Misplaced Pages

Talk:God: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:20, 7 October 2012 editIan.thomson (talk | contribs)58,562 edits →Atheism: We need a "Read the damn article first before making this complaint" template.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:46, 22 November 2024 edit undoAimanAbir18plus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,641 edits →Image used in the introduction for Hinduism: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Search archives}} {{Controversial}}
{{Censor}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{Not a forum}}
{{Calm}}
{{Article history
|action1=FAC |action1=FAC
|action1date=22 November 2005 |action1date=22 November 2005
Line 14: Line 17:
|action2oldid=31257478 |action2oldid=31257478


|action3=GAR |action3=AFD
|action3date=19:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC) |action3date=01:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
|action3link=Talk:God/GA1 |action3link=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/God
|action3result=delisted |action3result=speedily kept
|action3oldid=268882683 |action3oldid=103736940


|action4=GAN |action4=GAR
|action4date=06:58, 15 March 2012 |action4date=19:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
|action4link=Talk:God/GA2 |action4link=Talk:God/GA1
|action4result=not listed |action4result=delisted
|action4oldid=480992306 |action4oldid=268882683

|action5=GAN
|action5date=06:58, 15 March 2012
|action5link=Talk:God/GA2
|action5result=not listed
|action5oldid=480992306


|topic=Philrelig |topic=Philrelig
|currentstatus=DGA |currentstatus=DGA
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |collapsed=yes |vital=yes |1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Religion|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Atheism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Atheism}} {{WikiProject Bahá'í Faith|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Bible|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Spirituality|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|religion=yes|class=B|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Islam|importance=Top |religious-texts=yes |religious-texts-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=B|importance=top}} {{WikiProject Judaism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Islam|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Mythology|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Bahá'í Faith|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Theology|class=B|importance=top}} {{WikiProject Spirituality|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Bible|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Theology |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High |religion=yes}}
{{VA|topic=Religion|level=3|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Sikhism}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Philrelig|VA=yes|coresup=yes|WPCD=yes}}
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages|God_Article_Spoken_2008.ogg|2008-01-06}} {{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}}
{{WikiProject Zoroastrianism|importance=Top}}
}}
{{Press
| subject = article
| title = Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed
| org = ]
| url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613
| date = 18 July 2013
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
| accessdate = 18 July 2013
|author2 = ]
|title2 = Watching the Napoleon Movie? Don’t Forget to Read His Misplaced Pages Page.
|date2 = November 23, 2023
|org2 = ]
|url2 = https://slate.com/technology/2023/11/napoleon-movie-ridley-scott-wikipedia-page.html
|lang2 = en-US
|quote2 =
|archiveurl2 =
|archivedate2 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate2 = November 26, 2023
}} }}
{{Merged-from|Supreme Being|date=August 2018}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot|age=180|dounreplied=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 22 |counter = 25
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(100d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:God/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:God/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
Line 60: Line 91:
|indexhere=yes}} |indexhere=yes}}


== Hadith: "I am Time, in My hand is the night and the day" == == Should the image used for the Christian God be changed? ==


After a quick back and forth edit between ] and I relating to the image used for God, we agreed to take this issue/topic to the talk page. I think the image representing the Christian God should be replaced from the current one, which depicts God in a humanoid form with facial-hair, to a more suitable one which depicts the ] YHWH יהוה‎, the name of God. I agree that the bearded depiction of God is a more typical artistic depiction of God in Western culture, but it is very biblically inaccurate. Many Christians consider him to be invisible, and it is generally believed he has no form. It is best to use an accurate image like the other Abrahamic religions use on this page. ] (]) 13:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
* "..the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: Allah said: ''Sons of Adam inveigh against Time, and I am Time, in My hand is the night and the day''."


:Thanks for the quick introduction. I agree partly with the proposition. The "bearded man" may not be the best representation for the Christian God. Many theologicans, including ], ], ], ], and ] philosophers from Christian culture, do conceptualized God as an abstract entity. An example is the concept of God as the ]. However, I do not think that a personal name does much better than the depiction of God as a person. The image needs to be representative for the Christian concept of God, such as a symbol. Next, I would argue that the ], even if used as a symbol or representation rather than a proper name, it poorly reflects Christian tradition, given that the Tetragrammaton is rarely used in Christian writings. The idea that the Tetragrammaton should be used by Christians might be a rather modern phenomenon and might be motivated by ]:
* "...the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, Allah (Exalted be He) says: ''The son of Adam hurts Me by cursing time, as I am Time. I turn around the night and day.'' In another narration, ''Do not curse time, as Allah is Time.''" <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:<blockquote>The book is divided into three chronological sections: “The Eclipse of the Name” (roughly 300 bce–500 ce), “Times of Ignorance” (500 ce–1400 ce) and “The Rediscovery of the Name” (1400 ce–1700 ce). The first section derives its title from the fact that whereas the Tetragrammaton routinely appears in Jewish biblical texts, in both Hebrew and Greek, it virtually never appears in biblical texts of Christian origin, being represented instead by the surrogate kyrios, or, more precisely, by the distinctively Christian abbreviation ΚΣ. The implications of “eclipse” notwithstanding, however, the author makes the important point that this shift in scribal convention does not signal a lack of Christian interest in the Tetragrammaton.(
::Um...yes...that is a Hadith...did you have a suggestion regarding the content of that Hadith being properly synthesized into encyclopedic format that you wanted to share with us on the talk page about improvement of the article? ] (]) 12:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
:R. Kendall Soulen 2015) </blockquote> Although the author states that the lack of 'Yahweh' should not be used as evidence for its lack of importance, we see that the term is hardly representative for the concept of God in Christian tradition. The author also calls the time of absence of the Tetragrammaton a "time of ignorance". Althought he author interpretes the importance of 'YHWH' into the Christian tradition, the term is factually (almost) non-existent in traditional Christianity. Where might be a better suggestion for an image, which does accurately reflect Christian tradition. If no better one is aviable, I think the portray of God as a man will do it as well, due to its prominence in Western culture. ] (]) 19:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


::Humans cannot agree on what God looks like. Having no image at all is the only sensible approach. ] (]) 21:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
:This entry could be added to the article (although I don't recommend it) if KrayOn's translation mistake is corrected. When anyone translates any ] into ], then ] should be replaced with 'GOD'. Therefore, the Qur'an quotes should read: ''"The Messenger of GOD (PBUH) said, 'GOD said...", "The Prophet ] said, GOD says...",'' and ''"Do not curse ], as GOD is time."'' Note that when one exposes ''Simple''(6,74) ''English''(7,74) ''Gematria''(8,74), '''GOD=7_4, Muhammad = 74 = M13+U21+H8+A1+M13+M13+A1+D4, time = 47'''. Also, '''Arabic = 34 = A1+R18+A1+B2+I9+C3 and Allah = 34 (One, Lord)'''. The primary rule of ''Step 2'' of all ]s is "Numerical values corresponding to the individual letters in a word (/name) or phrase are added together and relationships are inferred between(74) that word (/name) or phrase and other words (/names) or phrases whose letters add up to the same numerical value." ''The Alphabet That Changed The World'' p. 343, Stan Tenen (North Atlantic Books, 2011). Note that ''Step 1'' of all gematrias is simply counting the number of letters in a word/name/phrase and that having symbolic meaning and connect(7,74)ions, i.e. 'GOD' is three letters and in ] represents the ''Holy''(4) ''Trinity''(7) of ''Father, Son, and Sophia (wisdom) or Holy Spirit''. ] ("Out of Many, One") is 13 letters and is used on the ] and ] because of its symbolic reference to the ''Original 13 Colonies/States'', etc. - ] (]) 11:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
:::The image shows very well that humans do not agree, therefore it is even better to include anthropomorphic depictions as well. ] (]) 22:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
::While I tend to agree that Allah can often be replaced with God, I fail to see the relevance of these sections. Also, I think gematria as applied here should be classified as ], so I don't think adding a novel, very technical (and English language centered) numerical comparison helps the discussion. If you think these numerical conversions are relevant, please point to a (secondary) source that interprets them. ] (]) 11:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
::Depicting God as an old bearded man is very inaccurate and doesn't support biblical writings. Using the Hebrew name for God again would be far more suitable to use instead of a depiction which isn't supported. If it's more suitable maybe we could use an image of ] to replace instead? Jesus being God and having divinity is a key and common Christian belief, and an image of Jesus is already used on the ] page. ] (]) 02:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
:::I would second that, except, this page is not confined only to Christian interpretation. (Unlike ]) ] (]) 20:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


:'''Keep''' the current Michelangelo depiction. This isn't an article about biblical or Christian interpretations of God's appearance, it's about God as a single monotheistic entity and how he is or has been depicted across societies. Debating the Bible isn't relevant here. The depiction shown from Michelangelo is of one of the most famous depictions of the subject of this article ("God") in human history, probably the most widely recognizable, regardless of whether some Christian sects or sources may object that it represents what is "biblically accurate". It absolutely should remain.— ''']'''<small> • '']'' •</small> 21:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
== Lede ==
: Note - The depiction of ] by Michelangelo has been replaced by the ] depiction a long ago. The God in Christianity is mainly represented through trinity. This topic is not relevant anymore. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== A 'Definitions' section for this article ==
Instead of saying in a hatnote "For the Arabic version of this concept, see Allah" why not do as we do in other articles where different names apply and write a paragraph which covers some of these other names: Allah, YHVH, etc. -] (] | ]) 04:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
: I agree, what's more the "Allah" page discusses the word, whereas ] is the actual discussion of the concept. No, it's definitely not encyclopedic to have that in the hatnote, ]. ] (]) 12:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
::Well to be fair, if were going to remove that hatnote we should get started on the additional paragraph on nomenclature. I'll give it a shot. Regards, -] (] | ]) 01:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
::OK Ive cobbled together a basic introductory paragraph on the names of God, with plenty of links. Any suggestions are welcome. Regards, -] (] | ]) 02:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Seems fairly straightforward. I'd almost submit that the names and significance of names merits its own paragraph, but I also think that the subject merits inclusion in the lede. ] (]) 04:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
::::OK. -] (] | ]) 05:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


I was wondering if this article would benefit from a short section regarding the various definitions of God provided by religious traditions. I can provide one from the Westminster Shorter Catechism (a famous definition given which Anne of Green Gables quotes at some point) representing Presbyterianism, and another the Belgic Confession, a confessional standard of Continental Reformed Protestantism, both representing authoritative expressions of Reformed Protestantism which is a major form of Protestantism along with Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Baptist theology. These definitions also have Biblical citations for each point.
== Capital "G" ==


Westminster: 'God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.'
*Please refer here first before undoing the parenthetical note about capitalization in the first sentence. This is standard in English writing and is used to differentiate the so-called "one" God from the more generic word meaning "deity." ] (]) 00:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
: I moved it to etymology ] ] 00:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


Belgic Confession: 'We all believe with the heart, and confess with the mouth, that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good and the overflowing fountain of all good.'
== Recent changes to the Lead ==


I believe a short and authoritative definition from each religious tradition would give readers a good idea of how God is conceived and also a useful point of comparison. Perhaps it could also be pointed out what doctrines or concept are taught in each definition, e.g. divine simplicity in the Belgic Confession ('one only simple and spiritual Being'). For this example, I would also mention that the Confession cites parts of Scripture such as Ephesians 4:6 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 as sources of this doctrine. ] (]) 12:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that there have been several , which I believe have a number of problems. First, the Lead has been transformed from being a general overview on the subject of "God" to being an essay about what theists, agnostics, atheists, deists, pantheists, polytheists, henotheists, medieval philosophers, and modern philosophers believe about God. The result seems to be an article that sounds more controversial than it actually is: that is, an article that would debate the existence of God(s) rather than simply say what God is conceived to be. (For instance, it goes without saying that "]s believe that no deities exist", and we don't need to have that in the first paragraph of the Lead.) Additionally, "Allah" has been dropped as one of the names of God, while the "Tetragrammaton" has been kept, favoring a Judeo-Christian point of view.


== Image of God ==
On a related note, the new section on "Evolution vs creationism" that was added today is using this article as a ], in my opinion. It is, in effect, hanging the controversial debate of evolution/creationism on an article where it's only tangentially related. The evolution debate should be mentioned in the article, perhaps in the See Also section, but it should not get its own subsection, and it should definitely not be under the section "General conceptions". <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 22:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
: There are several problems with the current lede. Firstly, only half of the worlds population follows an Abrahamic religion however, three of the three lede paragraphs currently discuss God from an Abrahamic point of view. Adjwilley, can you you explain why you prefer this POV version of the lede? ] ] 18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
::Actually, Christianity and Islam make up more than half of the world population, and the next largest religion is Secular/non-religious/Atheist/Agnostic . Additionally, the scope of this article is "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism, which definitely excludes Hinduism (the next largest religion), and arguably some of the Chinese traditional religions, and Buddhism. So the large majority of believers in God (singular) are in fact adherents of Abrahamic religions. Also, since the concept of a single deity is historically tied to Abrahamic religions, they ''should'' receive more weight in the article. Additionally, I would be careful saying that the Lead discusses God from an Abrahamic point of view. The Abrahamic view is that "God created humans and the universe", while the article is careful to say, "God is often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of humans and the universe." <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 19:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
::: Im am dissapointed with your response since it is very biased. If this bias (such as aiming to exclude Hinduism/Buddhism from this article) continues on this talk page i will resort to raising your username at ] or another noticeboard.


