Template talk:Religious text primary

This template was considered for deletion on 2010 December 2. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religious texts (defunct) This template is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts Religion This template is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion

This template grew out of the AfD discusson of the Bible As Fact template.

Minor suggestion -- might want to replace "biblical narrative" with "Biblical text." Note that Bible contains more than narrative literary forms. HG | Talk 18:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a more general Template:Religious text primary that can be used for more religions.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 07:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the new wording is superior, but this should have been edited and moved, rather than forking it. Do you mind tagging your new version with {{db-t3}}, editing this version to match your text, and moving it across once the new template has been deleted? This preserves the template's edit history. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a broader consensus to change this template from being specifically for the Bible to being for any religious text?  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 09:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentiment is exactly the same, so I wouldn't think so. It's simplicity itself to set up a switch which reverts back to saying "the Bible" if required though, once the templates are merged. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tagged.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 10:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a copy of my new text is in my sandbox.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 10:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the purpose of this template was to especially tag those articles about ancient levantine history that are infested with religionist POV. the term "Bible" in it mainly refers to the Tanakh/OldTestament because it is the source of quite some misinformation about ancient history. other "holy books" are not as bad when it comes to messing up archaelogical and historical research. Cush (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the basis sentiment is exactly the same. As I pointed out above, it's trivial to add a Bible-specific switch, not that I see a particular point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

maybe that was the purpose, maybe not. either way, only about a quarter of the places the template is used now are historical articles. most of the articles it's used in now are biblical topics.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 05:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the problem. This template (originally "Bible as fact") was not created to hint at problems with internal interpretations of the bible, but to flag articles that present biblical content as real history without referring to serious historical and archaelogical research. It was designed to force editors to either post references to publications of evidence or shut up. The text of the template has become too vague IMO. Cush (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which revision are you comparing it to? The only change in the wording was the use of the term "religious texts" instead of "the Bible". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any proof that the template was created because of the reason you give? does it make any difference whether that was the reason? secondary sources are always needed and original research is always not allowed. why should historical articles be different than articles about biblical interpretations?  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no "proof", but since it was me who created the first template version, I guess I know what its initial pupose was... Cush (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DONE. Template has been moved and changed.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 15:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have come here because I have seen this template being used on Daniel 8. Judging by the discussion above, I can see that most people see the template as a way to curtail original research based on primary sources. However, the sections labelled don't have any OR that I have noticed. They describe the contents of Daniel 8, something which is specifically allowed under WP:PSTS. Am I missing something?

Obviously if the whole article was like that, it wouldn't be much of an article and it would fail the WP:GNG. But having two sections on the contents of Daniel 8 seems reasonable. I think adding more information from secondary sources would definitely help this article - but that is about the article as a whole, not just the sections tagged.

Please inform me if there is something I am missing. If not then perhaps the wording needs to be changed or guidance provided so that it is clear that the tag is not meant for the sort of situation described.

Yaris678 (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC is underway that could affect this template and may therefor be of interest to watchers of this page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding Twinkle maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all. I've been working on the large number of articles in Category:All articles lacking sources, most of which are put there by the {{unreferenced}} template. However, a few of them I've come across instead have this template. In most cases the page has several references, just some of which are religious texts (examples: 1, 2). Normally if an editor adds a reference or two, they might remove the page from Category:All articles lacking sources. However, in this case if an editor adds a few references but hasn't replaced all citations to religious text, we're left in the weird situation where they shouldn't remove this tag, but the article no longer lacks sources. So would anyone object to this template no longer adding articles to Category:All articles lacking sources? Thanks all and happy editing. Ajpolino (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Went ahead and did it. It now categorizes into Category:All articles lacking reliable references. Feel free to revert or discuss if you disagree. Cheers! Ajpolino (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]