but there has been no whatsoever connection established that links these settlements to the biblical Israelites. And that is exactly the problem at issue. Cush (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The lack of pig bones (in complete contrast to settlements elsewhere) would appear to be quite a smoking gun. Even if not a mathematical certainty, most authors accept the connection. Jheald (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell this to Cush, who keep inserting the related "in-universe" template into Isrealites with the assertion that there exists no archaeological evidence for any Isrealites in that era. This is being used specifically for POV pushing. He would have the whole article discussed as if Isrealites are a biblical creation, which I believe is OR as he has not yet provided a source for his claim at the talk page. NJGW (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if I read the talk page right, Cush is saying that there is no evidence for the Israelites as currently described in the article - which is slightly different. That article (imo) currently has real POV problems - for example, casually using the Talmudic date of 423 BCE for the sack of Jerusalem in the lead, when even the most Orthodox accept the secular estimate of 587 BCE, because you can't just make 150 years of well attested Greek, Persian, and Egyptian history vanish into thin air on the basis of a questionable interpretation of a single verse in the book of Daniel. But that's unfortunately typical of the article all the way through, and why a template like this one would indeed be performing a useful role. Jheald (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete because it is an open and shut case of a violation of Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles and it also violates WP:NPOV policies since Wikipedia is neither pro nor anti the Bible or any subject really, it is NEUTRAL. It's actually funny because the Bible is the world's oldest and most widely relied-upon book (the word "Bible" means "book" in Greek) and it would look very funny if articles about scientific theories would carry the proviso that they are not reliable unless sourced by the Bible. Anyhow, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 29#Template:NotJudaism when "Template:NotJudaism" was deleted on the grounds that it was "Inflammatory and divisive" and to be consistent why should this be any different? IZAK (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. This tag flags that a POV is missing from an article. Per WP policy, all POVs should be given WP:DUE weight. So flagging that a particular POV is missing can hardly be an inappropriate POV statement, can it? Jheald (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Then why not simply use {{balance}}, a general, neutrally-worded template that covers exactly this issue? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

One could use {{balance}}. One could then find oneself in a lengthy argument on the talk page as to whether {{balance}} can be used to flag inappropriate scoping of an article; and what is means for a Biblical article to be {{balance}}d. I prefer this template, becasue it's much clearer and more explicit about what is missing from the article that ought to be there. Jheald (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this wouldn't be a good outcome. It seems to me that finding oneself in a discussion on the talk page about what it means for a Biblical article to be balanced would be appropriate and healthy and would mean that things are working as they should. The idea is to help facilitate collaboration and discussion, not to shut it down or trump it. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Most articles that deal with biblical issues are far from being NEUTRAL. A tag like the one I have proposed is not directed against the Bible as a source, it is directed against misusing the Bible as a reliable source without further double-checking on the claims made in the source. Most articles that refer to biblical events or settings present them as historical without making clear that it might be more religious teaching than giving an accurate historical account. They state the Bible as Fact, although that might not be the case. Cush (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If the Bible isn't a reliable source, then WP:V prohibits its content from being in the article at all. If content from the Bible belongs in an article on a Biblical topic, then the Bible is necessarily a reliable source for that relevant content. Reliable doesn't mean "I agree with it" or "I think it's true", it just means that it reliably and factually represents the relevant content, which could be a belief or an opinion. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the article on the History of Jerusalem, which is not a "biblical topic". The first two sections (Antiquity + Kingdom of Judah and Kingdom of Israel) are entirely based on the biblical narrative, as if it were a reliable account that accurately renders history and needs no further confirmation. And we all know that there are many articles that misuse the Tanakh/Bible in that way. That is why Wikipedia needs a temnplate that pinpoints the problem. Cush (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete; violates WP:NPOV by implicitly assuming a-priori that a particular document is not fact, when it does not explicitly present itself as such. On Wikipedia, the bible should be treated the same as any other set of ancient documents, with no presumption of falsehood or veracity. It may encourage uncritical "flyby" editing. Instead use e.g. {{onesource}} or {{primarysources}} where appropriate; these templates encapsulate {{BibleAsFact}}'s ostensible objections in a NPOV way. --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Per NPOV, the Bible accounts should be presented as something that might contain elements of truth, or might not. This template flags that is not being done, and the article is missing discussion of any relevant archaeological data. That is not pushing an inappropriate POV, it is flagging that the article is failing NPOV.