Image of the Christian God as of the current version (July 29, 2024) is the actual depiction of the Christian God. Don't change it with the painting of '''''The Creation of Adam''''', also known as '''''The Creation of Man''''', by Italian artist ] as it only consist the image of ]. But the actual God in Christianity is represented through the the Christian Trinity, as a three faced head (Father, Son and Holy spirit). ] (]) 10:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::: Firstly, this article is not about monotheism and henotheism. Secondly the concept of monotheism long predates Abrahamic religions, for example zoroastrianism. Thirdly, there are dozens of different denominations within both Islam and Christianity many of whom have different god concepts. Fourthly, source states that '''slightly''' more than half of people follow Judaism/Christianity/Islam/Bahá’í faith. Even within Abrahamic religions, many of those follow it in a syncretic form. <s>Fifthly, only a imbecile would call atheism/agnosticism a "religion". Even a kindergartener knows that atheism/agnosticism are not religions. Your infantile responses are getting really tiresome.</s> Your above post also indicate that you think Abrahamic views on God are homogenous, when in fact they are not.


:Yes, God in Christianity is a Trinity, but the depiction of the Most Holy Trinity (a 3-faced Jesus) currently is considered heretical even by the very church it came from. It is a very fringe depiction of the Most Holy Trinity, supported by practically no one.
::: Furthermore, there are many reasons to reduce Abrahamic weight in the lede; there already is an article entirely devoted to the Abrahamic God (see ]). Why do we need a replicate? There are also already multiple articles focusing or related to an Abrahamic God, (i.e. ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc.) Why do we need more of that here? There are many other concepts of God besides the Abrahamic one, such as the Egyptian, the indigenous religion, Dharmic, neo-pagan, new age religion, Confucianism, Zeus etc. Why do they not deserve a mention? Per ], the lede should briefly summarize the rest of the article - your version doesn't do that.
:I suggest it should be replaced with the ] by St. Andrei Rublev ASAP. ] (]) 06:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)


{{reply to|Bis-Serjetà?}} I agree that choosing the tricephalous depiction of the Trinity is... rather odd. From my preliminary research, it appears to be theologically controversial, and was even condemned by popes Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.
::: Also, some denominations of Buddhism and Hinduism do actually have a henotheistic view of God, therefore by your criteria, they should be in the lede.


{{reply to|AimanAbir18plus}} Can you justify your choice of this controversial depiction? How can it be "the actual depiction of the Christian God", as you claim, when it has been so condemned? ] (]) 07:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::: Your version also deletes sourced content and ignores the fact that the word "god" has various definitions. The evolution/creationism section is not a coatrack but lines more closely with ]. The evolution debate in my opinion ''does'' deserve a sub-section since it is a major topics of discussion in both academic and legal circles. Although i agree it does not belog in the "general conceptions" section. As for the atheism in the lede. I strongly support its inclusion because the meaning of atheism is not always understood by everyone. A "general overview" should include whats mentioed in the article body, per ] (as i already said above).


:I'm getting really tired of the endless fiddling with the gallery here in general. We need to select three or four representative depictions that cover the gamut and stick with them. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 07:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::: I have reverted you partially as a compromise and reworded the article to address some of your concerns. However i would appreciate it if you could avoid mass reverts since such edits can be seen as provocative. It would be more constructive if you opened seperate discussions, one for the lede, and for the body so we can discuss this until we reach an agreement. I have removed what i think you might have meant about controversial aspects and i am open to making more concessions. ] ] 07:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
:I did not choose the image. It was chosen by someone else. But this image is more accurate to represent the Trinity than an old bearded man as God. ] (]) 17:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Hmm...a lot of ] arguments above...You're putting a lot of words in my mouth that I never said, and attributing ideas to me that aren't mine. It's probably best to break the discussion up into sections to cover the various points. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::Pass a method, ANI is a venue for discussing behaviorial issues--not content issues. This is obviously a content issue. Please be more careful about throwing around the ANI threat. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 11:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::UPDATE: even though I told him what would happen, Pass a Method reports Adjwilley at ANI and just like I predicted they ruled it a "content dispute" and '''''threw it out'''''. Hahahahaha!!! &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 04:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


::Misplaced Pages is ]. It's fine to do iterative refinement.
===Scope of article===
::As a practical matter, I suggest going with uncontroversial depictions (like my example below) to avoid unnecessary disputes. ] (])
The scope of the article is currently "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. If you don't believe me, read the hatnotes. If you would like to change the scope of the article, then you should so state on the talk page and gain consensus for your change. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


The ] (e.g., ]) seems like an uncontroversial choice for depiction of the Trinity. ] (]) 07:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
===Evolution vs Creationism===
I stated before that an entire section on "Evolution vs creationism" is using this article as a ]. It is a controversial debate that is an extension of the debate on whether or not God exists. It is tangentially related, but should not be "hung" on this article, because it's not about "God". You sated: "The evolution/creationism section is not a coatrack but lines more closely with ]. The evolution debate in my opinion ''does'' deserve a sub-section since it is a major topics of discussion in both academic and legal circles." WINAC says that when an event is the subjects main claim to notability then the article can give more weight to the event. Are you saying that one of God's main claims to notability is that he/she happens to be mentioned frequently in debates on evolution vs creationism? </humor> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
: Im saying one of Gods main claims to fame is creationism. Even this current lede reflects my opinion since it says God is a creator. The most notable opposing view rests on evolution. Nevertheless i am willing to drop thi for now, and i might have an RfC on the issue at a later date. ] ] 17:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
::Minor correction: the Lead says God is often ''conceived of'' as being a creator. I also support dropping this for the moment, as it may work itself out as we discuss the other sections. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 17:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


:I'm a big fan of iteration, but iteration has to have direction or purpose. I wonder if we can do better still—while what it represents is certainly not controversial in Eastern Orthodoxy, the diagram is still particularly Western—I remember reading a bit about Byzantine diagrams a while back, it was really interesting. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 08:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
===Lead===
::@], I asked you to please discuss further changes to the main gallery before making them. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 19:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Your rewrite of the Lead is still inappropriate for many reasons. It still makes it into an essay about what the many many groups think, while failing to give an adequate overview of the subject itself. If I were writing an article about Bananas, I would say what bananas are. I wouldn't write an essay saying that group A likes bananas, group B hates bananas, group C doesn't care, group D grows them, group E boycotts them, group F denies that they exist.
:::@], why did you try to archive this thread instead of addressing me directly asking you about something? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 20:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::This topic is no longer relevant as the 3 faced trinity depiction of Jesus is no longer used in the article as lede image. ] (]) 20:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::But I asked you to please discuss any changes to the lead images before making them, which you have ignored and made changes anyway. There was no reason for you to archive what is clearly generalized, ongoing discussion about the lead gallery. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 20:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't want to edit war: @] could you please explain the reasoning for re-adding the Jewish and Baháʼí representations? I do not think previous appearance suffices, and I would like to have a gallery where there are as few examples with as broad a coverage as possible. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 09:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Because Judaism and Bahai Faith is larger religion than Atenism (extinct religion) and Monad (philosophy). And the depictions of God in Judaism and Bahai Faith were used in the older versions of the article and are more important than Atenism or Monad. ] (]) 09:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Right, but the point is to represent the totality of the concept described in the article. Atenism was of great historical importance for its concept of God, which remains of great interest to scholars of religion. The Monad represents a distinct conception of God unique to the early modern period. I'm not saying we have to include either of these, but just reaching for different representations because you feel they have sufficient number of associated adherents is not really doing the concept justice, in my mind. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Okay. You can replace the Jewish and Bahai depiction of God with Atenism and Monad. I have no problem. ] (]) 09:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::But I don't think that the topic of "'''Don't change the image of the Christian God (Trinity)'''" is relevant anymore as the 3 faced trinity depiction of Jesus is no longer used in the article as lede image. So, do you think that it would be okay to remove this topic? ] (]) 09:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::There's no reason to remove the topic, as it will be archived eventually like any other. It does not bother me that conversation flows naturally and other questions are addressed in the interim. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 09:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Alright. ] (]) 10:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)


{{reply to|Remsense}} {{reply to|AimanAbir18plus}} {{reply to|Bis-Serjetà?}} ] (one of the three major Christian denominations) rejects human depictions of ]. Let's replace the image with the obvious candidate, ], or the ], as suggested above. ] (]) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Also, another problem with your edit is that you are changing the meaning of sentences that are cited to sources. You changed the sentence "God is either the sole ] in ] or the ] deity in ]" to "God usually refers to either the single ] in ] or one of the plural deities in ]". There is a big difference between a "monist deity in polytheism" and "one of the plural deities in polytheism". I'll bet the source only supports one of the statements, and I'll bet that it's not your rewrite.
{{collapse top}}
:Stop it all of you. There are so many different beliefs, there is no obvious candidate. This article does not need, nor should it have any image at all. ] (]) 23:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::Excuse me? This is a premise you need to actually substantiate instead of demanding everybody trying to improve a highly visible part of a highly visible page should shut up. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 05:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::God is a highly visual concept, so insisting on no visual illustration because figuring out what it should be is nontrivial is inane. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 05:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Why? And how can God be a highly visual concept? ] (]) 06:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Because a lot of visuals are associated with the concept? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 06:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::There are many depictions of God in many religions which are essential for this article to use as lede image. ] (]) 07:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That's not an answer tome concerns at all. ] (]) 07:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Because you're not expressing concerns that can be engaged with except by deference to your particular tastes and perspective. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 07:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::There is no image that will please people of every faith, so how about no image? ] (]) 07:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the goal here. No definition will please everyone, and no choice of words will either, but I imagine you wouldn't say "don't bother to write an article". It's not within the remit of our encyclopedia to illustrate in an unfamiliar fashion, nor to defer on our own pretense that this subject is uniquely unillustratable without evidence. Neutral point of view does not mean no point of view: all we can do, exactly as with our prose, is be as representative of our sources as possible. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 07:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::That's a straw man argument. I did not and would not propose having no article. Stick to what I actually said please. ] (]) 07:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind what you said. I literally said "I imagine you wouldn't say 'don't bother to write an article{{'"}}. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 08:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Maybe you should stop speculating and discussing me. ] (]) 08:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::If the purely editorial point I'm making is not clear to you, I apologize. I would like to see this argument as something more than obstructive, but I think it would be better if I desist here, since our rhetorical styles clearly aren't compatible. If you don't want to be understood, then don't speak, I guess. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 08:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


== Image used in the introduction for Hinduism ==
That said, I agree with you that the Lead needs some work, and I'm willing to make some concessions as well. It could use less about the names of God, and as you have pointed out, it could use less of a focus on Abrahamic views. I'm going to revert your edit, and then see what I can do from there. I'd prefer, though, to start from the old, consensus version, because it's more likely to be quoting the sources accurately. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
: Your analogy of a banana is very poor. 100% of people on Earth agree that bananas grow from cultivated plants. Theres nobody who says fresh bananas typically cant be eaten. Theres nobody who says bananas are typically rectangularly shaped. Theres nobody who says bananas can communicate with human beings on an interpersonal level. The difference between bananas and God is that humans roughly agree on bananas, however views on God vary to almost an extreme extent.

: It is impossible to give an normal overview of God since people within the same religion cannot even agree on what God is! For example in Islam you have Sufis who believe learned humans or graves can intercede with God, whereas Salafis believe this is a huge sin. Also, ]s believe that God has human-like attributes (hands, feet etc.) whereas ]s believe its a sin to believe that.

: Or for example in Christianity there are some who believe that God is three in one whereas others believe the trinity is false. How is it possible to give an overview of God when people in the same religions can even agree? Please explain that. ] ] 17:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
::Like any analogy, my silly banana example breaks down if you stretch it too far :-). In the case that many disagree on something, I believe the best solution is to present a general overview on what most people generally ''do'' agree on. Regardless of one's religion, the word ''God'' generally conjures up the idea of a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, etc. etc. That is what the Lead should talk about: not the smaller details that nobody can agree on (trinity, whether God has a corporal body, etc.). <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 18:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

::: You're failing to see the point Adj. The point is that God is one of the most contradicting concepts in human history. Why do you want to turn something that is disputed, into something that is unison? To make the lede unison would make it misleading and imprecise.

