This is an old revision of this page, as edited by North Atlanticist Usonian (talk | contribs) at 08:30, 14 September 2012 (rm bible wikiproject, undue). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:30, 14 September 2012 by North Atlanticist Usonian (talk | contribs) (rm bible wikiproject, undue)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| 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: 3 months  |
 Archives |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
 | God 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
| 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. |
|
| 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: 3 months |
Hadith: "I am Time, in My hand is the night and the day"
- "..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." --cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/qudsi.php
- "...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." --alifta.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kray0n (talk • contribs) 10:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- 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? Peter Deer (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2012 (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 Arabic into English, then Allah should be replaced with 'GOD'. Therefore, the Qur'an quotes should read: "The Messenger of GOD (PBUH) said, 'GOD said...", "The Prophet Muhammad said, GOD says...", and "Do not curse time, 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 gematrias 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 Christianity represents the Holy(4) Trinity(7) of Father, Son, and Sophia (wisdom) or Holy Spirit. E PLURIBUS UNUM ("Out of Many, One") is 13 letters and is used on the Great Seal of the United States and US currency because of its symbolic reference to the Original 13 Colonies/States, etc. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2012 (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 original research, 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. Arnoutf (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Lede
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. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, what's more the "Allah" page discusses the word, whereas God in Islam is the actual discussion of the concept. No, it's definitely not encyclopedic to have that in the hatnote, I'm just gonna remove it. Peter Deer (talk) 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, -Stevertigo (t | c) 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, -Stevertigo (t | c) 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. Peter Deer (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:31, 11 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. Peter Deer (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Capital "G"
- 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." Wolfdog (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I moved it to etymology Pass a Method talk 00:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Recent changes to the Lead
I noticed that there have been several recent changes to the Lead, 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 "atheists 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.
On a related note, the new section on "Evolution vs creationism" that was added today is using this article as a WP:COATRACK, 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". ~Adjwilley (talk) 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? Pass a Method talk 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." ~Adjwilley (talk) 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 WP:AN/I or another noticeboard.
- 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." ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2012 (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, this 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.
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.Your above post also indicate that you think Abrahamic views on God are homogenous, when in fact they are not.
- 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, this 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.
- Furthermore, there are many reasons to reduce Abrahamic weight in the lede; there already is an article entirely devoted to the Abrahamic God (see God in Abrahamic religions). Why do we need a replicate? There are also already multiple articles focusing or related to an Abrahamic God, (i.e. Abrahamic religions, God the Father, Omnipotence, Creationism, God of Abraham, monotheism, Throne of God, trinity, God in Islam, Godhead in Christianity, Great Architect of the Universe, Personal god, God the Sustainer, God in Christianity, People of the Book, Intelligent designer, Nontrinitarianism, Tawhid, 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 WP:LEAD, the lede should briefly summarize the rest of the article - your version doesn't do that.
- 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.
- 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 WP:WINAC. 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 WP:LEAD (as i already said above).
- 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. Pass a Method talk 07:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm...a lot of straw man 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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. – Lionel 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!!! – Lionel 04:54, 21 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. – Lionel 11:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm...a lot of straw man 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2012 (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. Pass a Method talk 07:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Scope of article
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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Evolution vs Creationism
I stated before that an entire section on "Evolution vs creationism" is using this article as a WP:COATRACK. 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 WP:WINAC. 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> ~Adjwilley (talk) 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. Pass a Method talk 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Lead
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.
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 deity in monotheism or the monist deity in polytheism" to "God usually refers to either the single deity in monotheism or one of the plural deities in polytheism". 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.
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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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, Sunnis believe that God has human-like attributes (hands, feet etc.) whereas Shias 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. Pass a Method talk 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.). ~Adjwilley (talk) 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. Pass a Method talk 18:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- In fact WP:LEAD says that articles should include any prominent controversies! Pass a Method talk 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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. – Lionel 11:05, 16 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:22, 13 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6043:A:641F:B85F:80A9:DCF (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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". ~Adjwilley (talk) 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. Pass a Method talk 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. Ian.thomson (talk) 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, (
<20,000<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. Ik Onkar 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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. John Carter (talk) 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. Pass a Method talk 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 WP:OR, 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 Waheguru would be more accurate and appropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:24, 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 WP:OR, 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 Waheguru would be more accurate and appropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:17, 21 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, (
- Adherents.com is a more reliable source than a newspaper. Adherents.com states they have 2.6 million adherents. Pass a Method talk 05:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
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 edit, which is why I reverted most of it. It was an exceptionally Bold 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.