Regarding {{primarysources}}. I recently saw this splashed all across the article Moses - with the result that the editors thought they needed to cite "parashah-of-the-week" articles to give a "secondary" source. Not helpful. The advantage of this template is it a lot more transparent and specific as to what problem is being flagged. Jheald (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete POV and per WP:NDA --rogerd (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. It's not inappropriate POV to point out an article is failing NPOV. Regarding WP:NDA, there's a difference between a disclaimer and a tag. A disclaimer says: "the article is meant to be like this, so take your chances; it isn't broken, we won't be fixing it". On the other hand, this tag says "the article is broken. It does need fixing". Jheald (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you and Cush intend to rebut every delete vote? This is not necessary. We are entitled to our opinion. --rogerd (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but this is not a vote. -- Jheald (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was. Your attempt to rebut and devalue everyone who disagrees with you is really uncalled for. Other people can hold other points of view that are valid. This is also not a debating society. --rogerd (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know if the Templace should be kept or not. But I think it is important to point out that an article should not use "primary sources" for other purposes than illustration. We should only use wp:rs secondary sources from scholars to write articles. Indeed, we are not assumed (as anonymous editors) to be able to distinguish the "reliable" from the "non reliable" in primary sources. But they are objective criteria to decide if a secondary source is reliable such as the publication in an academic review, the peer-reviewing, the education (PhD - Prof) of the author, ... There are some exceptions : such as for an article concerning a book or a document where the book or the document can be used. But even in that case, some care should be taken. (We could summarize a book in such a way that it would be a wp:or). Ceedjee (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this is that WP:NPOV requires including non-academic points of view where significant, which is particularly likely to be the case when the article is relevant to the subject of religion. Academic publications are prime examples of reliable sources, but they are not exclusive. No-one is suggesting using the Bible to represent archeology, but an interpretation of WP:RS that would go so far as to exclude the Bible from a Biblical topic as an "unreliable source" would be bending too far the other way. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-academic points of view should be added when relevant. But only from secondary sources that can be considered as wp:rs to sustain these analysis and not from primary sources, whather their importance for these people.

In this case, religious book (Bible, Torah, Talmud, Quran) should be avoided and only secondary sources should be used (Pope, Important Rabbi or main Sheikh, philosoph of the religions, ...) Ceedjee (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - it's a cleanup template which outlines a problem with the article, and we all know that many articles have the problem described in this template. Even if the template is deleted though, I think it should redirect to the 'requires additional citations for verification' template. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Per my view of Template:In-religion-universe. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. For various reasons, including adequacy of Balance and NPOV tags. Also, this template strikes me as a bit tendentious itself, so it's not a good candidate for promoting neutrality. It's also vague -- sure, the Bible should not be used for certain kinds of facts, but the Bible is perfectly acceptable as a source of numerous other facts. For instance, facts about the Biblical narratives and characters, facts about the relation of Biblical law and Mesopotamian law, facts about Biblical Hebrew/Aramaic (grammar, etc), facts about Biblical books myths parables aphorisms verses poetry genealogies, etc. The Bible is a fact, a big fact in Western civilization, so the template could tendentiously yet (technically) correctly used to tag many articles where the Bible is employed correctly as a source of fact. Let's not encourage editors to use a template to make a POINT, when existing templates will enable them to express their concerns in a more constructive and collaborative manner. Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 02:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Use {{NPOV}}, and commenting on talk page, this template is POV pushing. Epson291 (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an important style issue which should be addressed where applicable. Also (without knowledge of this template) I just created {{Bible-in-universe}}, which is similar and deals with the same issue. I think each has positive points, and a merge would be beneficial. --Eliyak T·C 17:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The very name of that template is inflammatory and divisive, as well as original research, since there is no external source anywhere using the neologism "in universe" with relation to the Bible, and the definition used by proponents of this neologism refers to "a work of fiction". I suggest deleting it as well, since there is no need for more POV templates that are inflammatory and divisive. