Top 5 Editing Conflicts in Wikipedia Pages on Religion

This article is part of a Wikipedia Religious UnReliable Sources series.

Editing conflicts on Wikipedia regarding religious articles are common due to the sensitive nature of religion and the diversity of beliefs. The most significant conflicts generally arise from differences in interpretation, presentation, and neutrality. Here are some of the biggest issues:

1. Neutral Point of View (NPOV)

Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy aims to present all information in an unbiased manner. However, religious topics often involve deeply held beliefs, making it difficult for editors to remain neutral. Disagreements appear due to:

• Theological bias: Editors may push specific religious doctrines or interpretations as fact.
• Secular vs. religious framing: Disputes often occur between editors who want a secular presentation and those who feel the article should reflect the spiritual or religious significance of the topic.
• Cultural vs. religious interpretations: Some religions intersect with culture and history, leading to conflicts about whether the content should focus on religious beliefs or cultural traditions.

Emphasis on Bias: Catholic-Protestant Tensions

Bias often surfaces between editors representing Catholic and Protestant views. This can lead to:

• Doctrinal disputes: Topics like the authority of the Pope, the role of saints, and Marian doctrines (e.g., Immaculate Conception, Assumption) are often contentious, with Protestant editors arguing against their significance and Catholic editors defending them.
• Historical framing: Events like the Protestant Reformation, the Crusades, or the Inquisition may be framed differently based on whether editors emphasize a Protestant or Catholic perspective. Protestants might highlight the abuses of the Catholic Church, while Catholics may argue for historical nuance or portray the Catholic Church in a more favorable light.

Case in Point

Located on the Catholic Church Wikipedia talk page, the screenshot below details a recent discussion of the tension between the Roman Catholic Church and other branches of Catholicism. Editor “Valjean” is protesting that the word “Roman” has been removed from the title, arguing that there are other branches of Catholicism, while the Roman Catholic Church says it is the real Catholic Church.

2. Edit Wars and Ownership

Edit wars are frequent in religious articles, as editors revert each other’s changes over disagreements. This often involves:

• Article ownership: Long-term editors of a religious article may resist new edits or perspectives, leading to accusations of article ownership.
• Ideological edit wars: Editors with opposing ideological or theological beliefs may constantly undo each other’s changes, leading to prolonged disputes.

Emphasis on Leadership in Scientology

A Wikipedia editing conflict concerning David Miscavige, the “leader of the Church of Scientology,” typically centers around the portrayal of his role, leadership style, and controversies. These conflicts often involve differing viewpoints on how to present his contributions to Scientology, as well as the criticisms that some people may have. A key area of dispute is Miscavige’s role as ecclesiastical leader.

• Conflict: Scientology supporters emphasize Miscavige’s role as the ecclesiastical leader of the religion, portraying him as a dedicated leader who has led the movement and has stayed true to the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard. They emphasize his role in expanding Scientology influence, overseeing the construction of new Scientology centers and promoting the religion globally.
• Editing conflict: Critics often push the perspective that David Miscavige is the “leader of the Church of Scientology,” an organization. This is contrary to the church websites and literature, which stress he is the leader or ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion itself.

Case in Point

In the discussion on the talk page below, one can see that administrator “Grorp” hinders any changes that refer to David Miscavige as  the “Captain of the Sea Org.” Editor “Djembedrums” argues that references beyond Amy Scobee and Janet Reitman’s book should be considered (e.g., sources from scholar Donald Westbrook). Upon closer examination, there is also an editing conflict concerning the concept of David Miscavige being the leader of the Scientology religion rather than of the Church of Scientology. Editor Bishonen does not agree with the “religion” change, and Djembedrums argues that it is the correct representation of David Miscavige’s position.

3. Reliable Sources

Wikipedia’s Reliable Sources guideline demands verifiable and credible sources. Religious articles often face conflicts over:

• Scripture and religious texts: Editors may debate the use of religious scriptures as reliable sources for historical facts.
• Scholarly vs. non-scholarly sources: Disputes arise when religious adherents prefer religious or spiritual leaders as sources, while others argue for academic or historical accounts.
• Primary vs. secondary sources: Some editors rely heavily on primary religious texts (e.g., the Bible, the Quran), while others argue for secondary, scholarly interpretations.