::: Imagione the lede of abortin having only a pro-life view? Imagine the article circumcision only mentioning the medical benefitys of circumcision? The lede should describe both agreements and disagreements. ] ] 18:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

::: In fact ] says that articles should '''include any prominent controversies'''! ] ] 18:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

::::I think we may be getting to the root of our disagreement. In my opinion, an article on circumcision should primarily describe what circumcision is, which can be done without endorsing a pro- or anti-circumcision point of view. The article should include a section on the the medical pros and cons of course. The article on Abortion should primarily describe what Abortion is, its history, etc., which can all be done without endorsing a pro-life or pro-choice POV. The opposing views should be mentioned, but should not overwhelm the article. Finally, an article on God should primarily explain what God is perceived to be, noting the various differences in perception. The article should contain a section discussing the debate over the existence of God, as it does. The Lead should summarize that. It does. The point is: it is possible to explain what God is perceived to be without endorsing a theistic or atheistic point of view, and that's what I believe the article should do. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 20:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::You, Pass a method, do not determine what is a "prominent controversy." We do not edit articles based on the personal POV of editors. Please keep in mind: (1) the lede is a summary of the ''article body''. To mention a prominent controversy in the lede, it must first be covered in the article body. (2) An issue is only a "controversy" if a reliable source explicitly says so. The same holds for "prominent." Thus an issue is only a "prominent controversy" if a RS says it is a ''controversy'' and ''prominent''. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 11:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

== Use/Mention Distinction ==

The top of the article states that this article is about the term 'God' (as it appears in English, since this is an English encyclopedia), but portions of the article seem to forget that the term, and not the thing, is under discussion. For instance, a portion of the article discusses the "names of God" (in different cultures). So what this actually means is: "Names for the English term 'God' in other languages". That's like me saying "English names for the French term for cheese", as if there were an English word to describe the French term 'Fromage'.

But what's actually meant is: "Terms in other languages which stand for beings that an English speaker would consider 'God'".

Similarly, when attributes of God are described, the article means to discuss the being, not the term. After all, the word 'God' is not ascribed omnipotency, the being itself is. You get the idea.

So, if the article purports to be about the term, it should be a little more careful with the use-mention distinction. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Hmmm. You have a good point. I would point out, however, that names of God like "Allah" or "Jehovah" aren't necessarily in other languages. English speaking Muslims use the term "Allah" over "God", and similarly Jehovah's Witnesses use the name "Jehovah". <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 01:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

== Henotheism ==

There are sources that describe Hinduism and Taoism as henotheistic. Hence i thought it wuld be ok to include them. ] ] 06:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure we could also find sources describing Hinduism as monotheistic as well (depending on the school/sect/denomination). Henotheism seems to be enough reason to include a religion in the article, though. ] (]) 13:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
::Calling Hinduism henothesitic is a pretty big generalization/oversimplification, and there are many branches of Hinduism: some polytheistic, some henotheistic, some monistic, etc. Tausism is pretty clear-cut polytheistic. Zoroastrianism is extremely small, (<s><20,000</s><200,000 members I think) and doesn't really need a shout-out in the Lead, especially if they're not in the article body. ] is a symbol for God, not a name for God, and doesn't really fit in the Lead either. There was nothing particularly wrong with the Bahai sentence, but I removed it as well, since it's fairly redundant with Islam. I also changed Vishnu/Krishna to Brahman, since Krishna's just an avatar of Vishnu, and Brahman is more widely regarded as a monistic deity. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 17:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:::I have to agree pretty strongly with the above comment by Adjwilley. "There are sources that" say any number of ridiculous things about individual religions and religion in general, and we can't and shouldn't base our content on them at random. ] (]) 21:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
::: There are several sources desscvribing Hinduism as henotheistic, i.e. . As for zoroastrianism, they have 2.6 million members (see . As for Baha'i, thats a completely different religion to Islam. ] ] 03:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Baha'i is about as distinct from Islam as 2nd or 3rd century Christianity was from Judaism. Zoroastrianism is notable for possibly being one of the earliest monotheistic religions, and pretty much any comprehensive study on monotheism includes it. However, I do have to agree that the change to Brahman would be more accurate, as the monist, monotheistic, pantheistic, and henotheistic sects use Brahman (but not Brahma, a different figure) to refer to the supreme being. Vaishnaism sees Vishnu as the truest understanding of Brahman, and Krishnaism sees Krishna as the truest understanding of Vishnu (or just Brahman), but both still see Brahman as the supreme being. Reading the bit on Taoism, that... doesn't quite cover the supreme being. It covers the three supreme beings, and citing Journey to the West strikes me as a bit ], kind of like citing Pilgrim's Progress to make swathing statements about Christian doctrine. A scholarly source that studied a variety of Taoist ideas would be more appropriate. Also, replacing the bit about Ik Onkar with something about ] would be more accurate and appropriate. ] (]) 04:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::Oops, I didn't mean to imply that Bahai and Islam were similar religions. I was saying that the Bahai and Islam have several honorary names for God in the Lead was redundant. I must have mis-remembered the Zoroastrian number. Sorry about that. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 05:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::Yup, I remembered the Zoroastrianism number wrong. It was 200,000, not 20,000 (as of 2004, that is. They're shrinking fast.) I've corrected that above. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 05:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

:::::: Adherents.com is a more reliable source than a newspaper. Adherents.com states they have 2.6 million adherents. ] ] 05:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
{{od|:::::::}}
Sorry for the long silence. I was out of town yesterday and didn't get a chance to write a response here. Before I begin, I should probably say a few words regarding the accusations recently levied against me at AN/I. Contrary to what Pass a Method said, I am not opposed to mentioning various religious views in the Lead section of the article, but there were several problems with Pass a Method's , which is why I reverted most of it. It was an exceptionally ] edit with little justification; I reverted it, and now it's time to discuss. Since there were a lot of issues mixed into the edit, I'm going to break it down an analyze each piece.

;"] and ] are among the most popular ] gods."
:The scope of this article is ''"God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism'' and there has been no consensus thus far to change that. (As the hatnotes point out, there are several other articles discussing the various aspects of the subject from many points of view.) Pass a Method made the argument that some sources describe Hinduism as henotheistic, so s/he could include various Hindu gods in the article. I argued that calling Hinduism henotheistic was a gross generalization/oversimplification, but compromised, changing the sentence to: "'''In Hinduism, ] is often considered a ] deity.'''" Brahman is a much more appropriate example than Krishna and Vishnu, since Brahman is the "one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe" while Vishnu isn't quite as all-encompassing, and Krishna is just an avatar of Vishnu. PassaMethod reverted me on that, and I think it should be changed back. Ian.thomson seems to agree with me there.

;"In ], the ] are considered the highest gods."
:As I pointed out, this is straight polytheism, and doesn't really belong in the article, especially in the Lead. If someone would like to change the scope of this article, they should propose the change on the talk page where it can be discussed.

;"Baha'is believe that the greatest name for god is ], Arabic for all-glorious."
:Granted, the paragraph this was inserted into was talking about names for God, but it was talking about specific names that people use in the place of "God". For instance, Muslims call God "Allah" while some Christians call him "Jehovah" while some Jews call him "Adonai". Well, Bahá'ís generally call God "God" though they have several honorific names like the "All-Powerful", or the "All-Loving". This concept of having multiple titular names for God is interesting, but not unique to Bahai's. For instance, the paragraph in the Lead already says, "'''Muslims regard a ] for God.'''" so adding the same information about Bahai's is fairly redundant. Besides, Baha'i faith is fairly small, especially compared to Islam, so if I have to decide between using Bahai or Islam as an example for something, I choose Islam.

:As a side note, I was accused me of violating several ] principles at AN/I. Here's a quote from WP:LEAD. ''"The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight."'' If we're summarizing the body of the article, why should we insert the above sentence in the Lead, when the body of the article doesn't say anything about Baha'i names for God?

;"The ] is the symbol of god for ]."
:This is pure trivia and has nothing to do with names for God. It should also be thrown out per ].

;"Zoroastrians believe in one god called ]."
:I initially made the mistake of saying there were 20,000 Zoroastrians instead of the 200,000 that I meant. I got slammed pretty hard for that, and I deserved part of it. Apparently on Adherents.com they list it as 2.6 million (another factor of ten higher) although they acknowledge the other numbers as well: "The current estimate posted on this page of millions of Zoroastrians in the world (rather than 100,000 to 150,000) is still under evaluation."
:The point is, whichever number one chooses to believe, the number of Zoroastrians is very, very small compared to other world religions, and is small even when compared to the various sects within the major religions.
:That said, I realize that Zoroastrianism is an important topic when speaking of monotheism, and I thought twice before reverting that part. The fact that no argument had been made for inclusion (and that the edit summary used to include it was so generic that it looked like something was trying to be slipped in under the radar) was part of the reason for my revert. I would be fine with including it in the future.

I apologize for the long wall of text here, but I am trying to be thorough, since this seems to be a sensitive subject. I would ask that in responding, editors focus on article content, and not the perceived biases of other editors. I'll wait a day or so before reverting again to see if there are any objections. If there are none, I will revert, fixing the Hindu problem (Krishna-->Brahman), and leaving Zoroastrianism in this time. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 20:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

:No problems with the length. My own suggestion, as I said elsewhere, is for me to look tomorrow at the most recent edition of the ''Encyclopedia of Religion'' edited by Lindsay Jones. With the possible exception of ''Religion Past and Present,'' a source which also has strong historic ties to a particular school of religious study, it is considered the most highly regarded academic source on religious topics in general, and its articles on major subjects tend to be closer in length to our own as well. So, in general, I think it is probably the best "baseline" source we can use to determine content. If the scope of that article is roughly the same as ours, or if they have an article under a different title roughly similar, I think it would be a very solid indication of what material to include, and to what weight, in our own article. ] (]) 21:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

:: Regarding Hinduism, i just changed that, and added a source.

:: Regarding taoism, there are henotheist apects such as the supreme deity belief. See source for example

:: You called baha'i small. Well, Judaism is 14 mil compared to Baha'i at 7 mil (see ). Thats not a lot of difference. You should remove Judaism too if you're consistent. Baha'i is commonly described as a major religion , , and is the second-most geographically widespread religion after Christianity.<ref name="britannica_stats">{{Cite book|chapter=Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-2002 |title = Encyclopædia Britannica |author= Encyclopædia Britannica | publisher = Encyclopædia Britannica |year = 2002|isbn=0-85229-555-3}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|first = Denis | last = MacEoin |chapter = Baha'i Faith |editor=Hinnells, John R. |title=The New Penguin Handbook of Living Religions: Second Edition|publisher=]|year=2000 |isbn=0-14-051480-5}}</ref> The ] estimated some 7.6 million Bahá'ís in 2005.<ref name="WCE-05">{{cite web| title = World Religions (2005) | work = QuickLists – The World – Religions| publisher = The Association of Religion Data Archives | year = 2005| url =http://www.thearda.com/QuickLists/QuickList_125.asp | accessdate =4 July 2009}}</ref> Furthermore the name Baha is not among the ], so its '''not''' redundant.

::{{reflist}}

:: Ik Onkar is directly relavant to a paragraph about God's names since it is the title of the Sikh God.

:: Regarding Zoroastrianism, it is among the largest religions in ancient history.

:: I object to any removal of the above religions. ] ] 01:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

::*Hinduism is good now, thanks.
::*Baha'i: You still haven't responded to my objection of using Baha'i to illustrate the very same point that's being illustrated with Islam in the same paragraph. Nor have you responded to my concerns with WP:LEAD. Besides, Baha'i is an Abrahamic religion, and didn't you want to ''reduce'' the weight given to those? :-)
::*Taoism: I don't see how you can link to ] (the three highest Gods in the Taoist ]) and argue ]. Taoism is complicated, as it consists of a variety of related religious and philosophical traditions. Calling Taoism henotheistic is controversial at best. Besides, who is to decide which god to present in the Lead paragraph? A fair argument could be made that the ] is the head deity. <small>Maspero, Henri. Translated by Frank A. Kierman, Jr. ''Taoism and Chinese Religion''. pg 41. University of Massachusetts, 1981.</small>
::*] is not a title of the Sikh God, but a symbol of the unity of God. It is a combination of two characters, the numeral ੧, ''Ikk'' (one) and the first letter of the word ''Onkar'' (constant).
::*We are already agreed on Zoroastrianism. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 02:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

:::* I stated that in the 99 names of God in islam, the name "Baha" is not in there. Besides the history of the term "Allah" and "Baha" are very different so they are not illlustrated together. As for LEAD, that is simply a guideline, not a code. I was going to move the baha'i sentence to the body, but i figured a more appropriate place is the lede coz thats where the rest of Gods names are mentioned.

:::* As for Abrahamic religions, i only wanted to reduce Abrahamic weight if other religions are also dismissed. If all monotheistic/henotheistic religions are mentioned equally i have no problem whatsoever.

:::* Regarding Taoism, a supreme god venerated over other gods would fit the definition of henotheism. Can you find a source calling Taoism non-henotheistic?

:::* Regarding Sikhism, Ik Onkar is the most common description of a monotheistic god among many other descriptions. That would fall under the same discourse as the paragraph i placed it.