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are not helpful. How might the problem be fixed? --Eliyak T·C 18:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The big "problem" that I see, is creation of a template that seeks to apply the MOS fiction guideline to the Bible. And the way to fix it, is to delete the offensive template. I realize this solution is probably not "helpful" to what you are trying to do, but it is "helpful" to the NPOV policy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that articles sometimes treat Biblical narrative as undisputed fact. These articles need to clearly define that the Biblical events are not universally accepted. For example, stating "the fame of the Lord was greatly increased by Solomon's actions" would not be NPOV, since the existence of God is not universally accepted, nor that His fame was increased by Solomon's actions. A better sentence would be, "Solomon's actions are characterized as 'greatly increasing the fame of the Lord'(BB.1:2)," or something along those lines. This problem is not going to be clearly communicated by a simple NPOV tag, so a more specific tag is needed. --Eliyak T·C 19:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• After perusing the discussion here, I would like to also suggest a rename to {{POV-Bible}}. For comparison, see also {{USgovtPOV}}. --Eliyak T·C 18:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This template is provocative and tendentious by definition. I can see no other use for such a template but to comfort and console the atheist at the expense of the religious. If the situation would be in reverse I would be against it too, as it's equally wrong to placate any of them. Besides violating many of Wikipedia's rules as mentioned above, it serves no purpose other then to invite tendentious editing. If POV is the problem then that can be rectified with a simple edit telling the reader that the source for that particular information is the Bible.

Also there are many facts which are backed up by artifacts, or ancient historians, and a blanket statement proclaiming a given paragraph, let alone an entire article as only stemming from the Bible is major misleading. Wikpipedia has solutions and that is to reference every fact with either stemming from the Bible or from archeology or from other sources. Again a template only infuriates editors, and more importantly; if it ain't broke why fix/break it? Fiddler7 (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have created a TfD for the just-created Template:Bible-in-universe which appears to combine features of the two templates up for TfD in this series, Template:in-religion-universe and this one. Editors are requested to please not create any other new templates that are similar to the ones under discussion pending outcome of the current TfD discussions. Please be willing to work within Wikipedia's procedures and processes, and give the community an opportunity to reach a decision before doing anything further. Thank you. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and re-word as per Jheald & TuckerResearch. This a maintenance tag just like any other. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 06:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional character-related deletion discussions. --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- In dealing with the history of Israel and Judah and related subjects, it is perfectly legitimate to treat the Bible as an historcal document, and to cite it in exactly the same way as (for example Herodotus or Xenephon. This is an issue of historical sources, not of religious belief. The use of certain other Biblical books (and in particular Genesis) may presetn greater difficulty, but the present use of this template seems to depend on the assumption that the historical books of the Bible are fundamentally historcially unreliable. If that view is taken of much less well preserved sources on ancient history, we must conclude that we can known nothing at all of remote periods. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - We should not spend time to see which user has an agenda here the keepers or the deleters. (like the nominator of this deletion of this template accuses the creator of it.) One basic thing we do know: Saying that the facts that are rooted in the bible is a POV may be true but its deeply ofending to some so instead of useing a NPOV template lets use this new balancing template. After all the bible does indeed serve, and has served as a factual history book for billions and billions of the multitudes, who r we to say it is NPOV? As a contributor to the Yiddish and Hebrew wikis: which r blessed with huge amounts of valuable fundamental and fervently religious Orthedox Jewish contributors, i can see religious editors just as meticulous and professional in their writing as secularists, and we should not ridicule their hard work as NPOV just because most of their knowledge is deeply rooted in the bible. This template does a beautiful peaceful solution to a very deep problem conflicting the secularists with the faithful. I say keep it, and perhaps better the wording it should be more respectful to the bible.--YY (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment The wording of the template has changed substantially since this TfD began. I believe the name is still a problem, because it connotes the template's original purpose and wording. If we could change the name of the template to a more neutral name we might be getting somewhere, we'd have a completely different template from the original one. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Answer And the credit to both of u, the creator of the template ,and the creator of this TFD. Because the way it was until now was unrespectfull to the bible in more Chutspe'dige way, we cannot tag a NPOV label on a factual hard worked article, simply because it is heavily based in the bible. This template the way its going will serve a blessing to balance out the religious subjects to the best standers possible, Thanks so much for your hard work it is appreciated.