![]() | This article was nominated for merging with noble lie on 6 December 2010. The result of the discussion was merge agreed. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pious fiction article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is purely pushing a POV and can serve no other purpose. If you believe these are "pious fictions", that is your point of view. Others have vastly different points of view on this other than yours, as can easily be sourced. Wikipedia presents itself as neutral, and cannot have articles endorsing or pushing your point of view and denigrating others, sorry. This unreferenced third-rate article should be speedy deleted. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 17:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
So it turns out that this isn't restricted to religious narratives, see comments about optimism during the Depression and Islamic law. VernoWhitney ( talk) 18:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll be working on this article for the next couple of weeks, so Ive added a "under construction" tag. If anyone has some suggestions or content that would be helpful, let me know. Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 19:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
This article, as it stands, is little more than a definition of the term and a list of religious texts which some individuals have described as "pious fictions." The definition part of the article could clearly be included in some other article on religious texts, and the list part is possibly/probably going to be, virtually, equal to the list of all religious texts, with the possible inclusion of a few other works as well. Unfortunately, no clear criteria for inclusion, other than "someone called it that", seems to have been established, and, like I already said, it would probably, eventually, be effectively the equivalent of all religious texts, with the possible inclusion of a few scientific and advocacy texts as well.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wiktionary is. The definition would be better placed there.
If, as I suspect, the scope of the list is effectively identical to all religious texts, as well as a few advocacy texts of other types, there is a serious question as to whether a list of works called pious frauds would have any use. A category might have some utility, but even that would be, basically, often pushing a POV (based on the statements of "some" source) and the term is itself probably a word to avoid as per WP:AVOID. The same utility could be achieved by adding the definition of the term to some other directly relevant article, with perhaps a clause indicating that it has been used is some other contexts as well. John Carter ( talk) 18:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It looks like unanimous unopposed support for the merge - I'd say go ahead and merge it now, any time. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 14:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It looks in no way like there is "unanimous unopposed support for" a merge. The discussion began by noting that the "pious fiction" descriptor is a POV. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; nor is it an editorial page. However, if an author would present a reasoned article with scholarly support, it is conceivable that this could be a presentation of an existing movement in the non-religious sphere. But the term "pious fiction" does not belong in an article on sacred texts. A NO vote for merging anything related to the fiction/POV with the sacred texts article. December 3, 2011. Deebeebowing ( talk) 12:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
As a previously uninvolved party who teaches on Plato, I'd prefer that this article be deleted rather than merged. The Platonic concept is specific enough as to be useful on its own, whereas nothing here seems particularly useful as an addition to it. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.176.104 ( talk) 05:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep, not Merge These are two completely different concepts. The Noble Lie was specific to Plato and political as opposed to religious thought and history. This is about a concept within the scope of religion, which is completely different. Those requesting deletion seem to be doing so from a radical POV. Calm down, this article/concept is not to threaten your religious beliefs, it is a notable concept that has nothing to do with 'attempt to "officially" redefine the religious texts of major world religions into the category of "fiction"'. Pious fiction exists completely separate from the question of whether a religion is somehow "false" on its face. For instance, the Donation of Constantine is regarded a pious fiction by people who retain a belief in Christianity, or even Catholicism and the primacy of Rome, because that is probably what it was. This is a concept that needs fleshing out in the article. There are plenty of references to it in historical and religious literature which would meet the criteria for reliable sources, thus establishing notability. So there is no policy reason not to keep this article. Do a little more research, please before freaking out. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 08:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The article used to contain the claim that