:::* I feel like you might possibly not understand the definition of a paragraph since you keep questioning the location of my entries. In case you dont know, a paragraph is "a piece of writing usually dealing with a single theme". Therefore if i add an entry about a name of god, i should add it to a paragraph which corresponds with that. Thats exactly what i did. ] ] 04:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
::::*LEAD is a guideline, yes, but it's a pretty good one to follow. Keeping something in the Lead because you can't find a place for it in the body is a poor argument.
::::*Ok, let's take your definition of henotheism: "a supreme god venerated over other gods". Are you saying that the ] are the "supreme god"? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "supreme gods"?
::::*I'm glad you've backed off from saying Ik Onkar is the "title of the Sikh God" to saying it's the "most common description of a monotheistic god". You are a step closer to being correct, but not quite there yet. Ik Onkar="one constant", or more specifically, "1C"=a "symbol of the unity of God". "1C" may indeed be a description of a monotheistic god, but I definitely wouldn't say it's the "most common description".
::::*I still don't understand why you want to clutter the Lead with what seems to be a random smattering of names for God. There are thousands of honorary names and titles. What made you pick stuff like "Ik Onkar" and "Baha" ("All-Glorious") over stuff like "Lord of Hosts", "God Almighty", "Everlasting God", or some of the names in Islam? Seems those would be "most common" :-) <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 14:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::*(e-c) First, I '''very strongly urge''' some of the editors here to perhaps read ] and ]. I would also, perhaps, think that it may well be in their best interests to also read ], regarding one editor's as yet unsourced claim regarding Taoism, and it is presumptuous at best to demand of someone else evidence when that individual has not yet shown any evidence acceptable by our standards of ] themselves. The fact that in one individual editor's eyes something fits a definition is not in and of itself cause for inclusion. We use evidence that meets ], and one individual editor's opinions do not qualify as such. I tend to believe that perhaps, despite claims that one editor "has no problem whatsoever," that perhaps one or more editors here has demonstrated perhaps very serious problems regarding conduct and POV.
:::::*Now, having pulled out the Jones ''Encyclopedia of Religion,'' I find it in fact is less help than I would have liked. It does not have a single article regarding the subject, but rather a collection of articles. Those articles are "God in the Hebrew Scriptures," "God in the New Testament," "God in Postbiblical Judaism," "God in Postbiblical Christianity," "God in Islam," and "African Supreme Beings," running collectively from page 3537 through 3579. None of those articles discuss the subject of "God" in the broad sense however. Nor is there any clearly apparent article discussing the topic, although their article on "Deity" seems to come closest. ''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, New Edition,'' edited by Ted Honderich, 2005, pp. 341-342, clearly limits itself from the very beginning of the article to, quoting the beginning, "The three main Western religions,..." The Edwards ''Encyclopedia of Philosophy,'' 1967, has no article about "God". The nearest approach is "Concepts of God." On the basis of all of the above, I personally tend to think that as per ] it is not unreasonable for this article to perhaps limit itself exclusively to Abrahamic faiths, as per the Honderich encyclopedia and the regularity with which individuals of that faith use the word "God" as a name for their supreme being. Considering they are roughly 3.3 to 3.8 billion people today, out of roughly 8 billion, that is about half the extant world population, and that can make a rather strong case for it being the best place as per WP:NAME, although it may well be possible, I don't know, that in some African faiths and other religions they also might also regularly use the word "God" as the informal name of their supreme being. I am myself unaware of Zoroastrians using the word in that sense, although I do not presume to know everything. ] is another extant article which can deal more closely with other instances of "high gods" or "supreme gods" in other faiths, and ] is a good place for gods of a polytheistic type, which would include henotheistic gods. ] (]) 15:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: might be a good book for what you'd like to do...In my experience the ] series are great for sourcing Misplaced Pages articles because they are short enough to be an easy read, but still have the essential topics. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 19:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::: @Adjwilley Allright i concede on Taoism as a compromise. But you have not given men a good reason to exclude Sikhism. I feel like you have simply been playing with words there. Can you give '''one''' good reason to exclude Sikhism? (P.s. i am willing to reword the Sikh god with a different name) Regarding the clutter-smattering, i simply want a fair representation of other religions thats all. ] ] 15:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you for being willing to compromise on this. How does edit look as a compromise on my part? I have removed Taoism, but kept the other religions in abbreviated format. I also replaced ] with ], which is the most commonly used term for God in Sikhism. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 16:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: It looks okay, thanks. ] ] 16:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: Adjwilley, can you explain why you abbreviated three religions into one sentence? ] ] 22:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Sure. It reads better that way, and is more concise. Rather than saying:
:::::::::::''Baha'is believe that the greatest name for god is ].''
:::::::::::''The most common name for God in ] is ].''
:::::::::::''Zoroastrians believe in one god called ].''
::::::::::we condense them into a single sentence that reads:
:::::::::::''Other religions have names for God, for instance, ] in the ], ] in ], and ] in ].''
::::::::::You'll note that I also merged Judaism into another sentence. We want to be as concise as possible in the Lead, since it is meant to be a summary of lots of other information. Merging the four smaller religions (Judaism, Baha'i, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism) also makes sense in terms of ] since they represent a small minority of believers. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 23:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::: Weight is not necessarily reliant on adherent numbers. For instance zoroastrianism is the world's first monotheistic religion , . Does that not give weight to Zoroastrianism? ] ] 12:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::: By the way, when you replaced Ik Onkar with Waheguru you never replaced the reference. I fixed that and also placed zoroastrianism in a chronological order. ] ] 15:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::: Zeus was a henotheitc God and one of the most cited deities in ancient history. I have added a sentence about him. ] ] 15:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::There's no need to add extra words to give extra weight to Zoroastrianism. If you think it needs more weight than religions such as Bahai and Sikhism, consider this: when it's positioned at the end of the paragraph like it is, "Zoroastrianism" is the last word of the Lead: the last word many readers will read of the article. Also, the Greek/Roman pantheon is without a doubt polytheistic. Thanks for catching that reference. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 16:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Adjwilley, why do you think smaller religions deserve less coverage in the lede? Doesn't the fact that these religions are less understood mean they deserve ''more'' or at least equal coverage? ] ] 13:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It seems like you are asking why we don't give ] to all religious viewpoints, regardless of size or number of adherents. If this is what you are asking, I commend you for being so democratic, but point out that's not how Misplaced Pages works. We can't give the thousands of small religions equal weight with the few large religions that are tens or hundreds of thousands of times larger in size. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 15:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: Im not arguing to put everything in chronological order. Ony a general categorical outlook (of dharmic religion, Abrahamic religions and small/new-age religions) as it looks now. ] ] 18:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::The article is still primarily about the monotheistic god of Abrahamic religions. The Lead should reflect that. The Hinduism sentence is more of a parenthesis, and should not precede the stuff about Christianity and Islam. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 19:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::: An rfc about whether this article should be changed to an Abrahamic viewpoint is ongoing below. Wait for that to finish please. ] ]
::::::::::::::::::The RfC has no effect on this. Your change is Undue for the current scope of the article, regardless. If the RfC passes (which I doubt it will) then Hinduism will be removed entirely. If the RfC fails, Hinduism should still stay after Islam and Christianity, as it was before the RfC. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 20:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::: Adjwilley, i believe smaller religions have more substance in an article such as this one, because whereas smaller religions are more likely to be homogenous with a basic view on topics, larger religions such as Christianity and islam tend to have dozens of denominations, each of whom disagrees with the other on fundemental isues. ] ] 20:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Pass a Method, There may be some merit to your reasoning, but I keep getting the feeling that this isn't the real issue here. Would you be opposed to having a frank discussion about what you want done to the article? Just you and me. I'll ask you questions, you answer. You ask me questions, I'll answer. I'd like to understand your point of view, but it's hard to do when we're arguing over these minor issues. So: would you be willing to have a dialogue with me? It doesn't necessarily have to be a public venue like here or on your talk page. You can create a sandbox for it if you like. Otherwise, I'll just create a ===Dialogue=== subsection here, and collapse the discussion after we've come to an understanding. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 21:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::{{od|:::::::::::::::}}
::::::There honestly isn't much more to it. Perhaps an additional concern of mine is that the average english-speaking reader could be more interested in religions which are not that common-place. For example if you grew up in the US Bible belt and the only religion you've ever heard of is Christianity, it doesnt help a lot when he enters wikipedia to search about God and the broad scope of the article is about ..... Christianity. Another example is a Muslim. Islam only recognises ], hence some Muslims will therefore only hear about Judaism, Islam and Christianity in their lifetime. Misplaced Pages should be a place where we bridge this narrow viewpoint some people see in their lives. I feel like you're reinforcing this narrowness. ] ] 21:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I'm curious, Pass a Method, do have any real ''evidence'' to back up your assertion above about what English-speaking readers are interested in, or is this just more OR/POV on your part? None of what you said actually seems to address ] issues either. I'm not sure if you have any acquaintance with the major reference works on religion, the ''Encyclopedia of Religion'' and ''Religion Past and Present,'' but having gone through the former of the two extensively in recent months, including all the reviews of it I could find, it also tends to use examples relating to the major religions more often, because in general those are the references the average reader will understand. After all, if I made reference to the Australian ] as an example of the world being a physical form of the creator, most readers, probably even including many Australians and Polynesians, are likely to think, "Huh? Wtf?" and that would detract from the clarity of the text. I cannot see any reason to sacrifice clarity without purpose. Regarding your own personal feelings, you are free to have whatever opinions you want, as is everyone else. Because of this variation in opinions, we in general prefer having editors provide independent reliable sources which indicate the material being discussed receives the due coverage and weight, and, regretably, I have not seen any real evidence of your having provided evidence to support the changes you seek to make which have received consensus before you make the changes. ] (]) 21:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: John, your reasoning is flawed because those books were published/authored in predominantly Abrahamic countries, hence they are not free from a certain POV. ] ] 23:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: Pass a Method, your reasoning is not only flawed but basically in violation of existing policies and guidelines. I asked you if you had any evidence to support your assumption about the personal beliefs of others, and no evidence was provided. Instead, you attempted to indulge in misdirection and obfuscation. Your reasoning is not only apparently flawed, but possibly nonexistent, and, in fact, I honestly have no reason to believe that "reasoning" is involved at all. Your assertion regarding the books is also completely unfounded. If you have any rational basis for your as yet completely unsupported assertions, please provide them or at least adhere to ]. There seems to be a rather significant history of violations of ], ], and numerous other behavior guidelines related to this article, and I am becoming increasingly convinced that possibly the only way to resolve it might be through further contact with administrators, through the noticeboards, or possibly through arbitration. ] (]) 23:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::: John, when you reply to one of my comments, it would help if you read the previous paragraph i was replying to. The above posts make it clear you took my comment our of context. For example my use of the word "could" indicates im not stating a factual claim. Therefore your blowing my comments out of proportion. The previous paragraph also asks for my opinion. An opinion does not need a reference/evidence. ] ] 10:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

===Dialogue===
@Pass a Method: I appreciate your willingness to answer my questions. If I understand correctly, you believe that the article needs to be revised because it primarily covers the views about ''God'' of large world religions like Christianity and Islam. The problem you see is that there are schisms within these religions, so it's hard to say that ''Christians believe such and such''. If we had the article focused on lots of smaller religions, it would be much easier to say ''Zoroastrians believe such and such''. The other problem you see with the article is that if a Christian or a Muslim decides to search online about God, they should find an article that teaches them new things about small religions like Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Baha'i, etc., widening their perspectives from the narrow perspective they had before. Is this correct? <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 22:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
: Not excatly. I believe that smaller major religions should get equal coverage in the lede because smaller religions are probably less understood. This does not inclde tiny religions (such as rastafarianism, scientology, mandeans etc.). However this does include religons with at least a few million members or historically influential religions/Gods. Also i think that adding weight to the Islamic and Christian God is unnecesssary because they already have numerous articles on wikipedia. ] ] 22:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::Ok, so equal weight for all religions above a certain cutoff, say, somewhere in "few millions" range. If we go by the list at adherents.org, and set the cutoff at Zoroastrianism (2.6 million ''cough'') then we get 17 major world religions (16, if you exclude the one they list as Secular/Nonreligious/etc.). If you give each of the 16 religions equal weight, you'd get 6.3% of the weight for Christianity, 6.3% for Islam, 6.3% for Hinduism, and so on down the list. Is that what you intended?
::On the other hand, you mentioned the problem that the major religions like Christianity have a multitude of disagreeing sects, so it is hard to summarize their view on God. Following this reasoning, if we are going to list all the religions that have more than 3 million adherents, it would be to our advantage to give weight to the views of the different Christian/Muslim denominations that have that many adherents as well. For instance, of the 1.2 billion Catholics in the world, we have eight churches that have over 3 million members (], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]) In Protestantism, we have forty. I'll stop there, but I could go on to count the denominations in Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Restorationalism (Mormonism, Members Church of God International, New Apostalic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo). Following your logic, it seems we should give each of these denominations an equal weight in the article as well. Is this correct, or did I make a mistake somewhere? <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 23:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::: Adjwilley, im not sure why you put some much emphasis on religion statistic numbers. They fluctuate. For instance a Zoroastrian empire once made up 40% of thee world. Today Zoroastrianism is a dying religion. Shia Islam was once the dominant form of ilam, but today they are a minority. In Britain and Scandinavia Christianity was once the dominant belief, but now these countries are leaning towards atheism/irreligion. Nevertheless, there are some refs which specifically mention the major religions; . However i acknowledge than not all of them are suitable for this article. ] ] 00:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
::::FWIW, ''Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions'' discussed roughly 2300 religious groups in the United States as per . Some of the material above makes some sense, but probably not as much as some might hope. One of the factors we have to include is ]. And it is a violation of ] to say, basically, that "I don't like that source, so we can't base our conclusions on it, we have to base our conclusions on my opinions." And, honestly, there hasn't been that serious a fluctuation in the relative adherents of religion, barring population multiplication, for some time. The fact is religious population statistics have been fairly consistent, broadly, for a few hundred years now. This is not a ] article, although, honestly, I think that probably is a notable and valuable topic for an article. The fact that some cherry-picked sources which one person finds supports their own apparent preconceived contentions does not necessarily prove that their conclusions are either responsible or of sufficient importance to alter content in their favor. And, honestly, if, after several decades, if the statistics change enough to support changes in the article to reflect the almost glacial "fluctuation" Pass a Method places so much emphasis on, we could always change the content to reflect that. ] (]) 00:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Pass a Method, I was only using the "few millions" metric because you had suggested it yourself as a cutoff for smaller religions. I'm not quite understanding your point about Zoroastrianism. Are you saying that Zoroastrianism should receive greater weight than others because it was significantly larger at one point? Because that seems to go against what you were saying earlier about all religions getting equal weight regardless of size (as long as they're over a few million).
:::You never answered my question about giving the various sects ''within'' the larger religions equal weight with the other smaller world-religions. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 03:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
:::: @Adjwilley When i said greater i meant that in an equality context. As for giving sects within larger religions weight, that would be appropriate if they have a concept of God that is suficiently different from their mainstream sect. For example Mormonism would fit that description. Or if reliable sources sufficiently cover their distinct god-view. I repeat that my criteria for a major religion is what reliable sources describe as major religions; i.e. , ] ] 09:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::I'm not certain what you mean by an equality context, but I think I understand the general plan: Equal weight to world religions who have more than a few million members, and give weight to the larger denominations within the larger religions whose views differ significantly from the mainstream. It sounds like a lot of work to create what would be ,in my opinion, a fairly messy article.