- "Vishnu and Krishna are among the most popular Hindu 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, Brahman is often considered a monistic 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 Taoism, the Three Pure Ones 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 Baha, 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 multitude of titular names 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 WP:LEAD 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 Ik Onkar is the symbol of god for Sikhs."
- This is pure trivia and has nothing to do with names for God. It should also be thrown out per WP:LEAD.
- "Zoroastrians believe in one god called Ahura Mazda."
- 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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. John Carter (talk) 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 this 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. The Association of Religion Data Archives estimated some 7.6 million Bahá'ís in 2005. Furthermore the name Baha is not among the 99 names of god in Islam, so its not redundant.
- Encyclopædia Britannica (2002). "Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-2002". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica. ISBN 0-85229-555-3.
- MacEoin, Denis (2000). "Baha'i Faith". In Hinnells, John R. (ed.). The New Penguin Handbook of Living Religions: Second Edition. Penguin. ISBN 0-14-051480-5.
- "World Religions (2005)". QuickLists – The World – Religions. The Association of Religion Data Archives. 2005. Retrieved 4 July 2009.
- Ik Onkar is directly relavant to a paragraph about God's names since it is the title of the Sikh God.
- I object to any removal of the above religions. Pass a Method talk 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 Three Pure Ones (the three highest Gods in the Taoist pantheon) and argue henotheism. 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 Jade Emperor is the head deity. Maspero, Henri. Translated by Frank A. Kierman, Jr. Taoism and Chinese Religion. pg 41. University of Massachusetts, 1981.
- Ik Onkar 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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. Pass a Method talk 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 Three Pure Ones 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" :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- (e-c) First, I very strongly urge some of the editors here to perhaps read WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. I would also, perhaps, think that it may well be in their best interests to also read WP:OR, 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 WP:RS 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 WP:RS, 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 WP:NAME 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. Supreme being is another extant article which can deal more closely with other instances of "high gods" or "supreme gods" in other faiths, and Deity is a good place for gods of a polytheistic type, which would include henotheistic gods. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Theology: A very short introduction might be a good book for what you'd like to do...In my experience the Very Short Introductions series are great for sourcing Misplaced Pages articles because they are short enough to be an easy read, but still have the essential topics. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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. Pass a Method talk 15:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for being willing to compromise on this. How does this edit look as a compromise on my part? I have removed Taoism, but kept the other religions in abbreviated format. I also replaced Ik Onkar with Waheguru, which is the most commonly used term for God in Sikhism. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- It looks okay, thanks. Pass a Method talk 16:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Adjwilley, can you explain why you abbreviated three religions into one sentence? Pass a Method talk 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 Baha.
- The most common name for God in Sikhism is Waheguru.
- Zoroastrians believe in one god called Ahura Mazda.
- we condense them into a single sentence that reads:
- Other religions have names for God, for instance, Baha in the Bahá'í Faith, Waheguru in Sikhism, and Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism.
- 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 WP:WEIGHT since they represent a small minority of believers. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. It reads better that way, and is more concise. Rather than saying:
- Thank you for being willing to compromise on this. How does this edit look as a compromise on my part? I have removed Taoism, but kept the other religions in abbreviated format. I also replaced Ik Onkar with Waheguru, which is the most commonly used term for God in Sikhism. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:11, 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? Pass a Method talk 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. Pass a Method talk 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. Pass a Method talk 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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? Pass a Method talk 13:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- It seems like you are asking why we don't give equal validity 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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. Pass a Method talk 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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. Pass a Method talk
- 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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. Pass a Method talk 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:03, 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. Pass a Method talk 20:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:05, 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. Pass a Method talk
- 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:07, 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. Pass a Method talk 18:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- It seems like you are asking why we don't give equal validity 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:44, 25 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? Pass a Method talk 13:46, 25 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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 People of the Book, 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. Pass a Method talk 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 WP:WEIGHT 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 Rainbow Serpent 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. John Carter (talk) 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. Pass a Method talk 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 WP:TPG. There seems to be a rather significant history of violations of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:AGF, 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. John Carter (talk) 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. Pass a Method talk 10:23, 26 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 WP:TPG. There seems to be a rather significant history of violations of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:AGF, 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. John Carter (talk) 23:19, 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. Pass a Method talk 23:01, 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 WP:WEIGHT 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 Rainbow Serpent 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. John Carter (talk) 21:56, 25 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? ~Adjwilley (talk) 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. Pass a Method talk 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 (Latin Church, Maronite Church, Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Apostolic Catholic Church, Philippine Independent Church, Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church) 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? ~Adjwilley (talk) 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. Pass a Method talk 00:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions discussed roughly 2300 religious groups in the United States as per here. 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 WP:WEIGHT. And it is a violation of WP:OR 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 History of the concept of God 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. John Carter (talk) 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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. , Pass a Method talk 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.