Emphasis on Sacredness and Censorship in Islam

• Conflict: Some religious traditions prohibit or discourage certain representations of sacred texts or figures, which can lead to conflicts over content. For example, in Islam, there are strong taboos against depictions of the Prophet Muhammad or irreverent treatment of the Quran. Editors from Muslim backgrounds may push to enforce these sensitivities, while others argue for broader freedom to describe or critique these texts.
• Editing conflict: This can lead to disputes over how to represent sensitive religious texts in a respectful but informative way, balancing respect for religious traditions with the open information policies of Wikipedia. Some editors may argue for removing or limiting content that is seen as offensive, while others push for unrestricted discussion of religious texts and figures.

Case in Point

The following talk-page post shows a concerned editor “Sussybaka6000,” who spoke up against the proposed removal of “The final verse of the Quran was revealed on the 18th of the Islamic month of Dhu al-Hijjah in the year 10 A.H., a date that roughly corresponds to February or March 632. The verse was revealed after the Prophet finished delivering his sermon at Ghadir Khumm.” It shows the differing perspective of presenting religious knowledge as fact rather than as a revelation from a supernatural being.

4. Undue Weight

The Undue Weight policy states that articles should reflect the prominence of viewpoints in reliable sources. However, religious topics often have a wide array of interpretations and beliefs, leading to disputes such as:

• Mainstream vs. minority views: Editors may argue over whether to give more attention to a mainstream denomination or cover minority sects in equal depth.
• Controversial beliefs: Some editors may feel certain religious practices or controversial viewpoints (e.g., cult accusations) are overemphasized, while others believe they deserve more coverage.

Emphasis on Theravada vs. Mahayana Buddhism

• Conflict: One of the most common conflicts centers around the relative importance given to Theravada versus Mahayana schools of Buddhism. Theravada, practiced primarily in Southeast Asia, and Mahayana, more common in East Asia, have different doctrines, texts, and practices. Editors from each tradition may feel that the representation of their school is either underrepresented or overemphasized.
• Editing conflict: For example, on pages discussing core Buddhist teachings like Nirvana or Bodhisattva, editors may argue over which school’s interpretation should be given more prominence. Theravada editors might stress their more conservative interpretation of Nirvana as the final goal of liberation, while Mahayana editors might emphasize the Bodhisattva ideal of postponing Nirvana to help others. The conflict revolves around undue weight: editors argue that too much emphasis on one school’s interpretation may distort the overall understanding of Buddhism.

Case in Point

On the talk page of the Buddhism in Southeast Asia page, editor “WilliamThweat” argues that the various forms of Buddhism, rooted in different geographical parts of Southeast Asia, are not adequately represented in this article.

5. Verifiability vs. Truth

Wikipedia emphasizes verifiability rather than truth, meaning all content must be verifiable through reliable sources. Conflicts arise around:

• Miracles, supernatural claims, or prophecies: These are often hard to verify and lead to debates between editors who want to include them as significant beliefs and others who seek to exclude unverifiable claims.
• Historicity of religious figures: The historical accuracy of figures such as Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad often leads to contention, especially between secular scholars and religious adherents.

Emphasis on the Use of Scholarly Sources vs. Church Publications in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Pages

• Conflict: Editors may disagree on whether to prioritize academic, peer-reviewed sources or official publications from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Supporters of the church may advocate for the use of church-sanctioned materials as primary sources for understanding its doctrines and history, while critics may argue that such materials are biased and not scholarly.
• Editing conflict: When discussing topics like Joseph Smith’s revelations or the church’s history, some editors may insist on using church-produced resources that present a favorable view of these topics. In contrast, others may prefer historical analyses or critical examinations that provide alternative perspectives, arguing that church materials do not represent the full truth. This leads to disputes over which sources are considered reliable and how to balance them on the page.

Case in Point

The talk-page discussion on the Church of Jesus Latter-day Saints (Strangite) page shows editor “Ecjmartin” defend a “mainstream” book written by a secular author, Doyle C. Fitzpatrick, The King Strang Story. He argues that although Strangites tend to view biographies and histories of Strang written by non-Strangites negatively, Fitzpatrick’s book shows his efforts to be fair about the subject.

Conclusion

Conflicts over Wikipedia’s religious articles often stem from balancing neutrality, sourcing, and respecting diverse perspectives while adhering to Wikipedia’s core policies. These conflicts are mitigated through community discussions, arbitration, and sometimes by locking particularly contentious pages.

We want to hear from you! If you are a religious leader, a parishioner, or a Wikipedia editor who has come across something in this area, we encourage you to contact us at wrn-info@proton.me. Your insights and expertise are very valuable in ensuring that accurate and comprehensive information is available to the public.