:::::Let me try a slightly different track. I'd like to make some wild assumptions and paint a different picture, for the sake of argument. Please understand, this is not a personal attack, and I expect that I'll be wrong for at least half of it. (I hope you'll let me know where I do go wrong.)
:::::So you're a decent editor and a decent person. You have a point of view, just like anybody else, and it probably lies somewhere on the atheism/agnosticism/deism side of the spectrum. You also have strong points of view about various social and political issues. They are perfectly valid points of view, and you feel that it they often under-represented or mis-represented on Misplaced Pages. You decide to fix that. You go about inserting them into various articles, trying to follow the Misplaced Pages rules of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Yet you meet a large amount of resistance from other editors: usually Christians. Probably of the American Evangelical variety. You feel this is wrong so you push harder. They keep winning.
:::::You come to this article. You read it and it bugs you because so much of it seems to be coming from that pesky Judeo-Christian point of view that you've been fighting for so long. You decide to fix that by adding sections on atheism and agnosticism, and another one on the evolution/creation controversy. You get reverted, and after some discussion on the talk page you realize that the new sections are a lost cause. You don't want to come across as pushing a particular point of view so you decide on a different track: Dilute the Judeo-Christian point of view. Take up the cause of oppressed Zoroastrians, Sikhs, and Greeks, put on the mantle of NPOV, and fill the article with controversy. If you can't win, nobody should. Or everybody.
:::::The problem is, it just doesn't seem to catch on. It doesn't quite work with the scope of the article. Logic snobs like me keep poking holes in your arguments and you have to keep changing them. You have to do a bunch of extra work digging up sources, and people still refuse to see the logic of your arguments. It's a tough position to be in.
:::::Anyway, I'll stop now. I hope I haven't offended you. I know I'm probably way off base, but this is what things look like from my perspective. I am telling you frankly because I hope you will point out the places where I went wrong. I want to understand where you're coming from. I've been honest, now, and I hope you will reciprocate in good faith. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 17:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

:::::: Adjwilley, i admit im not a religious person but believe it or not, i was at a place of worship last night .... praying. Yes praying. And it took me 1 hour to travel to my preferred place of worship although i admt this is not a usual habit of mine. My spirituality levels flucuate. Back on topic, i honestly think this lede is not comparable with similar articles with a controversial theme. For example ] which is a featured article does not give more weight to the largest mosques in the world. In fact the lede does not even mention the largest mosques. Another FA ] does not give more weight to Hinduism than Wicca despite Hinduism being much larger. ] ] 12:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Pass a Method, I appreciate you sharing that. I'm still not quite clear on your motivations (you didn't really comment on the scenario I painted above) but that seems only fair, since I have said very little about myself and my motivation. So here's my philosophy. I believe that most articles can be noncontroversial. Even articles about subjects that are controversial don't have to be controversial themselves. The featured articles on mosques and atheism are not written in a controversial manner, even though some might view the subject matter as being controversial. Muslims/non-Muslims/Atheists/non-Atheists can read those articles and pretty much agree with everything said.
:::::::I think editors often lose sight of this as they battle each other. Everybody wants to show their point of view is the correct one, and everybody wants the article to reflect their point of view. This leads to edit wars that harm the article, "controversy" sections to hold the ] material, and articles that are have a "tit for tat" tone. You end up with a fractured article that spends most of its time covering the various disagreements, but still does a poor job of covering the subject itself, which is what it was supposed to do in the first place. (Of course, please don't take that as me saying that I want to sweep any controversy under the rug. That's certainly not the case either. Significant controversies should be covered, but in a neutral tone, and without taking sides.)
:::::::Call me boring if you like. Articles I write aren't very exciting. I don't try to sensationalize things as the News Media does. I don't focus on the negative and controversial aspects as is the norm in American politics. My articles are less likely to attract POV editors because there's really nothing they can disagree with. Same with vandalism and edit warring. I basically try write "boring" encyclopedia articles for "boring" people who simply want to learn about a subject without all the hype. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 19:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: By the way, i just noticed that the artcle ] is more concise about Abrahamic God names than this article. What do you think about making it more concise? Maybe making it sound similar to the sentence used in "]". ] ] 21:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

===Should Hinduism come before Christianity and Islam?===
] has repeatedly made changes to the third paragraph of the Lead beginning with ''"There are many ], and different names are attached to different cultural ideas about who God is and what attributes he possesses."'', moving the sentence ''"In ], ] is often considered a ] deity."'' to the beginning of the paragraph so that it precedes the discussion of Christian and Muslim names for God (i.e. Jehovah, Allah). This screws up the flow of the paragraph, and also causes weight problems. There is some additional discussion above. I've reverted the change twice, but Pass a Method continues to revert me, and I'm trying to avoid an edit war.

So, the question is: Should Hinduism come before Christianity and Islam in the Lead? is the edit in question. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 20:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

*'''No''', Hinduism should not precede Christianity and Islam in the Lead, per my arguments above. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 20:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
** you have not actually explained how it "screws up the paragraph". Can you explain in what sense it "screws up the paragraph"? ] ] 20:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Certainly. Take the two sentences, put them together, and read them. The second sentence has little to do with the first. There's no logical flow from one to the next. Making it flow correctly will require more work than a simple copy-paste. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 20:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Agree with Adjwilley. There has been no discussion regarding this change, and there is no apparent reason for the change. Therefore, there is no reason for the change. I would ask the editor who has been supporting this change to offer some reason for it first, and I will acknowledge that I have seen no particular such reason given to date. ] (]) 20:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::: @ John there is a discussion about it above. John, you have still not explained why you prefer the current version. ] ] 20:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::First, Pass a Method, you are jumping to conclusions about what I do and do not prefer, and I wish you would stop that. I am not obligated to do so. I believe as per ] the obligation falls on you to receive approval for substantive changes before they are made. I have seen no appearance of such a consensus. I believe that recent history indicates that you may have a rather clear POV as per ] regarding this topic, and as such it is in fact the case that editors with POV problems should receive consensus before making changes. Please make a more visible effort to comply with ]. Thank you.
:::::::P.S. Also, I note that the only real discussion I see above is discussion which began after the change was first made and reverted. It makes very little sense to say that discussion after the fact qualifies as discussion before the fact, which you seem to be implying. If there was any substantive discussion which led to some sort of consensus on the issue being received, would you be so kind as to indicate specifically where that consensus was achieved? ] (]) 21:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::'''No''', and I think Pass a Method's continued edit-warring to push their idiosyncratic POVs has crossed the line into disruption. I think having a neutral admin look at this would be a good next step—a block or edit restriction would be appropriate, in my opinion. Admin looking at Pass a Method's use of misleading edit summaries would also be helpful. ] (]) 04:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

== FYI: reminder on avoiding edit warring ==

{{Nutshell|title=This section|Communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow ].|shortcut=WP:AVOIDEDITWAR}}

In general, communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow ]. Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on ] and discuss the matter on the article's ]. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute.
It may help to remember that ] and that editors can add ] to problematic sections under current discussion. When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a ] or starting a ]. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. When these methods fail, seek informal and formal ].

Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the ] listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse. They ]. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, and as a result edit warring is more frequent.

The bottom line: ''use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars.'' Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate ] for the action. ] rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

== Possible Origin of 'G.O.D.' ==

I added the following... '''==Origin of 'G.O.D.'== "G.O.D.: The initials of ''Gomer, Oz, Dabar''. It is a singular coincidence, and worthy of thought, that the letters composing the English name of Deity should be the initials of the Hebrew words ''wisdom, strength'', and ''beauty''; the three great pillars, or metaphorical supports, of Masonry. They seem to present almost the only reason that can reconcile a Mason to the use of the initial 'G' in its conspicuous suspension in the East of the Lodge in place of the Delta. The incident seems to be more than an accident. Thus the initials conceal the true meaning." - Masonic Glossary''' http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/masonicmuseum/glossary/glossary_g.htm - ] (]) 20:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

:That only works in English, and is etymologically laughable, even if one accepts the idea of an Adamic language (it certainly wouldn't be English). ] comes from the same root the German Gott, the proto-Germanic Gudan, ultimately going back to the Proto-Indo-European Ghutom. ] (]) 20:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

::Ian, what are your credentials so as to take the action that you did and to make the statements that you have? Maybe I'll find your credentials "laughable"? The "Origin" of the word 'God' has been historically traced as the article says ad nausem. Everybody knows the tired old explanation of "the English word 'GOD' came from the German 'Gott'". I even refer to that on page 2 of my 74-page booklet ''There Are No Coincidences - there is synchronism''. And yet, '''there is another history that you are unaware of (very few are aware of it)'''. You are quite '''WRONG''' about "even if one accepts the idea of an Adamic language (it certainly wouldn't be English)". Freemasons, Kaballists, Rosicrucians and others are well aware that "there was a 'Holy Tongue' that GOD used to create Earth". And according to the ] (Ziggurat of Babylon) Story ''Genasis 11:1, "Everyone was speaking one language and had one purpose".'' Of course, this is the BIGGEST contradiction in the Bible since only two verses earlier in ''Gn 10:31'' we have ''"many tribes and many tongues"''. '''Those enlightened through the centuries have been on a mission to reconstruct the Holy Tongue and they have, it's English!''' There are many lingistics proofs to this including ''Theory of left-to-right'', ''hieroglyphic/symbolic nature of English Alphabet, historical/Biblical references, '''Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74): GOD=7_4''','' etc. I again added this very important definition/possible origin of 'G.O.D' to the bottom of Entymology, but it doesn't really belong there. It probably should be given under the title of '''Possible Origin of 'G.O.D.'''' - ] (]) 20:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Sorry but much of your proof is not very strong, and would be classified as ] by many. As an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages has to present mainstream views, and your sources are not that.
:::Or to use your own words "what are your credentials so as to take the action that you did and to make the statements that you have" in the context of mainstream scientific view. ] (]) 21:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
::::<small>I go to cook a little Chinese food and miss everything.</small>
::::Brad, ], ], ]. What matters is ] and ]. ]. All my links there are to relevant policies, guidelines, and essays supporting my statements.
::::By the way, I've gotten into the ]'s website before (it's not that hard for fans of rational study) and enjoy reading their papers from time to time. You do not appear to know anything of real Rosicrucianism, but the work of new-age charlatans disgracing the name of the Rosy-Cross.
::::Also, as any real Kabbalist will tell you, God speaks Hebrew, not English.
::::And finally, your appeal to Freemasonry doesn't work on people who read Arthur Edward Waite. ] (]) 21:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Ian, I didn't refer to 'Kabbala'/"Kabbalist' - please pay better attention - I referred to 'Kaballa'(7,40)/"Kaballists". Possibly you are aware of its different spellings and their associations with different teachers? You SCREAM about the rules here while ignoring them by posting "I go to cook...". '''This is NOT a forum where one discusses their personal life!''' While ignoring all your irrelavent comments, your inapropriate editing actions, your desire to promote unqualified editors, and your veiled insults, '''the question here is, "Is the following link/source a legitimate reference?"''' http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/masonicmuseum/glossary/glossary_index.htm . If the consensus is that it is, then the quote from it should remain on the article page. Obviously, I say that '''Freemasonry Encyclopedias are very "reliable sources" for Misplaced Pages.''' I've been using them for many, many years. Also '''Ian, please DO NOT send me any more personal messages, DO NOT post again on my Home Page/Talk Page, and DO NOT edit any more of my posts.''' If you have a problem with this request, then contact the adminstrators of Misplaced Pages... I will post '''Possible Origin of 'G.O.D.'''' again on the Article Page. - ] (]) 22:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
:That you think there's a difference between Kabbalah and "Kaballa" is a pretty good indication you don't know what you're talking about. Have you even met a rabbi? Or perhaps just read some rabbinical works? Even read up on post-temple Jewish history?
:It doesn't matter what you think a reliable source is, just see ]. The Phoenix Masonry website, aside from not having any peer-review or editorial oversight (which is how this site defines reliability), not to mention its failure to discuss whether they're in amity with the ]), does not define God the way you have. They describe that assigned meaning as an additional reason for why the lodge uses the word, but do not pretend that is the historical origin of the word. Then there's the fact that your plagiarism of that site is completely unacceptable and dishonest. How dare you steal their writing?! ].
:I am perfectly entitled to undo edits to my user page, and I'm perfectly entitled to revert any edit which does not meet this site's policies and guidelines. Refusing to bother with those policies and guidelines will only get you in trouble with the admins here. If you cannot handle this site's policies and guidelines, and refuse to take the advice of those who understand this place, you probably should not be here. You're holding your chisel backwards with a loose grip. ] (]) 23:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
::@Ian ] and Brad, let's keep this discussion ] please.
::@Brad, the use of bolding and/or capitals in talk pages is seen as shouting, so please don't. Also, user talk pages are meant to leave personal messages but are under editorial control of the use. So as Ian mentions above, evertyone is allowed to leave personal messages on another users talkpage, and every user is allowed to edit his/her own talk and user page including removal of content. Final remark to Brad, in this post I have wikilinked (bluelinks) to relevant Misplaced Pages policies (as did Ian above), please read, accept and internalise those rules. While you may not agree, these are rules of Misplaced Pages, and editors who are not willing to live by the spirit of these rules tend to end up in a lot of nasty conflicts, and usually end up being blocked from editing; which is a waste of time and energy for a lot of people (including the editors that end up being blocked). So either accept the rules, or consider that Misplaced Pages may not be something for you after all.
::With regard to the content, in my view there seem to be 3 issues here where we need to achieve consensus on each of them before agreeing to add text of this kind.
::1) Are Freemasonry Encyclopedias ] for the etymology of the word God?
::2) Does the quote from that freemasonry encyclopedia indeed claim anything of relevance to the etymology of the word God?
::3) Is the acceptance of the freemasonric etymology of God ] for this (specific) top level article, or does it give ] to a minority idea?
::My position towards these is: Re 1) No, these sources maybe reliable for freemasonry topics (albeit possibly biased because of ]). Re 2) I do not really know, but Ian.Thompson makes a case against Re 3). I would say it is not sufficiently relevant, as Misplaced Pages should give a readable overview of a topic to the reader and not overload articles with ], in this case I think this would give ] to this explanation for this top level article. That does not say that this information cannot be relevant for other, more detailed articles (e.g. ]), only not here (note that for other articles, you also have to address points 1&2). So in summary - no it should not here as far as I can see right now. ] (]) 10:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
:::My main objection is the rather obvious violation of ] in asserting the possible origin of the word "God" based on the material provided. Nowhere in the text provided is any such assertion made. All I can see is a proposed linkage, substantively similar to some of the claims of ] and others. ] (]) 21:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

