User:FimusTauri/RAStructure
This is not a Wikipedia article; nor is it a policy or guideline. It is an essay by one Wikipedian. You may judge its value on its own merits.
The Structure of Articles on Religious Stories
[edit]The Manual of Style offers many useful hints for the creation and editing of Wikipedia articles, especially the form and format of the lead section and the sections at the end. However, it is virtually impossible to provide any solid guidelines for the general content sections. This is partly because of the way that articles tend to grow organically (usually from a stub), but also because of the sheer variety of articles.
This essay is intended to provide a guideline for articles on religious stories. The structure set out below is based upon the structure of the better articles currently on Wikipedia. Clearly, not all religious stories can be treated in the same way, but, as a general guide, the following is known to be a viable structure.
Introduction
[edit]This should conform to the guidelines in the Manual of Style.
Narrative
[edit]This is a summary of the story as found in the primary source. If there are more than one sources, then each source should be given its own sub-section, with due consideration for WP:UNDUE.
If the sources broadly agree, then only the first section needs to be substantive. Subsequent sections need only highlight the differences from the first source.
Cultural significance
[edit]This section may not be required for many stories. However, often a particular religious story may have a profound impact on the subsequent religious teachings. An obvious example is The Exodus and what it means for the Passover. This section should not go into too great detail. In the above example, there should be a "main article" link followed by a brief summary of the passover.
If the story has further significance, it may be best to divide this into appropriate sub-sections.
Historicity
[edit]This section is likely to be required for any story which presents itself as, or is perceived to be, history. There are almost always criticisms of religious stories as history and this is the appropriate place to present them. For more complex criticisms it may be suitable to divide this section. For example, in the criticisms of Noah's Ark, there would be sections on the improbability of global flood; another on the dimensions and logistics of the Ark; and other possible sections might include analysis of the genetic implications of a single ancestor.
Equally, if there are alternate theories regarding the origin of the story, these should be given due treatment. In the case of Noah's Ark, there should be a short section on the Black Sea Deluge and possibly other notable theories.
General notes
[edit]- All headings may be altered where necessary to reflect the nature of the story involved, but try to keep each section to the general tone set out above.
- Always remember that the article is first a religious story and that the scientific analysis of that story should not be given excessive weight.
- Add other sections if required, but remember that often such sections can be treated as sub-sections of one of the existing sections.
- The above is only a guide for the treatment of religious stories. This structure will not always be appropriate.