--YY (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In its present incarnation the template is a tweaked version of template:primarysources. Agree this approach is definitely an improvement. I'm still not sure the template is needed, but I agree this plus a rename would address the basic objection. If it is kept, suggest a rename to something like {{Bibleasprimarysource}} or {{Bible-primary}}. I would also suggest a small change to the template wording by changing "Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable sources" to "Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources". The latter manages to request what is wanted but completely avoids implying anything at all about whether or not the Bible is reliable. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would you want to avoid that? This is an encyclopedia, not a religionist camp. Facts count, not stories. Cush (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. The intent behind this proposed change is to make the template more matter-of-factual and less campy. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How should Wikipedia articles be marked if they describe contents of the biblical narrative, as opposed to history? E.g. there is an article about Exodus (the book of the Bible) and there is one about The Exodus (the departure of "Israelites" from Egypt). Is that latter article just an extension of the first or is it supposed to describe a historical event? And how could that be made clear in the article? Cush (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the wording insufficient. Since this is a template to be used in articles about history, it is not enough if the referenced secondary sources just analyze the biblical narrative (e.g. for its literary value), because they should in fact evaluate the narrative in the historical context. Cush (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the current wording is a compromise effort has gotten some measure of grudging acceptance, if not support, from people in both camps. But if it is not acceptable and an acceptable compromise is not possible, we could always continue the keep-or-delete discussion. A template reflecting a position that the Biblical narrative is completely irrelevant to a serious article on a topic like The Exodus, or is only literature or "opposed" to history (as distinct from being disputed, inconsistent with other evidence and arguments, and possibly wrong) would appear to be unacceptable to most participants in the discussion. Many of the Keep votes have supported various changes in the wording to avoid such a position. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the point of the template is to seek secondary sources that analyze the reliablity of the Biblical narrative, and the template could be amended (again) to add those words. Per a comment above, if it were to be renamed, IMO a better renaming would be {{Bible-POV}} rather than {{Bible-Primary}}. Jheald (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Reliability of the biblical narrative is the core of the issue when an article seeks to present real history. And reliability can only be determined through other sources (preferably from the respective time period the narrative deals with) that confirm the contents of the narrative. Right? That is all I am asking for: a way to make sure that the biblical stuff has not been made up by fanatics of later times. Cush (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No. There's no magic bullet for determining reliability. We don't know for sure that one set of information is wrong and another right. You've argued on various article talk pages that the authors of the Bible invented a history to reflect a certain point of view and that (for example) Assyrian sources interpreted as disagreeing with the narrative prove it is wrong. But Assyrian writers could have also invented a history to reflect a certain point of view for political reasons. When two sources of information disagree, we can't be certain that one is right and one is wrong. In the dispute between Israel Finkelstein and Eilat Mazar regarding the historical plausibility of the existence of the early Biblical kings, you wrote your views as to why Mazar is wrong into the Solomon's Temple article. But we can't be certain that Finkelstein is right and Mazar is wrong. WP:NPOV doesn't favor the kind of certitude about who is right and who is wrong in disputes that you seem to be proposing. Your references to people you disagree with as fanatics etc. suggest that your evaluations may not always be entirely disinterested. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The aim is accuracy. If two sources disagree then search for another reliable source that confirms either of the two. That is the way to get closer to accuracy, although a degree of uncertainty may always remain. And the problem with religious sources is that they simply cannot be trusted, especially not in the abrahamic religions. After all, the writers of the Bible/Tanakh were not historians or archeologists but people who wanted to spread a faith, and they really didn't care for historical accuracy, otherwise more details about political settings (e.g. pharohs' names) would have been given. Cush (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I can think of articles in which a {{Bible-Primary}} would be much more useful than a {{Bible-POV}}. Look at Murder in the Bible, for example, which describes Torah laws on murder without any analysis. The problem there isn't that the laws are "unreliable" (what would that even mean?), but that the article isn't using secondary sources. Even in articles that are dealing purely with narrative history, the primary