== Should Zeus be in the lede? ==
{{collapse top|bg=#E6E6E6|closed rfc}}
Do you support or oppose mentioning ] in the lede? ] ] 18:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

*'''Support''' Zeus is commonly described as a henotheistic deity: , , , . Zeus is also possibly the most frequently-cited god in ancient history. Since this article is about the henotheistic view of god, Zeus would fit in perfectly. ] ] 18:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': Is being mentioned as a possible henotheistic god sufficient criteria for inclusion? Does having a long list of deities in the Lead help the readers to better understand the concept of God? Is Zeus prominently mentioned in the body of the article such that he should get a big long sentence in the Lead? The lead is supposed to summarize the article, after all. I recommend that you move your sentence to the body somewhere, and if you feel the urge to add other deities that you add them there as well. Not every detail that every editor feels is important needs to go in the Lead. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 19:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
** '''comment''' I am willing to shorten the Zeus sentence as a compromise. What do you think? ] ] 00:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
***I'm not sure. I feel like if I put aside my other concerns and accept this compromise you'll just come back tomorrow wanting to stick a long sentence about ] in the Lead. The length isn't the only problem here. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 00:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
****I cannot see any reason not to allow the RfC to run its course. There are other questions to consider, as Adjwilley has said, and I don't myself see why there should be a rush to decide this before a broader number of editors have made the comments that the RfC was presumably started to receive. ] (]) 01:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - The conclusion made by the editor who started this discussion seems to be, basically, OR/inductive reasoning. The editor asserts one thing, which is itself somewhat dubious, then makes an unsourced allegation about Zeus being possibly the most frequently cited god of ancient history, which is, like I said, not sourced, and seems to believe based on that flawed reasoning that the content of this article should be changed. I cannot support that conclusion, and honestly, I believe that I will be more than justified, based on the ''sourced'' statements I presented above, to file a separate RfC after the conclusion of this one on the subject of whether, as per ] and the sources I provided, that this article should be about only those deities who are regularly referred to by their worshippers by the appelation "God". That request has reliable sources to support it already presented, while this RfC seems to be based on one editor's interpretation of things. But, in direct response to the question of the RfC, if reliable sources are produced which clearly indicate that Zeus is of sufficient prominence in the reliable sources relating to the concept of "God" to merit inclusion in the lead, maybe. Until and unless those reliable sources are produced, and examined by editors who are not seemingly so driven by their own inductive reasoning, no. ] (]) 19:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
** Note that reasoning about what should be in an article is not subject to the policies that govern content. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>03:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC).</small><br />
*'''Oppose''' the article is about God according to the lead, therefore mention of Zeus in the lead seems unnecessary. Discussion about leaders of pantheons in the body of the article might however be reasonable. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>03:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC).</small><br />
*'''Oppose''', for both lede and body of the article. We need to distinguish "God" and "god", Zeus is of the latter sort. --] (]) 09:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
'''Comment''' i removed the rfc template because i feel like the consensus is against me. Feel free to close this rfc. ] ] 10:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


In the introduction, I strongly recommend replacing ] with ], since ] is just ''one'' of the three manifestations of ], together with ] and ]. ] (]) 07:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
== Scope of this article ==
{{archive top|1=There is consensus to not make the proposed change. There does appear to be general agreement that polytheistic gods are not an appropriate topic for the article while the consensus on how to treat henotheistic religions isn't clear. <small>Non-admin closure</small> ] (]) 20:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)}}


Currently, the article uses an icon of ], a deity of ]. (] is a small island of Indonesia.) Is there a reason we're using this, specifically, to represent all of Hinduism? ] (]) 01:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Should the subject of this article be changed to "God", the deity of the Abrahamic faiths and possibly other faiths known to their followers by the sobriquet "God"?


*'''Yes''' -as per comments in the "Discussion" section below. ] (]) 15:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC) :It's not representing all of Hinduism. It's representing a specific ] deity ]. ] (]) 14:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' There already is an article on the Abrahamic god, see ]. Why do we need a duplicate? There are also several articles closely related to the Abrahamic God, (i.e. ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] etc.) Furthermore, limiting it to the Abrahamic God would omit important content such as Brahman the Hindu God, or the Zoroastrian God who is often credited as being the first monotheistic god. This propoal would violate ] rules. ] ] 21:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' No change in scope is needed. The article is currently a reasonably well-balanced ] of the general subject matter. I don't see a problem with increasing the prominence of links to ] high up in the article, but changing the scope of ''this'' article would be anti-NPOV. ] (]) 22:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Even though I sometimes use a digital copy of ''Encyclopedia of Religion'' as a reality check, similarly to how John Carter is using it here. I think that ''major'' religions should be mentioned in the lede, including Buddhism and Hinduism, because the English word and concept, "God," is widely used by scholars when studying those religions. Just do a Google Scholar search for "God in Hinduism" and "God in Buddhism". It is also used often enough by English speaking adherents of those religions, because "God" is a concept that has many names, in different religions and ''languages''. As a worldwide and multicultural encyclopedia, I think Misplaced Pages needs to reflect that. I think it's overreaching to include Zorastrianism, Baha'i, and Sikhism in the lede, but they should be mentioned in the body of the article. ] (]) 04:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per my comment below . ] (]) 13:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' ''Dictionary of World Philosophy'' (http://www.credoreference.com/entry/routwp/god) says "In the singular, the concept can be found in monotheistic religions ranging from the Egyptian sun god Ra, through the Indian Brahman, to the Jewish Yahweh, and the Arabic ALLĀH." ''Chambers 21st Century Dictionary'' defines it as "in the Christian and ''other monotheistic religions'': the unique supreme being, creator and ruler of the universe" ''The Columbia Encyclopedia'' "Divinity of the three great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as ''many other world religions''". . --] <sup> ] </sup> 16:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' to avoid duplication, per Pass a Method and others. ] (]) 13:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' If this happened, it wouldn't actually mean duplication as we can't two articles covering the same material, so we would have to merge and turn one into a redirect. But the scope of the article as it stands seems reasonable and the concept of god isn't limited to Abrahamic religions. Redtigerxyz, I have to say I have a real problem with a book that talks about " monotheistic religions ranging from the Egyptian sun god Ra" - that's just so wrong. ] (]) 13:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The term God in interfaith and inter-religious dialgoues is understood to mean the one thing: that divinity which goes by different names and forms in the world's religions. '''God''' is understood to be a catch-all word, principally used for a monotheistic deity as used by the Abrahamic faiths.] (]) 13:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Hail Ra. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:24, 31 July 2012‎ (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
*'''Oppose''' The article name does not specify any particular god. That would be and is a different article.--] (]) 18:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' per ]. I am absolutely confident that the article with title ''god'' should be about ''god'', as opposed to any particular ''god''. I am also absolutely confident that most sources about "god" are about different gods, and particularly not on collective image of Abrahamic God. —&nbsp;] (]) 13:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I don't see that a strong argument for change has been presented. <span style="border:2px solid black;margin-top:3px;font- face:verdana;background:#efefef" >&#x0298;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#x0298;</span> (]) 14:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
===Discussion===
I have consulted several reference sources to determine how they define the concept of "God". The ''Encyclopedia of Religion,'' second edition, edited by Lindsay Jones, is generally considered with ''Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwarts''/''Religion Past and Present'' among the best reference sources on the topic, it does not have clear historic ties to a specific religious "school," such as the ] which started RGG, and it generally has fewer, longer articles, more comparable to our own. EoR does not have a specific individual article on "God," but rather that name is the collective title for the group of articles "God in the Hebrew Scriptures," "God in the New Testament," "God in Postbiblical Christianity," "God in Postbiblical Judaism," "God in Islam," and "African Supreme Beings". Only one of those articles is not clearly about the "God" of the Abrahamic faiths. "The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, New Edition," ed. Ted Honderich, 2005, has an article under the title "God," on pp. 341-342, which clearly limits its scope from the beginning of the article to "The three main Western religions," Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. The old and venerable ''Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' ed. by Edwards has no article under the title "God". Based on all this, it seems to me that the other extant reference works on this subject which do have articles on "God" have those articles relating to the Abrahamic "God" and, possibly, some African faiths which might also regularly use "God" as a sobriquet for their supreme being. The Abrahamic faiths in particular number around 40% or more of the world population, and they all, to some form or another, refer to their god as "God". That makes a good case in my eyes that it is possibly the most common usage of the word as per ]. As indicated in EoR and elsewhere, "Deity" and "Supreme Being" are apparently the most frequently used terms for monotheistic/henotheistic supreme gods of other faiths. ] (]) 15:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