- @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. , Pass a Method talk 09:57, 26 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. Pass a Method talk 00:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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 mosque 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 atheism does not give more weight to Hinduism than Wicca despite Hinduism being much larger. Pass a Method talk 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 Coatrack 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, i just noticed that the artcle God in Abrahamic religions 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 "God in Abrahamic religions". Pass a Method talk 21:42, 27 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 mosque 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 atheism does not give more weight to Hinduism than Wicca despite Hinduism being much larger. Pass a Method talk 12:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Should Hinduism come before Christianity and Islam?
User:Pass a Method has repeatedly made changes to the third paragraph of the Lead beginning with "There are many names for God, and different names are attached to different cultural ideas about who God is and what attributes he possesses.", moving the sentence "In Hinduism, Brahman is often considered a monistic 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? Here is the edit in question. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, Hinduism should not precede Christianity and Islam in the Lead, per my arguments above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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"? Pass a Method talk 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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. John Carter (talk) 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. Pass a Method talk 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 WP:CONSENSUS 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 WP:POV 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 WP:POV. 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? John Carter (talk) 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. First Light (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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? John Carter (talk) 21:24, 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 WP:CONSENSUS 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 WP:POV 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 WP:POV. Thank you.
- @ John there is a discussion about it above. John, you have still not explained why you prefer the current version. Pass a Method talk 20:41, 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. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI: reminder on avoiding edit warring
 | This section in a nutshell: Communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Misplaced Pages:Editing policy#Talking and editing. | Shortcut |
In general, communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Misplaced Pages:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. 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 there is no deadline and that editors can add appropriate cleanup tags 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 third opinion or starting a request for comments. 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 dispute resolution.
Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions 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 revert only when necessary. 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 consensus for the action. Request page protection 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 - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 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). The word God comes from the same root the German Gott, the proto-Germanic Gudan, ultimately going back to the Proto-Indo-European Ghutom. Ian.thomson (talk) 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 Tower of Babel (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.' - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but much of your proof is not very strong, and would be classified as fringe theories 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. Arnoutf (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I go to cook a little Chinese food and miss everything.
- Brad, editor credentials are irrelevant, no one here cares about them, we will ignore them. What matters is reliable sources (as detailed here) and neutrality. Fringe, new-age, pseudoscientific, and superstitious ideas will not be given credence on this site. All my links there are to relevant policies, guidelines, and essays supporting my statements.
- By the way, I've gotten into the SRIA'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. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 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 Tower of Babel (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.' - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 20:58, 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. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 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 this site's definition. 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 United Grand Lodge of England), 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?! Copyright violation is not tolerated here.
- 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. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- @Ian WP:Bite and Brad, let's keep this discussion civil 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 reliable sources 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 relevant for this (specific) top level article, or does it give undue weight to a minority idea?
- My position towards these is: Re 1) No, these sources maybe reliable for freemasonry topics (albeit possibly biased because of self publication). 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 indiscriminate amounts of information, in this case I think this would give undue weight 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. God (word)), 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. Arnoutf (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- My main objection is the rather obvious violation of WP:OR 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 Eric von Daniken and others. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Should Zeus be in the lede?