sources policy requires us to rely on secondary sources and not sources "from the respective time period the narrative deals with". And if (some) modern scholars do consider that the Bible provides sufficient evidence for a given historical proposition, Wikipedia should represent that viewpoint and not raise the issue of (the lack of) ancient non-Biblical confirmation except where secondary sources do so. EALacey (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I strongly oppose {{Bible-POV}}. For one thing, the "Bible" doesn't have a viewpoint, people have viewpoints. There's no agreed upon set of people to whom we can attribute the Bible's POV. However, the Bible is a primary source and WP policy does give significant weight to the use of secondary sources, esp for interpreting primary sources like the Bible. So I would consider {{Bible-Primary}} as plausible, though perhaps unnecessary, and should not be used indiscriminately. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is going to decide when it's used indiscriminately? I think it will only invite perpetual fighting pro & con. Why not tag sentences with the tags we already have? Can anyone give a good argument that there is a need for a new template altogether? Fiddler7 (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there is a good argument: a lot of articles about ancient history are soaked with religious claims. An "alternative" judeochristian history, so to say. No facts, just faith. Do you really want that in an encyclopedia? And the tags you already have obviously do not work. Cush (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If not for religion we would know almost nothing about ancient history. Luckily religious books are soaked with ancient history and when artifacts are found; they are only understood using ancient religious textbooks. Every artifact found, adds another piece to the puzzle, the frame which is usually put together from ancient religious books. If not for American Indian religions almost nothing would be known of them beyond a few hundred years, and I don't see people getting excited and would like to tag all those articles as soaked with religious claims. Many atheist historians do not consider every word in the Bible as just faith, no facts. When the Bible talks about the ancient kingdoms, they actually existed. I haven't seen anyone questioning the ancient Egyptian, Hittite, Acadian, Assyrian & Babylonian kingdoms, so why should we question the names of its kings mentioned in the Bible? I say that the tags we have are more then sufficient to tag questionable facts and a template has only one purpose of saying that: "the article is soaked with religious claims, no facts, just faith" which is just plain wrong.

Our knowledge of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Greece, etc does not come out of religion. Only the "knowledge" of the southern Levant between, say, 1800 and 800 BCE comes exclusively from religion. But in reality King David is no more a historical figure than King Arthur. There are a few artifacts bearing names of biblical kings (e.g. Jeroboam 2), but there are no sources confirming their policies or even beliefs as the Bible narrates it. There is no trace of an Exodus in the currently held chronology assigned to it, there has been no Conquest but a strange gradual settlement, apparently no interaction with other Levantine political entities. What am I supposed to make of all this cumulative lack of evidence? The point is: if you have no evidence and only a biblical claim then unambiguously mark it as such in an article, or leave it out. Cush (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying, if there is no evidence and it's only a biblical claim then unambiguously mark it as such, but absolutely don't leave it out. Take for example the 42 stops the Bible gives for the trek the Jews took from Egypt into the Land of Israel/Canaan. The Bible critics poked their fingers saying that ha! those places never existed. Lo & behold, two inscriptions were found written in hieroglyphics giving us exactly those names. Such stories and findings keep happening over & over. So are you suggesting that we leave out ALL information not verified outside the Bible until we find proof? I, as an expert in ancient coins and quite knowledgable in ancient artifacts, say, no; give me all information that exists, and tell me where you got it from, but I don't want to wait until the evidence is found. Fiddler7 (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a pile for pieces of information. Yes, I am indeed suggesting that we leave out ALL information not verified outside the Bible until we find evidence. And please do not use Jews synonymously to Israelites. Cush (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you on that, and Wikipedia has no such rules, hence never had such a template. I guess the template creation is the first step in making Wikipedia Bible-rein. I think you need to first ask for a change in Wikipedia policy before we argue away over nothing.

I would like to make an argument why even if you consider the Bible man-made, the historical information it contains should be accepted as fact. That is because if men sat down to write the Bible, don't you think that they would meticulously study any historical information they would write? They would be even more concerned then an ordinary writer to be correct & precise, because if a historical error is found it would question its validity. As a matter of fact I think that most archeologists in Israel are atheist and still they agree with the historical information given in the Bible. Therefore the historical information contained in the Bible should be treated no different then any other ancient source of information, where we have no clue how reliable they are, and what agenda they had.