In what ways would what you are proposing change the article from its current state? It isn't very clear. ] (]) 16:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC) ::Why use ] (~4.6 million adherents) rather than simply ] (~1.2 billion adherents)? ] (]) 23:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Images of ] deities such as ] and ] were used in the previous versions of the article. But, many people including you too were not happy about it. ] (]) 10:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:Substantially, I guess. based on the information above (and, by the way, I did not omit any sources in the above that didn't support this contention) the text of this article would change to, basically, reflect the extant content of ], while much of the content currently in the article not related to the Abrahamic God, and potentially other gods called by the sobriquet God, would be moved elsewhere. I hadn't actually thought all the details out in advance, which is probably unfortunately rather obvious. ], and possibly ] if such is notable, could hold most of the other extant content, along with ] and ]. But, yeah, basically, the first step is to change the focus of the article - the rest can be determined later, based on the reference sources and other sources which have high academic regard relating to this topic. ] (]) 17:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
:::: I vote we restore the ], and just write "Vaishnava Hinduism" in the description. This is the largest sect of the faith. Otherwise, could we use an image of the Trimurti as a sort of compromise? ] (]) 06:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:In response to Pass a Method's comments about the books used, those comments are irrational in the extreme. It is nonsensical, possibly bordering on the insane, to say that one of the most reliable sources in the field of religious studies is biased. I believe that this is simply a continuation of the behavioral issues, including obfuscation, distraction, and otherwise, which have become prominent here lately, and I believe it only gives ever more evidence of both the incompetence of the presenter of the information and their own obvious POV and refusal to address any matters of substance. ] (]) 00:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::]'s image has been restored. ] (]) 13:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*I think this article provides a fair (although too brief) description of God in ]. ] correctly redirects here. It might be a good idea to expand this article and better reflect the concept of God in other monotheistic religions, but there is nothing wrong with current version. There is dispute about the order of mentioning different religions (edit summary) . I think we should simply follow chronological order per sources. ] (]) 13:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
:*There is a somewhat rational point, which is a bit of a surprise, honestly. However, the comment above is also, I regret to say, so poorly and vaguely worded as to be, basically, not helpful. The phrase "chronological order per sources" is too vague to be in any way useful, at least so far as I can see. I cannot understand whether it is referring to chronoligical order in the objective sense based on the sources, or in the chronological order of information presented in the reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Also, the word "sources" itself is problematic, as it does not make it clear whether it is referring to the primary sources or the secondary sources which we try to base our opinions on. However, without any clear idea what the editor above is trying to say, I cannot offer any sort of rational response, because I cannot be sure exactly what the editor above is trying to convey.
::*In response to First Light, that is a reasonable point. Unfortunately, as I think we all know, Google isn't a particularly reliable source, and its program is pretty much by definition subject to some degree of bias of its own. Regarding how the term is used in other languages, well, I think the wikipedias of other languages are the best place for content relating to the usage in other languages, but I haven't myself seen that we often adjust our own articles based on interpretations of what the similar content in other language wikipedias would be. We are the English wikipedia, and it seems, based on the evidence I have seen, including the Jones and other reference works, that in general the existing hatnote to "]" and "]" is sufficient to accomodate that disambiguation, although I might add another link to ]. And I grant the word "deity" is itself a little ambiguous in English usage, particularly India English, but that is a separate matter. ] (]) 14:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I agree with most that the current state of the article is not bad; I think the move to narrow the scope was intended to keep the article roughly in its current state. (There's recently been a push to try and include the views of several polytheistic/henotheistic religions in the Lead. See Zeus above, for instance.) I think John Carter's reasoning makes sense, but has been misinterpreted as trying to narrow the scope of the article to include ''only'' Abrahamic religions: a position which most editors (including myself) oppose. I think the scope should be first and foremost Monotheism. A little Henotheism is fine, but let's not abuse it. Polytheism belongs in other articles like Deity. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 19:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' Adjwilley, I agree, putting Zeus in the lede was absurd. And like I said above, I think smaller religions (Zorastrianism, Baha'i, etc.) shouldn't be in the lede, per ]. It could simply say "....and many other religions...". But I do think that all major religions should be included, such as Hinduism.
:: In response to the comment by John Carter (hey, do you think Burroughs chose a name with the initials "J.C." on purpose, and also made him a "Virginian", as in 'virgin birth', and savior of a world?): I confess to being lazy and just mentioning a Google scholar search for "God in Hinduism" and "God in Buddhism." I'll do more work here, and point out how many reliable, notable, and academic sources address "God in Hinduism", at least. This is just a small sampling, but I think it clearly shows that the ''concept'' of "God" (singular) in Hinduism is extremely notable and ] for the lede.
::*{{cite book|author=Jeaneane D. Fowler|title=Hinduism: Beliefs and Practices|url=http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=RmGKHu20hA0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=%22god+in+hinduism%22&ots=o2Z0QPKHtR&sig=rpPVBOZPhIExGJcJGQNUMNrals0#v=onepage&q=God&f=false|accessdate=26 July 2012|year=1997|publisher=Sussex Academic Press|isbn=978-1-898723-60-8|pages=10–}}</br> —Fowler has hundreds of mentions of "God" in her book, along with several mentions of "god" in lower case to show the distinction, in referring to ] for example.
::*{{cite book|author=Sebastian C. H. Kim|title=Christian Theology in Asia|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=hXh3iq94MWIC&pg=PA22|accessdate=26 July 2012|date=1 May 2008|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-68183-4|page=22}}</br> —That book, by a Christian, has an entire chapter about God in Hinduism, referring to it being heir to a "tradition that sought God with a relentless search."
::*{{cite book|author1=Amulya Mohapatra|author2=Bijaya Mohapatra|title=Hinduism: Analytical Study|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=vpiU9m7T_tQC&pg=PP11|accessdate=26 July 2012|date=1 December 1995|publisher=Mittal Publications|isbn=978-81-7099-388-9|page=14}}</br> —That book shows Hindus dedicating an entire chapter to "God in Hinduism."
::*{{cite book|author1=John Miller|author2=Aaron Kenedi|author3=Thomas Moore|title=God's Breath: Sacred Scriptures of the World -- The Essential Texts of Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Suf|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=GoJB8w8N7S8C&pg=PP1|accessdate=26 July 2012|date=29 September 2000|publisher=Da Capo Press|isbn=978-1-56924-618-4|page=1}}</br> —That book is entirely about God (singular, concept) in the scriptures of all the main religions I've been mentioning.
::*{{cite book|author=Huston Smith|title=The World's Religions|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=uFQWNYiJekwC|accessdate=26 July 2012|date=12 May 2009|publisher=HarperCollins|isbn=978-0-06-166018-4}}</br> —], in his book on The World's Religions (over 2 million copies sold), has an entire chapter on Hinduism in which many of the section headings even mention "God" (singular, concept): The Way to God Through Knowledge; The Way to God Through Work; The Way to God Through Love; etc.
::*Going further back, to show that this isn't just politically correct recentism, there is an article on "The Idea of God in Hinduism" in '']'' in 1925.
::There is so much more, but I'm going to leave it at that. With all due (and sincere) respect to ], I think he missed the boat by excluding God from non-Abrahamic religions. ] (]) 20:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
:::My apologies for possibly coming across as more strident than I intended to. But I would note the EoR actually doesn't include just the Abrahamic god in that group of articles. The last article in that set is "African Supreme Beings." Having read it at the time, but not since, it was on that basis, and the fact that the extant texts/stories of many African religions have been at least somewhat influenced by the West, that I indicated the scope might be those theological entities which are perhaps most frequently referred to by the sobriquet "God" (or some synonym) by their worshippers. So I assume that there are a few African deities called "God" or a rough equivalent by their followers, although, like I said, I'm just operating on memory here. I would have no reservations about a ], either, with short descriptions of them. So, ], one of the gods in that article on African supreme beings, would merit inclusion, and his name, roughly, translates into something roughly similar to "God" in the Western usage. Henotheism has to be included here, because early Mesopotamian religions, including proto-Judaism, were henotheistic, and there are references in the Old Testament which have been taken that way, and it makes no sense to exclude some of the OT material on that God on that basis. But, except for similar cases, I really do think that the clearly monotheistic deities merit separate coverage.
:::I might include the various Australian gods referred to as "All-Fathers" as well, even though they're not included in that grouping of articles, given the very close similarity of their characteristics and, given culturally-sensitive translations, names. But I do think that there is a significant difference between gods/deities who are seen by their followers as being the "all-everything" original and sole creators and all other religions, even ], which according to some of the books I've read might not even be strictly monotheistic, as there is evidently evidence of a separate, independent creation by Angra Mainyu in some of the texts. So, in a sense, I'm not so much concerned about a separate article on the "God" of the Abrahamics, but, like I said, those Gods who are called "God" or its equivalent and described as having similar attributes by their followers. That rather unique designation of a single god seems to be sufficiently different qualities and phioosophy than, say, Zeus, the son of two gods, brother of others, and father of an unknown number of others, who does not even come close to having the same characteristics.
:::Regarding ERB, personally, I think he was maybe coming up with as plain a name as he could think of that would still be recognizable. I sure hope he wasn't thinking of any sort of "savior" there. Eww. If you ever see any evidence of that, though, let me know, so I can change my name. ] (]) 21:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the expanded explanation, and for helping us to see the broader picture. I think we generally agree, and maybe the RfC could be rephrased to reflect that in some way, if needed. That John Carter thing was my own harebrained and sudden original research idea, but there are so many parallels that it's interesting (also he is immortal, at around 30 years old, works seeming miracles....). ] (]) 23:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::What would you think of changing the phrasing to something like "Should the scope of this article be changed to deal primarily, if not exclusively, with the group of gods who are known to their followers/adherents to be the sole creator of the universe, and, in general, possessing most if not all of the qualities of the Judeo-Christian god, such as being the all-powerful creator of the entirety of the universe?" I acknowledge that this is a bit different from what some might call strictly "monotheistic", because some of these other religions have other gods, but they are apparently rather clearly gods who are in some way subordinate to the sole original creator god. But, honestly, Gabriel, Michael, and the other angels of the Abrahamic faiths would qualify as somewhat lesser "gods" in some other religions as well. ] (]) 18:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::: john, are you going to keep moving the goal post? One minute its the Abrahamic God. Now its the Judeo-Christian God. Whats next? The Christian God? ] ] 19:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::: Pass a Method, would it be asking too much of you to actually read the comments of others before making such comments? If you could be bothered to read them, you would note that the first comment of this discussion specifically indicated that African supreme beings would probably be included, in the group of those entities who are basically thought of as "God" in the sense of the capitalized, all-powerful, sole creator god. If you had read them, you would note that, basically, I am simply changing the phrasing. Is it really asking too much of you to actually read and respond to the comments made, rather than making such comments as the above which both fail to AGF and also, apparently, even read the comments of others? ] (]) 19:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::John Carter, while I think the general idea is good and well-intended, it's hard to define God by having one particular God to whom all other Gods are compared... I think to say something more like ".... for example the Judeo-Christian God, Brahman in Hinduism, Allah in Islam, etc." Or just to say a supreme Creator, omnipresent, all-powerful, etc. And it may just be too tricky for ''us'' to define "God" with a capital "G" in any way, so we really should depend on Reliable Sources instead. Devotees of Krishna see him as God, for example, and there are reliable sources for that. All of which is to say that we should err on the side of inclusion. ] (]) 04:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Actually, I don't disagree with what you say above, and certainly not about Krishna, or, for all I know at this point, some Amerind gods, etc. Basically, the question I see is this. There seems to me anyway to be sufficient cause for there to exist an article on monotheistic creator gods. Honestly, strictly speaking, that might include the Krishnaists as well, and possibly the Australian All-Fathers, although I am myself not so certain about whether the impact of their concept of ] might make it reasonable for them to be primarily spun out into a separate article. But, if such an article were to exist on a monotheistic creator god, where would it be put. ], which some might consider to be a possible spinout of ], for instance, seems to me a little excessive in terms of length and maybe even somewhat confusing given the unusual construction. To my eyes, personally, using the title "God" as the title of an article on the monotheistic creator gods who were the only parties involved in their creation seems the best, and probably most easily understood, title for that article. So, in effect, I am saying this not because I think nothing else should necessarily be named by this title, but, given the fact that every article has a title, and there exist multiple other titles which can be and have been used for other deities over time, those other terms tend to be have been used often enough that I think most of the other "types" of gods/deities/what have you could be included in articles with other titles which might not be the best possible titles in a theoretical sense, but which are recognizable and possibly recognized enough as relating to those thoughts to be easily understood. Except for something like the rather clunky four word title I have proposed above, I really can't think of anything comparable for this concept, and, based on what I have seen, I tend to think that a fairly strong case could be made as per NAME for it to be used as the title. ] (]) 14:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}I agree, "God" is the best title, and it should be used in the capital "G" sense of the word. I notice that some academics use lower case and upper case "g" in their articles to make that distinction. Where there might be some room for flexibility is the use of capital "God" in reliable sources that refer to Lord of the Universe, Omnipresent, etc., but perhaps not the creator. That's why I mention Krishna, but only as an example. Within the article itself, that distinction can be make, if reliable sources do that. And in the lede, I generally support the current approach, without the need to specifically mention Baha, Waheguru, etc. This article is too Big for me to really spend time on—I think it would be an Omnipresent Problem to keep everyone happy :-), considering that ] every day over the issue. ] (]) 03:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
:FWIW, I specified in some sense the "monotheistic single creator god" because some groups, including some Gnostics, from what I can tell believe that there is/was a single ultimate creator, but that the material world we know was the creation of some ], and that creation by a lesser being is the reason for the flaws in the world. Granted, I don't know how significantly different that would be in terms of theological impact, not myself knowing those groups particularly well, but I do acknowledge that there is likely to be some difference. ] (]) 20:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
::I think that because there are so many grey areas, that type of discussion should even be covered in the article, assuming there are reliable sources talking about it. As I alluded above, I'm already in over my head here as far as actual article content. ] (]) 03:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== Is it OK to revert ] to archive 10 ==
== Atheism ==


See title. See for context. ] (]) 05:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Why does this fall under Atheism in particular, the God of abrahamic religion is not the only major deity of organised religion. ] (]) 06:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


:To clarify this is not an attempt to forum shop, any edit that I will or will not make to the archive will be made after the thing is resolved ] (]) 05:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Agree. I feel this article is very one-sided and biased. It speaks about the Christian concept of God as if he is real and the others are fake. In fact, this should be an article with links to all the different Gods and discuss them in short. This article instead gives precedence of the Christian God simply because Christians have taken the TITLE God and gave it to their deity as its NAME. This is not the case. The Christian God's name is YHWH, Yehovah, Yahweh, Jehovah, etc. Not God. ] (]) 20:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
:Hi, maybe reading the article, which discusses the Jewish, Islamic, Bahai, Hindu, Neopagan, and Zoroastrian conceptions of God, instead of reading y'all's perception about Christianity into it. ] and ], both discussed in the article as much as St. Augustine, were not Christians. ], an agnostic, is mentioned for his views. There are slightly more Christian authors, simply because most of the English-language sources are statistically more likely to have been by Christians. Still, the article does actually discuss a variety of religions if you bother to read it. ] (]) 20:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:46, 22 November 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the God 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
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
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.
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about God. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about God at the Reference desk.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Former good articleGod was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 13, 2005Good article nomineeListed
January 28, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
February 15, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 15, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article
This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconAtheism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information and how you can help, click the link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Be consistent

  • Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
  • Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
  • Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Articles to improve

Create

  • Articles on notable atheists


Expand

Immediate attention

  • State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
  • False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
  • Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
  • Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.
WikiProject iconBahá'í Faith Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBible Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChristianity Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam: Religious texts Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconJudaism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMythology Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. 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.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages'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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSpirituality Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTheology Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Religion High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of religion
WikiProject iconSikhism
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconZoroastrianism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Zoroastrianism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
The contents of the Supreme Being page were merged into God on August 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.