| closed rfc |
|---|
|
Do you support or oppose mentioning Zeus in the lede? Pass a Method talk 18:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment i removed the rfc template because i feel like the consensus is against me. Feel free to close this rfc. Pass a Method talk 10:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC) |
Scope of this article
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. Non-admin closure Hobit (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Strong oppose There already is an article on the Abrahamic god, see God in Abrahamic religions. Why do we need a duplicate? There are also several articles closely related to the Abrahamic God, (i.e. Creator deity, God of Abraham, God the Father, Omnipotence, Creationism, monotheism, Godhead in Christianity, Great Architect of the Universe, Personal god, Intelligent designer, Nontrinitarianism, Tawhid, God in Christianity, Throne of God, trinity, God in Islam, God in Judaism 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 WP:NPOV rules. Pass a Method talk 21:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose No change in scope is needed. The article is currently a reasonably well-balanced Worldview of the general subject matter. I don't see a problem with increasing the prominence of links to God in Abrahamic religions high up in the article, but changing the scope of this article would be anti-NPOV. Belchfire (talk) 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. First Light (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comment below . My very best wishes (talk) 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". . --Redtigerxyz 16:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose to avoid duplication, per Pass a Method and others. Miniapolis (talk) 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. Dougweller (talk) 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.Whiteguru (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Hail Ra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastside (talk • contribs) 16:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The article name does not specify any particular god. That would be and is a different article.--Charles (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Strong oppose per Pass a Method. 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. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see that a strong argument for change has been presented. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 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 Religiongeschichteschule 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 WP:COMMONNAME. 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. John Carter (talk) 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. Formerip (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2012 (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 God in Abrahamic religions, 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. Deity, and possibly monotheistic god if such is notable, could hold most of the other extant content, along with deity and supreme being. 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. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2012 (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. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think this article provides a fair (although too brief) description of God in Monotheism. Monotheistic God 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. My very best wishes (talk) 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 "deity" and "supreme being" is sufficient to accomodate that disambiguation, although I might add another link to polytheism. And I grant the word "deity" is itself a little ambiguous in English usage, particularly India English, but that is a separate matter. John Carter (talk) 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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 WP:UNDUE. 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 WP:DUE for the lede.
- Jeaneane D. Fowler (1997). Hinduism: Beliefs and Practices. Sussex Academic Press. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-1-898723-60-8. Retrieved 26 July 2012.
—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 Rudra for example. - Sebastian C. H. Kim (1 May 2008). Christian Theology in Asia. Cambridge University Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-521-68183-4. Retrieved 26 July 2012.
—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." - Amulya Mohapatra; Bijaya Mohapatra (1 December 1995). Hinduism: Analytical Study. Mittal Publications. p. 14. ISBN 978-81-7099-388-9. Retrieved 26 July 2012.
—That book shows Hindus dedicating an entire chapter to "God in Hinduism." - John Miller; Aaron Kenedi; Thomas Moore (29 September 2000). God's Breath: Sacred Scriptures of the World -- The Essential Texts of Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Suf. Da Capo Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-56924-618-4. Retrieved 26 July 2012.
—That book is entirely about God (singular, concept) in the scriptures of all the main religions I've been mentioning. - Huston Smith (12 May 2009). The World's Religions. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-166018-4. Retrieved 26 July 2012.
—Huston Smith, 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 The Journal of Religion in 1925.
- Jeaneane D. Fowler (1997). Hinduism: Beliefs and Practices. Sussex Academic Press. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-1-898723-60-8. Retrieved 26 July 2012.
- There is so much more, but I'm going to leave it at that. With all due (and sincere) respect to Lindsay Jones, I think he missed the boat by excluding God from non-Abrahamic religions. First Light (talk) 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 List of monotheistic gods, either, with short descriptions of them. So, Osanobwa, 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 Zoroastrianism, 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. John Carter (talk) 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....). First Light (talk) 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. John Carter (talk) 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? Pass a Method talk 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? John Carter (talk) 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. First Light (talk) 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 The Dreaming 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. Montheistic single creator gods, which some might consider to be a possible spinout of Creator deity, 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. John Carter (talk) 14:35, 30 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. First Light (talk) 04:10, 28 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? John Carter (talk) 19:41, 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? Pass a Method talk 19:32, 27 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. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 27 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....). First Light (talk) 23:57, 26 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 demiurge, 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. John Carter (talk) 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. First Light (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Atheism
Why does this fall under Atheism in particular, the God of abrahamic religion is not the only major deity of organised religion. 109.76.75.73 (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Categories:- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Unassessed Atheism articles
- Unknown-importance Atheism articles
- B-Class Judaism articles
- Top-importance Judaism articles
- B-Class Spirituality articles
- Top-importance Spirituality articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class philosophy of religion articles
- High-importance philosophy of religion articles
- Philosophy of religion task force articles
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Top-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class Islam-related articles
- Top-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- B-Class Bahá'í Faith articles
- Top-importance Bahá'í Faith articles
- WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles
- B-Class Theology articles
- Top-importance Theology articles
- WikiProject Theology articles