As to your last request, I most say, sorry; but I cannot please you with that on the talk page, and I'm offended to be asked to defrock myself of my identity. To me, Jews & Israelites are one and the same. Fiddler7 (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the Bible shouldn't be an "all or nothing", there is a middle ground too, and that is to give accepted facts as is, with the references either to the Bible or to another source or both. That information which historians agree is one thing & those they don't is another thing, without lumping the two. Tags, and eventually references will differentiate between the two, but a template will not. Fiddler7 (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The template title and the foregoing discussion are problematic with the preoccupation with "fact" -- somewhat as if Wikipedia should publish the Truth. The Bible in toto is neither True nor False, neither fact nor non-fact. The Bible is a source, reliable for some purposes, and sometimes sufficient for encyclopedic info. If folks want to eliminate the Bible as a source within Wikipedia, then please pursue this as a Sources guideline, not through a template. Thanks. HG | Talk
• Comment Would just like to point out that the No original research policy mentions "religious scriptures" in a list of typical primary source examples. Since the policy is that scriptures should be treated as a primary source, a template that simply tracks standard guidelines about how primary sources should be used is no problem. However, a proposal to "leave out ALL information not verified outside the Bible", goes beyond the WP:PRIMARY policy. I believe one would have to propose new policy language at WP:NOR to change what existing core policy says. Just as a template can't contradict core policy, a guideline can't either. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • reply The problem is how that information is presented. The Bible is no accurate account of history. The authors of the Bible fabricated a god, what makes you think they had a problem with fabricating history as well? Anything about history in the Bible has to be treated with extreme caution, so verification is key before presenting biblical stories as factual. The questions "did it really happen" and "did it happen as it is narrated" are those that need answering, or at least analyzing, in any encyclopedic article dealing with history. Cush (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • You have just perfectly represented what the deletionists oppose here: a philosophy of editing with an anti-Bible agenda. Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view philosophy is to present all notable viewpoints in a descriptive fashion which does not tend to criticize or approve of a particular view. A spate of articles over-critical of the Biblical account would also warrant a clean-up template. If you think that the non-negligible segment that believes in the accuracy of the Bible is insane by reason of religion, Wikipedia's policy, as I understand it, is: tough noogies. --Eliyak T·C 07:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Cush, your statements such as "The authors of the Bible fabricated a god" are your own personal POV, which is highly antagonistic to your fellow editors, and is not beneficial to the project, nor is it convincing even one person of the validity of your POV. It was realized by the great thinkers centuries ago, that it is a human right to make one's own spiritual decisions for oneself as a private matter, and this right today is firmly recognized even in Albania. I would strongly recommend you voluntarily undertake a thorough review of wikipedia's policies regarding making disparaging statements here on the basis of others' faith, race, gender, sex, etc. and keep your non-helpful, inflammatory opinions and biases to yourself. Thank you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. Do not try to pretend that you cannot see how opinionated statements such as yours would be deeply offensive to your fellow editors faith. The problem with your lot is you seem to think the laws of decency here apply to everyone else but you, and that you have a perfect right to be as offensive as you like to others, and rail around with your anti-religious bigotry just like this was your private SOAPbox. That indicates how divorced you are from your own human conscience. You have now openly admitted that your real purpose on wikipedia is only to push your own POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Historical accuracy is no matter of faith or spirituality but of verifiability. If believers have a problem with that, that is theirs. If you were to say in an article that Columbus discovered Australia and source it with your faith or your holy book, what value would that really have? It is the same with most Biblical stories. Without confirmation any event described in the Bible remains the product of a biblical author's revisionist imagination and wishful thinking of history. You can of course write that in an article, but not as accurate history. I am trying to be as objective as I can, but on Wikipedia the religionists seem to have a free ticket to spread whatever they like, even possibly wrong history. The problem with historians today is that they are still rooted in the framework set up in the Napoleonic and Vistorian ages when the purpose of history research was to confirm the biblical stories at all cost, and that is what Middle-Eastern history is unfortunately besed on today. - And please do not talk about my "conscience", because that is simply too drenched with Christian doctrine to take it as a serious comment. You can believe what you want, as long as you do not shove your beliefs down my throat by presenting Biblical tales as factual history. Your faith is of course your private matter, and it would be best to keep it private, so you do not insult others with spreading it via Wikipedia articles and presenting the BibleAsFact. All I want is an account of reality that is as accurate as possible, subsequently I am past religion and its protagonists. Cush (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • • But using the Bible as a primary source for history is violation Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view philosophy. Because religious accounts are not neutral. The Bible exists to push a POV, and if you uncritically use its material, you are pushing that POV as well. And if there is a segment who believes in the accuracy of the Bible they are not any different from anyone believing in the accuracy of the King Arthur Legend. There may be bits and pieces of factual historical circumstances in it, but overall it is just a fantasy made up many centuries after the time it describes. Subsequently Wikipedia needs to present it as such, does it not? Cush (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