which I believe is not true. To the best of my knowledge, the Bahá'í Faith (a) is non-Islamic but (b) considers the Koran to be divinely inspired (though superseded by later revelations to later prophets in much the same way that the Bible was superseded by the Koran). -- pne (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
To my knowledge (likely incorrect), Baha'i'ism is an Islamic faith, alongside Druze, Ahmadi, Koranist, and even Ibadi, Sufi or Shi'a, as various strands of "orthodox" Muslims (i.e. Sunnis of various levels of strictness in interpretation of the Shariah, from Hanafis to Salafis) consider all of the above heretical or apostate in one way or another to a greater or lesser degree (i.e. Ahmadi persecution in Pakistan, Shi'a persecution in KSA), but they all consider themselves Islamic in the sense that (1) Muhammad is considered to be a prophet, and (2) the Koran is considered to have value or be inspired, and (3) they developed as branches from historical Islam. I can see from my writing the first two of my definitions are begging the question, seeing as it boils down to, "If the Koran is viewed favourably, and/or Muhammad accorded the status of a prophet, the religion is Islamic": belief in the Koran becomes the definition of "Islamic". The third, however, seems to hold. I'll have to look up the Bab and Baha'u'llah's views on the matter if they can be found in electronic form. If I can't cite my words (the Islamic-ness of all major religions that have a favourable view of the Koran) I'll leave it as you edited it. JohnChrysostom ( talk) 20:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It is not a POV to suggest that the religious texts of major religions should receive the same object review that scholars give to the literature of minor or fringe religions. All religious, political, and historical accounts should be subject to same scholarly standards. Many scholars tip toe around the major religious out of fear that they will "offend" this group or that group of believers. Citing scientific evidence that shows that some aspect of a religious text is not accurate is not a bias attack against a religion. Editors should not be respecters of religions, politics, or histories. Academics and editors that treat religions differently by giving respect to some and disdain to others are apologists, but not neutral reporters.
Fiction is different from lies. To tell a lie is to knowingly give information that the promoter knows to be false. However, a person who sincerely believes that some work of fiction is true and then promotes that belief is not lying. An author who sincerely believes that his work was inspired by this god or by that god does not believe that he has created a work of pious fiction.
Prsaucer1958 ( talk) 17:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The sacred Hindu texts should also be listed as pious fictions. Prsaucer1958 ( talk) 10:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with noble lie on 6 December 2010. The result of the discussion was merge agreed. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pious fiction article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is purely pushing a POV and can serve no other purpose. If you believe these are "pious fictions", that is your point of view. Others have vastly different points of view on this other than yours, as can easily be sourced. Wikipedia presents itself as neutral, and cannot have articles endorsing or pushing your point of view and denigrating others, sorry. This unreferenced third-rate article should be speedy deleted. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 17:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
So it turns out that this isn't restricted to religious narratives, see comments about optimism during the Depression and Islamic law. VernoWhitney ( talk) 18:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll be working on this article for the next couple of weeks, so Ive added a "under construction" tag. If anyone has some suggestions or content that would be helpful, let me know. Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 19:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
This article, as it stands, is little more than a definition of the term and a list of religious texts which some individuals have described as "pious fictions." The definition part of the article could clearly be included in some other article on religious texts, and the list part is possibly/probably going to be, virtually, equal to the list of all religious texts, with the possible inclusion of a few other works as well. Unfortunately, no clear criteria for inclusion, other than "someone called it that", seems to have been established, and, like I already said, it would probably, eventually, be effectively the equivalent of all religious texts, with the possible inclusion of a few scientific and advocacy texts as well.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wiktionary is. The definition would be better placed there.
