Talk:Prayer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Prayer was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 7, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
November 7, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
January 18, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Prayer:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Article requests : *Lead Way to short. See WP:LEAD. Orisons should be bold synom here.
    • Forms of prayer Aviod phrases like "The great spiritual traditions", that is an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. Bullet points need to be converted to prose. Also avoid weseal words like "Some anthropologists believe . . ."
    • The act of prayer No references. Lots of weseal words. (partly dealt with)
    • Include metaphysical examinations of whether prayer can work, in general, or when considered within specific religious traditions.
    • Prayer in Abrahamic religions The various subsections here should be summaries of the main article. For example look at Prayer in Christianity: main topics are The Early Church; Liturgical; Vocal; Meditative; Prayer of recollection; Contemplative prayer; Physical posture; Charismatic prayer: Speaking in tongues; A Christian philosophy of prayer; Christian Science Prayer; and Epistemological issues. Less than half of these topics are summarized. Your summary of Christian prayer in this article should only need small additions and tweaking to be the lead over at Prayer in Christianity. The same issue needs looking into throughout this section. No references for this section.
      • How is neopaganism an Abrahamic religion
    • Prayer in Eastern religions Same issues as last section. Also I am noticing the lack of animist traditions. Having only an Eastern section and a Abrahmic section means other traditions are left out.
    • Approaches to prayer Needs more references.
    • Experimental evaluation of efficacy of prayer This is slighty out of context without an introduction to the whole idea of Prayer healing. BTW Prayer healing is a redirect to this article and probably should be addressed directly and bolded.
    • Historical polytheistic prayer This is the first the first mention of scrafice related to prayer. Despite the earlier section of "Prayer in the Bible" The whole section seem out of place. Why leave out the Aztecs or the Vikings? And what about non-historical polytheistic prayer? No references
    • Etymology I would think this section would be first rather than last. No references. (partly dealt with)
    • Misc For some reason Prayer Warrior and Prayer group redirect here they should probably go to Prayer in Christianity but they are not really dealt with there either.--BirgitteSB 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The section has been started, not yet satisfactory. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 21:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The article has little on Japan. I've listed some topics related to Japan on the article's talk page. Fg2 11:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Add a paragraph on New Age prayer.
    • Add sourced paragraphs on African traditional religions and Aboriginal Dreamings. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 23:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Spirituality (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.

New quote[edit]

Perhaps {{cquote|If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. - Thomas S. Szasz<ref>[http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if_you_talk_to_god-you_are_praying-if_god_talks/225684.html Thomas Szasz quotes]</ref> }} can be included

Removal of efficacy discussion found in intro[edit]

To me it seems that to much of the intro is dedicated to the issue of whether or not prayer is efficacious. I think that matter is better handled in the subsection later on in the article and need not be so prominently featured in the introduction.

The whole issue of whether of not prayer is efficacious seems to be primarily directed at a specific type of prayer; i.e., prayers in which the petitioner is making a specific request of a divine being or spiritual agency to interact on the outcome a specific circumstance. Given that there is a large variety of pray traditions throughout history and across cultures which are totally unrelated to the issue of efficacy as it is presented in the introduction, it seems quite inappropriate to give the topic such prominence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.17.209.20 (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

New thing for "See also" section[edit]

Shouldn't the section "See also" also have Grace_(prayer) - the prayer that Christians say before meals?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Taoist Prayer[edit]

The prayer under Taoism is just plain false. Too many things are wrong with it that a whole revision needs to be done. One important thing to remember is that Taoists are not atheists. 140.254.227.87 (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have a source that proves what you are claiming, that is just your opinion. Wikipedia thrives on verifiability. If it's not verifiable, we don't include it. So why not detail your objections to the section in question and provide sources to prove your claims instead of making the sweeping generalization that "too many things are wrong with it that a whole revision needs to be done." Good luck with your research! --Jgstokes (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The original isn't verifiable either. 140.254.227.87 (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Witchcraft navbox[edit]

I have removed the {{witchcraft}} navbox. There are many religions mentioned in this article, and we should neither add navboxes for all of them (that would be overkill), nor should we single out one comparatively small group that's mentioned only in passing (that would be undue weight). The main {{religion topics}} navbox already serves the same purpose and does it better. Huon (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The naxbox concerns magic and witchcraft (many types) in general, including rituals and practices. Prayer is a practice in [general, religious or otherwise] magic, as defined by an action taken by a group or individual to elicit a supernatural response or commune with supernatural beings. Restoring unless better argument can be given. 144.32.60.216 (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Prayer is not commonly considered magic, and the article does not say so. In fact it mentions magic only in connection with specific, comparatively small, religions. Claiming such a connection for prayer in general would be original research. Huon (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
It is sorted by definition of a category, the way all categories are organized. Please, if you would have a reasonable argument against my definition above applying to prayer, then by all means tell me so. The definition of magic EXACTLY describes the general purpose of prayer. 144.32.60.216 (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Says WP:Categorization: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." The page is not in Category:Magic, and it shouldn't be because prayer is not commonly held to be magic. Neither should navboxes be added based on an editor's original research. I also disagree philosophically with the claim, but that doesn't matter because even if I agreed it would still be original research. Huon (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I will provide verification as soon as my schedule allows. Otherwise, I am disappointed in your cultural bias. 144.32.60.216 (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Image[edit]

Same artist, google file
Mary Magdalene by Ary Scheffer (1795–1858). IMAGE BLACK AND WHITE, ONLY 320 × 504 pixels, file size: 24 KB, scan blurry and extremly bad quality
this image is 2,779 × 3,339 pixels, file size: 2.73 MB, it is a google scan of high quality.

Considering that there are plenty of images in art history choosing a black and white scan of a relatively unknown artist is not the best choice. Hafspajen (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The motivation for removing this image was Artist is not well known. Ary Scheffer is not very well known either. If we want to stick to Ary Scheffer there is still a picture of much better quality, higher resolution, and in colour. Hafspajen (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC) The image I removed was 320 × 504 pixels, file size: 24 KB, scan blurry and extremly bad quality. The image I added - now removed - is 2,779 × 3,339 pixels, file size: 2.73 MB, it is a Google Art Project scan of high quality. Both illustrate about the same thing - a woman praying. Hafspajen (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being accused of edit warring when I only reverted your edit once in good faith. I did not revert you repeatedly and you did not take the issue to the talk page until after I reverted you. I don't feel strongly enough about the lead image to get into an argument about. If there is a consensus to change the image then I have no objection. The black and white image has been in use for several years, however. -- HazhkTalk 00:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Could we consider File:Duerer-Prayer.jpg, below? It's a very simple and clear image depicting two hands clasped together. It symbolises prayer: "to ask earnestly, beg, entreat". I think it would avert any conflict over artistic style. It essentially depicts the same primary feature of the other pictures. -- HazhkTalk 05:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Duerer-Prayer.jpg
Another Mary Magdalene by Tintoretto
Wassilij Maximowitsch Maximow 002b.jpg
  • YES, it is great. Very good choice. Also added here another Mary Magdalene by Tintoretto, and some other depictions of prayer made by famous artist's. Let you chose if you want to use any of them. Hafspajen (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced a large file size is necessarily an indication of quality. Personally I'd go with the Dürer image: A well-known artist and an image that focuses on the essentals: No landscape in the background, no allegorical accessories, no famous historical or mythological persons, just a gesture that (at least in Western Christianity) clearly symbolizes prayer. Huon (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it is the best choice for the lead. -- HazhkTalk 19:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The other ones can be used in the article . Or not. You decide. Hafspajen (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)