        • It's a basic weakness of being human that we often can only see others as having points of view: what we believe ourselves often just seems to be the obvious way things are, pure and free of any bias. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Policy on sources. The main proponent here (Cush) states: But using the Bible as a primary source for history is violation Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view philosophy. Because religious accounts are not neutral. However, this statement show a misunderstanding of WP policy. Wikipedia is written in a neutral manner -- yet we necessarily use a vast range of sources, primary and secondary, that do not happen to be neutral. We describe these sources; we qualify or contextualize as needed, but we still use them. Furthermore, as discussed above, numerous historians do use the Bible as a primary source for ANE history, law, etc. Cush claims that the Bible is "just a fantasy" but few historians hold such an extreme stance. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of academic histories of Ancient Israel, and there are dozens, relies upon multiple Biblical texts. Thank you. HG | Talk 19:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment I went ahead and created a Template:Bible-Primary which simply tracks standard policy for use of primary sources in articles. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Robby Gordon Motorsports

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete

Template:Robby Gordon Motorsports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a template that links to many other articles, not notable D-Day (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete None of these articles is really directly related to the subject. Template is only used on the main Robby Gordon Motorsports article which already serves as a sufficient nav hub. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I'd simply say this isn't notable at all. If we generate templates for *one Nascar team* then soon we'll start popping up templates for each individual page that doesn't have anything rational to put into the template (subjects which aren't covered in a vast amount of articles). --piksi (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I don't know what I was thinking by creating this template. Doesn't make any sense to me anymore, since it doesn't relate to anything.--User:JakePlummerFan (Chat) 00:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Free energy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete

Template:Free energy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Yet another attempt (after the takeover of Category:Free energy, now renamed and reversed) to combine disparate articles into a single box Alternative energy, Sustainable energy, and Renewable energy are not known as "Free energy", and History of free energy is a redirect.. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Category:Free energy was renamed to Category:Thermodynamic free energy, per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 11#Category:Free energy — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, per above. Template is total nonsense. Johnfos (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep includes topics of free energy. J. D. Redding 12:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense.--OMCV (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see the point. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and lumps conspiracy theories with real energy development topics... pretty POVish. NJGW (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as OR/POV/Novel synthesis/What-Wikipedia-is-not. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Synthesized template, original research, et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer
• Delete Nonsense and too encouraging to add more and more pages for different idiotic made-up pseudotheories, degrades encyclopedic quality and credibility. --piksi (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Pointy. Most of the pages linked in the template have nothing to do with the topic. One is a redirect. The last is a conspiracy theory. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - nonsense, but useful in its own way. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete violates WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to a minority POV. --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think the name of the template (free energy or whatever else) should matter in this discussion. Rather, the editors should look at whether the types of energy listed have anything in common. I personally think they do, but will leave the debate to others. On a side note, if the template is kept (doesn't seem likely at this point), I think it should be converted to a navbox at the bottom of pages. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Delete -- The creator appears not to understand the First Law of Thermodynamics (see Laws of thermodynamics), which can be explained as "You cannot win" and the Second "You cannot even break even". It is not even a scientific minority view it is plain WP:RUBBISH. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The term "free energy" is not commonly used to mean alternative energy or sustainable energy so having this category only adds confusion rather than clarity. Also per nom, OMCV, 10lbHammer... Yilloslime (t) 03:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.