If, as I suspect, the scope of the list is effectively identical to all religious texts, as well as a few advocacy texts of other types, there is a serious question as to whether a list of works called pious frauds would have any use. A category might have some utility, but even that would be, basically, often pushing a POV (based on the statements of "some" source) and the term is itself probably a word to avoid as per WP:AVOID. The same utility could be achieved by adding the definition of the term to some other directly relevant article, with perhaps a clause indicating that it has been used is some other contexts as well. John Carter ( talk) 18:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It looks like unanimous unopposed support for the merge - I'd say go ahead and merge it now, any time. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 14:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It looks in no way like there is "unanimous unopposed support for" a merge. The discussion began by noting that the "pious fiction" descriptor is a POV. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; nor is it an editorial page. However, if an author would present a reasoned article with scholarly support, it is conceivable that this could be a presentation of an existing movement in the non-religious sphere. But the term "pious fiction" does not belong in an article on sacred texts. A NO vote for merging anything related to the fiction/POV with the sacred texts article. December 3, 2011. Deebeebowing ( talk) 12:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
As a previously uninvolved party who teaches on Plato, I'd prefer that this article be deleted rather than merged. The Platonic concept is specific enough as to be useful on its own, whereas nothing here seems particularly useful as an addition to it. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.176.104 ( talk) 05:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep, not Merge These are two completely different concepts. The Noble Lie was specific to Plato and political as opposed to religious thought and history. This is about a concept within the scope of religion, which is completely different. Those requesting deletion seem to be doing so from a radical POV. Calm down, this article/concept is not to threaten your religious beliefs, it is a notable concept that has nothing to do with 'attempt to "officially" redefine the religious texts of major world religions into the category of "fiction"'. Pious fiction exists completely separate from the question of whether a religion is somehow "false" on its face. For instance, the Donation of Constantine is regarded a pious fiction by people who retain a belief in Christianity, or even Catholicism and the primacy of Rome, because that is probably what it was. This is a concept that needs fleshing out in the article. There are plenty of references to it in historical and religious literature which would meet the criteria for reliable sources, thus establishing notability. So there is no policy reason not to keep this article. Do a little more research, please before freaking out. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 08:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The article used to contain the claim that
which I believe is not true. To the best of my knowledge, the Bahá'í Faith (a) is non-Islamic but (b) considers the Koran to be divinely inspired (though superseded by later revelations to later prophets in much the same way that the Bible was superseded by the Koran). -- pne (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
To my knowledge (likely incorrect), Baha'i'ism is an Islamic faith, alongside Druze, Ahmadi, Koranist, and even Ibadi, Sufi or Shi'a, as various strands of "orthodox" Muslims (i.e. Sunnis of various levels of strictness in interpretation of the Shariah, from Hanafis to Salafis) consider all of the above heretical or apostate in one way or another to a greater or lesser degree (i.e. Ahmadi persecution in Pakistan, Shi'a persecution in KSA), but they all consider themselves Islamic in the sense that (1) Muhammad is considered to be a prophet, and (2) the Koran is considered to have value or be inspired, and (3) they developed as branches from historical Islam. I can see from my writing the first two of my definitions are begging the question, seeing as it boils down to, "If the Koran is viewed favourably, and/or Muhammad accorded the status of a prophet, the religion is Islamic": belief in the Koran becomes the definition of "Islamic". The third, however, seems to hold. I'll have to look up the Bab and Baha'u'llah's views on the matter if they can be found in electronic form. If I can't cite my words (the Islamic-ness of all major religions that have a favourable view of the Koran) I'll leave it as you edited it. JohnChrysostom ( talk) 20:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It is not a POV to suggest that the religious texts of major religions should receive the same object review that scholars give to the literature of minor or fringe religions. All religious, political, and historical accounts should be subject to same scholarly standards. Many scholars tip toe around the major religious out of fear that they will "offend" this group or that group of believers. Citing scientific evidence that shows that some aspect of a religious text is not accurate is not a bias attack against a religion. Editors should not be respecters of religions, politics, or histories. Academics and editors that treat religions differently by giving respect to some and disdain to others are apologists, but not neutral reporters.
Fiction is different from lies. To tell a lie is to knowingly give information that the promoter knows to be false. However, a person who sincerely believes that some work of fiction is true and then promotes that belief is not lying. An author who sincerely believes that his work was inspired by this god or by that god does not believe that he has created a work of pious fiction.
Prsaucer1958 ( talk) 17:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The sacred Hindu texts should also be listed as pious fictions. Prsaucer1958 ( talk) 10:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)