Should the image used for the Christian God be changed?

After a quick back and forth edit between VenusFeuerFalle and I relating to the image used for God, we agreed to take this issue/topic to the talk page. I think the image representing the Christian God should be replaced from the current one, which depicts God in a humanoid form with facial-hair, to a more suitable one which depicts the Tetragrammaton YHWH יהוה‎, the name of God. I agree that the bearded depiction of God is a more typical artistic depiction of God in Western culture, but it is very biblically inaccurate. Many Christians consider him to be invisible, and it is generally believed he has no form. It is best to use an accurate image like the other Abrahamic religions use on this page. RileyXeon (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick introduction. I agree partly with the proposition. The "bearded man" may not be the best representation for the Christian God. Many theologicans, including Origen, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm of Canterbury, Augustine of Hippo, and deistic philosophers from Christian culture, do conceptualized God as an abstract entity. An example is the concept of God as the first mover in the Five Ways by Aquinas. However, I do not think that a personal name does much better than the depiction of God as a person. The image needs to be representative for the Christian concept of God, such as a symbol. Next, I would argue that the Tetragrammaton, even if used as a symbol or representation rather than a proper name, it poorly reflects Christian tradition, given that the Tetragrammaton is rarely used in Christian writings. The idea that the Tetragrammaton should be used by Christians might be a rather modern phenomenon and might be motivated by Christian Zionism:

The book is divided into three chronological sections: “The Eclipse of the Name” (roughly 300 bce–500 ce), “Times of Ignorance” (500 ce–1400 ce) and “The Rediscovery of the Name” (1400 ce–1700 ce). The first section derives its title from the fact that whereas the Tetragrammaton routinely appears in Jewish biblical texts, in both Hebrew and Greek, it virtually never appears in biblical texts of Christian origin, being represented instead by the surrogate kyrios, or, more precisely, by the distinctively Christian abbreviation ΚΣ. The implications of “eclipse” notwithstanding, however, the author makes the important point that this shift in scribal convention does not signal a lack of Christian interest in the Tetragrammaton.(

R. Kendall Soulen 2015) Although the author states that the lack of 'Yahweh' should not be used as evidence for its lack of importance, we see that the term is hardly representative for the concept of God in Christian tradition. The author also calls the time of absence of the Tetragrammaton a "time of ignorance". Althought he author interpretes the importance of 'YHWH' into the Christian tradition, the term is factually (almost) non-existent in traditional Christianity. Where might be a better suggestion for an image, which does accurately reflect Christian tradition. If no better one is aviable, I think the portray of God as a man will do it as well, due to its prominence in Western culture. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Humans cannot agree on what God looks like. Having no image at all is the only sensible approach. HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The image shows very well that humans do not agree, therefore it is even better to include anthropomorphic depictions as well. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Depicting God as an old bearded man is very inaccurate and doesn't support biblical writings. Using the Hebrew name for God again would be far more suitable to use instead of a depiction which isn't supported. If it's more suitable maybe we could use an image of Jesus to replace instead? Jesus being God and having divinity is a key and common Christian belief, and an image of Jesus is already used on the Deity page. RileyXeon (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I would second that, except, this page is not confined only to Christian interpretation. (Unlike God_in_Christianity) 102.211.127.104 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep the current Michelangelo depiction. This isn't an article about biblical or Christian interpretations of God's appearance, it's about God as a single monotheistic entity and how he is or has been depicted across societies. Debating the Bible isn't relevant here. The depiction shown from Michelangelo is of one of the most famous depictions of the subject of this article ("God") in human history, probably the most widely recognizable, regardless of whether some Christian sects or sources may object that it represents what is "biblically accurate". It absolutely should remain.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 21:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Note - The depiction of God the Father by Michelangelo has been replaced by the Trinity depiction a long ago. The God in Christianity is mainly represented through trinity. This topic is not relevant anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.5.37.238 (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

A 'Definitions' section for this article

I was wondering if this article would benefit from a short section regarding the various definitions of God provided by religious traditions. I can provide one from the Westminster Shorter Catechism (a famous definition given which Anne of Green Gables quotes at some point) representing Presbyterianism, and another the Belgic Confession, a confessional standard of Continental Reformed Protestantism, both representing authoritative expressions of Reformed Protestantism which is a major form of Protestantism along with Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Baptist theology. These definitions also have Biblical citations for each point.

Westminster: 'God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.'

Belgic Confession: 'We all believe with the heart, and confess with the mouth, that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good and the overflowing fountain of all good.'

I believe a short and authoritative definition from each religious tradition would give readers a good idea of how God is conceived and also a useful point of comparison. Perhaps it could also be pointed out what doctrines or concept are taught in each definition, e.g. divine simplicity in the Belgic Confession ('one only simple and spiritual Being'). For this example, I would also mention that the Confession cites parts of Scripture such as Ephesians 4:6 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 as sources of this doctrine. Violoncello10104 (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Image of God

Image of the Christian God as of the current version (July 29, 2024) is the actual depiction of the Christian God. Don't change it with the painting of The Creation of Adam, also known as The Creation of Man, by Italian artist Michelangelo as it only consist the image of God the father. But the actual God in Christianity is represented through the the Christian Trinity, as a three faced head (Father, Son and Holy spirit). AimanAbir18plus (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, God in Christianity is a Trinity, but the depiction of the Most Holy Trinity (a 3-faced Jesus) currently is considered heretical even by the very church it came from. It is a very fringe depiction of the Most Holy Trinity, supported by practically no one.
I suggest it should be replaced with the Trinity icon by St. Andrei Rublev ASAP. Bis-Serjetà? (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bis-Serjetà?: I agree that choosing the tricephalous depiction of the Trinity is... rather odd. From my preliminary research, it appears to be theologically controversial, and was even condemned by popes Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.

@AimanAbir18plus: Can you justify your choice of this controversial depiction? How can it be "the actual depiction of the Christian God", as you claim, when it has been so condemned? 50.221.225.231 (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting really tired of the endless fiddling with the gallery here in general. We need to select three or four representative depictions that cover the gamut and stick with them. Remsense ‥ 论 07:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I did not choose the image. It was chosen by someone else. But this image is more accurate to represent the Trinity than an old bearded man as God. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTFINISHED. It's fine to do iterative refinement.
As a practical matter, I suggest going with uncontroversial depictions (like my example below) to avoid unnecessary disputes. 50.221.225.231 (talk)

The Shield of the Trinity (e.g., this image) seems like an uncontroversial choice for depiction of the Trinity. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of iteration, but iteration has to have direction or purpose. I wonder if we can do better still—while what it represents is certainly not controversial in Eastern Orthodoxy, the diagram is still particularly Western—I remember reading a bit about Byzantine diagrams a while back, it was really interesting. Remsense ‥ 论 08:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
@AimanAbir18plus, I asked you to please discuss further changes to the main gallery before making them. Remsense ‥ 论 19:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
@AimanAbir18plus, why did you try to archive this thread instead of addressing me directly asking you about something? Remsense ‥ 论 20:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
This topic is no longer relevant as the 3 faced trinity depiction of Jesus is no longer used in the article as lede image. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
But I asked you to please discuss any changes to the lead images before making them, which you have ignored and made changes anyway. There was no reason for you to archive what is clearly generalized, ongoing discussion about the lead gallery. Remsense ‥ 论 20:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't want to edit war: @AimanAbir18plus could you please explain the reasoning for re-adding the Jewish and Baháʼí representations? I do not think previous appearance suffices, and I would like to have a gallery where there are as few examples with as broad a coverage as possible. Remsense ‥ 论 09:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Because Judaism and Bahai Faith is larger religion than Atenism (extinct religion) and Monad (philosophy). And the depictions of God in Judaism and Bahai Faith were used in the older versions of the article and are more important than Atenism or Monad. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Right, but the point is to represent the totality of the concept described in the article. Atenism was of great historical importance for its concept of God, which remains of great interest to scholars of religion. The Monad represents a distinct conception of God unique to the early modern period. I'm not saying we have to include either of these, but just reaching for different representations because you feel they have sufficient number of associated adherents is not really doing the concept justice, in my mind. Remsense ‥ 论 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay. You can replace the Jewish and Bahai depiction of God with Atenism and Monad. I have no problem. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
But I don't think that the topic of "Don't change the image of the Christian God (Trinity)" is relevant anymore as the 3 faced trinity depiction of Jesus is no longer used in the article as lede image. So, do you think that it would be okay to remove this topic? AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
There's no reason to remove the topic, as it will be archived eventually like any other. It does not bother me that conversation flows naturally and other questions are addressed in the interim. Remsense ‥ 论 09:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Alright. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: @AimanAbir18plus: @Bis-Serjetà?: Eastern Orthodoxy (one of the three major Christian denominations) rejects human depictions of God the Father. Let's replace the image with the obvious candidate, Christ, or the Shield of the Trinity, as suggested above. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended content
Stop it all of you. There are so many different beliefs, there is no obvious candidate. This article does not need, nor should it have any image at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Excuse me? This is a premise you need to actually substantiate instead of demanding everybody trying to improve a highly visible part of a highly visible page should shut up. Remsense ‥ 论 05:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
God is a highly visual concept, so insisting on no visual illustration because figuring out what it should be is nontrivial is inane. Remsense ‥ 论 05:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Why? And how can God be a highly visual concept? HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Because a lot of visuals are associated with the concept? Remsense ‥ 论 06:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
There are many depictions of God in many religions which are essential for this article to use as lede image. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
That's not an answer tome concerns at all. HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Because you're not expressing concerns that can be engaged with except by deference to your particular tastes and perspective. Remsense ‥ 论 07:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
There is no image that will please people of every faith, so how about no image? HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the goal here. No definition will please everyone, and no choice of words will either, but I imagine you wouldn't say "don't bother to write an article". It's not within the remit of our encyclopedia to illustrate in an unfamiliar fashion, nor to defer on our own pretense that this subject is uniquely unillustratable without evidence. Neutral point of view does not mean no point of view: all we can do, exactly as with our prose, is be as representative of our sources as possible. Remsense ‥ 论 07:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
That's a straw man argument. I did not and would not propose having no article. Stick to what I actually said please. HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind what you said. I literally said "I imagine you wouldn't say 'don't bother to write an article'". Remsense ‥ 论 08:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe you should stop speculating and discussing me. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
If the purely editorial point I'm making is not clear to you, I apologize. I would like to see this argument as something more than obstructive, but I think it would be better if I desist here, since our rhetorical styles clearly aren't compatible. If you don't want to be understood, then don't speak, I guess. Remsense ‥ 论 08:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Image used in the introduction for Hinduism

In the introduction, I strongly recommend replacing the photo of a statue of Vishnu with the symbol of Brahman, since Vishnu is just one of the three manifestations of Brahman, together with Brahma and Shiva. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Currently, the article uses an icon of Acintya, a deity of Balinese Hinduism. (Bali is a small island of Indonesia.) Is there a reason we're using this, specifically, to represent all of Hinduism? 50.221.225.231 (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not representing all of Hinduism. It's representing a specific Balinese Hindu deity Acintya. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Why use Balinese Hinduism (~4.6 million adherents) rather than simply Hinduism (~1.2 billion adherents)? 50.221.225.231 (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Images of Hindu deities such as Hanuman and Vishnu were used in the previous versions of the article. But, many people including you too were not happy about it. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I vote we restore the the image of Vishnu, and just write "Vaishnava Hinduism" in the description. This is the largest sect of the faith. Otherwise, could we use an image of the Trimurti as a sort of compromise? Zoozoor (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Vishnu's image has been restored. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it OK to revert Special:Diff/995970156 to archive 10

See title. See this page for context. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

To clarify this is not an attempt to forum shop, any edit that I will or will not make to the archive will be made after the thing is resolved Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories: