Talk:Names of God

Using the names of pagan gods for the name of the Christian God when translating the Bible into other languages!

Under the section Abrahamic Religions/Christianity, an editor says,"In the effort to translate the Bible into every language (see SIL), the Christian God has usually been named after a pagan or philosophical concept that was present in the language before Christianity."
No evidence has been provided for this statement. Is the writer perhaps confusing the concept 'god' with the actual personal name of the supreme deity as revealed/recorded in the Bible?--Lepton6 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism

I've expanded the Hinduism section, which originally was very limited and placed an undue emphasis on Krishna-centered traditions, and previously failed to mention any traditions except for the two main, Vaishnavism and Shaivism. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 20:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hare Krishna

I'd like to ask why Hare Krishna continues to be added to the "Main articles" line. I don't think it should, and here is why:

• This is a Vaishnava mantra, but the article section respects multiple traditions and is not solely based on the Vaishnava perspective, so it can hardly be considered a main or primary article of the section.
• While the mantra is recited by multiple Vaishnava traditions, it is venerated in particular as the primary (or one of the primary) mantra for one tradition, Gaudiya Vaishnavism. The section, again, represents much more than one single Vaishnava tradition.
• The mantra is specifically recognized (and made famous in the Western world by) one organization within Gaudiya Vaishnavism, ISKCON, which is a single organization within a single tradition that does not represent Hinduism as a whole. Again, this is another reason why the single mantra is not a good representative for the section as a "Main article".
• The mantra venerates just three names of Vishnu (or two names of Vishnu and one of Radha, depending on which traditions one is from) whereas there are countless other names. (See Vishnu Sahasranama for just one example that lists one thousand names.) In fact, it is said within Vaishnava traditions that there are an infinite number of names. Three among these (two of which who are named in the section itself) would not be representative of the section as the "Main article".
• There are countless other mantras within the Vaishnava traditions that venerates Vishnu/Krishna or associated names, such as Om Namo Narayana, as well as within other traditions of Hinduism such as Shaivism where Om Nama Shivaya is a common mantra. What makes one more notable than the rest?
• This is a Hinduism section within a Names of God article, not a "Hindu mantras" section within a "Prayers" or "Hymns" article. A single mantra would not be a main article for this section, but rather a list of names such as Sahasranama, which is already listed as one of the main articles.

For these reasons I disagree with the placement of the article as a "Main article" within the section. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 14:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely Shruti it is not representative as to the Hinduism as a whole, nor it should be, as it was not "the main article", but just a See also pointer: Hare Krishna is notable as one of Hindu traditions that is specifically orineted and centered on Nama (or the name) and it is not strictly speaking a mantra (that in Hinduism would start with (Om, Klim, Hrim or other seed sounds, such as Om namah narayana, Klim krishna govindaya, etc.,) and thus should remain as See also, mainly due to its popularity in the Western or English speaking world and being specifically the names of God not 'a mantra'. Sahasranama is also not the 'main' article as per your revision[1], but is about a specific concept of 1000 names of a god or a goddess, thus is also should remain in the See also line.

Hare Krishna is the most prominent form of chanting the "Holy Names" of Krishna. [2] and "Names of God" [3] If the Sahasranama was changed to Names of God in Hinduism and thus became main article, Hare Krishna will still remain a See also. At the moment they are both See also and lets keep Sahasranama article first, since its more generic. Hare Krishna should remain Wikidās ॐ 14:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shruti, it should not be a 'main article' for the Hinduism section, any more than the other names of God. ~ priyanath ^talk 04:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Even as a "See Also" link, it's giving undue weight to one particular mantra or nama that is primarily venerated by one specific group. Also, I disagree that the Google search links provided prove that Hare Krishna is the "most prominent form of chanting the 'Holy Names' of Krishna," although it is certainly one of the more prominent ones. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 18:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly one of the more prominent forms of Hindu worship that is centered on the Holy Name and is called Holy Name. Omitting mentioning it on the article specifically dedicated to holy name would be unacceptable. Undue to a mere See also is certainly inapplicable. There is a need of inclusion of for NPOV policy. If you know of any other practice in Hinduism that is referred as a Holy Name please include it here as well. Google search just proving that it is the most common use of the term Holy Name in relation to Krishna is Hare Krishna. Your should not exhibit such a bias, as to remove a mere see also link. Wikidās ॐ 21:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no "bias exhibited"; please assume good faith and do not accuse me of doing so. My point was not that Hare Krishna has no merit as a "Holy Name", but rather that it probably shouldn't be in the "See Also" link area, which lists articles that are relevant to the whole section and not just one small part. Sahasranama belongs there since it is relevant to most parts of the section, with there being a Vishnu Sahasranama, multiple Shiva Sahasranamas, Lalita Sahasranama, Ganesha Sahasranama, and so on. Kirtan and Japa are also practiced by multiple groups, namely Vaishnavism and Shaivism. Hare Krishna, however, is for Vaishnavas alone, and even within the Vaishnava tradition is mainly for Krishna devotees, especially those from ISKCON (who made it famous internationally) and other Gaudiya Vaishnava groups. If you like, the information about Hare Krishna can be placed with the information about Krishna, where it would be relevant, but the "See Also" link is not the best place to put it. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You see this article is not about gods, it is about Holy Name is the name in traditions or religions that is used in practice or prayer, in this regard Hare Krishna is the prominent practice, and other aspects are not. It has nothing to do with the number of traditions that practice it does it? It refers to Hari (Vishnu) Krishna and Rama not just Krishna. It can also refer to Shiva as Hara. Precisely because its universal and because of its international spread it has to be in the see also. There is nothing in MoS as far as I know stating that See also should refer to all items mentioned in the section, clearly a misunderstanding. Wikidās ॐ 23:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Restructure of the article

Restructure is clearly required:

• names of the religions should be in accordance with systematic and neutral listing with consistency of the placement e.g. Religions of Asia, Religions of Africa etc
• as many religions that do not emphases Names of God are taking precedence over religions that do, it should in reverse.
• number of names are repeated and concepts outside of the scope of the article should really be cleaned up.

Wikidās ॐ 14:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why is "Religions of X" better than "X-an religions"?
• "many religions that do not emphases Names of God are taking precedence over religions that do". Is there some way to neutrally measure how much each religion emphasises names of God? I suspect not. An alphabetic ordering would make more sense.

Ilkali (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas? Ilkali (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Religions of X is a universal expression, as for example Buddhism is a religion of India but not the Indian Religion. In some religions use or a reference to the name of God is undocumented or is OR idea, they should not be part of this article. I am yet to find references to use of Holy Name in African religions for example. If a religion is not confirmed by the secondary sources as addressing God with a name being His name or to Holy Name, it should be removed to comply with policies of inclusion.Wikidās ॐ 22:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Religions of X is a universal expression, as for example Buddhism is a religion of India but not the Indian Religion". If it's exclusively a religion of India, on what grounds is it not an Indian religion?

"In some religions use or a reference to the name of God is undocumented or is OR idea, they should not be part of this article". Maybe, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your changing the order of the religions. Why is the new order better? Ilkali (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The grounds of origin is only one way of organising religions (as the case with Buddhism). Most neutral way of doing it is by relevance to the topic, if its not good enough it can be done as per other similar articles. A good example is the Gender of God that lists religions in the progress of historical development as per consensus. Wikidās ॐ 22:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you answered either of my questions. Ilkali (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of religions of India (ie originating from India), however they are not Indian as such. Just as Christianity, Judaism and Islam are religions of the middle east. I guess it would be NPOV to refer to them as such if other world religions are associated with a particular place. New order should reflect relevance to the article core issue, ie the name of God, suggested by the relevance (with some religions not relevant at all and only mentioned in passing). Wikidās ॐ 22:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"There are a number of religions of India (ie originating from India), however they are not Indian as such". Why not? There's certainly one interpretation of Indian that means precisely "from India". What interpretation are you taking?

"New order should reflect relevance to the article core issue". So we return to my original question: How do we objectively assess the relevance? Ilkali (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"How do we objectively assess the relevance? " - objectivity could be a consesus, but lets suggest alphabetical order the the place of origin, I have updated the list to reflect the order according to the "from" factor. That creates a NPOV approach and nobody gets a special mention. Neutral. Wikidās ॐ 08:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The list should be NPOV which can be by the origin (not the founder) or by dating as in the Gender of God article. It is not about what is common, it is about what is neutral. Wikidās ॐ 10:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary for religions to be categorised based on where they're from. The point is just to provide intuitive, accessible groupings. People are much more likely to think of Judaism, Christianity, etc as Abrahamic religions than as Middle-Eastern or Semitic religions. There is nothing POV about this. Ilkali (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There no POV in addressing a group of religions by a name of a founder, however if you do not address other in the same manner it is not NPOV. If Abraham is a founder definition, all other religions should be defined in the same manner, ie by a founder or 'no founder'. Only then it will be NPOV. Wikidās ॐ 11:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How does using multiple classification criteria violate NPOV? Ilkali (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

By being selective. Wikidās ॐ 11:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We are obligated to be selective in how we present content. There is only a POV issue if the underlying criteria put undue favor on a particular point of view, which is not the case here. Ilkali (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing is being selective in content selection (ie it has to be verifiable, notable and supported by reliable sources), and completely another thing is categorization. Wikidās ॐ 09:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Any time we have to order or categorise elements, we have to select a way to do it. We can do it by name, by chronology, by size, etc. What I am suggesting here is that we use familiar, well-understood terms where possible and use geographical divisions as a fallback. Please either demonstrate that this violates NPOV or retract that claim. Ilkali (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes we can do it by name, by chronology, by size, location, origin or founder etc., but we can not mix and match the system to favour one group over the other. If every entry is by chronology, one should not give a special treat to one by its location. At present its all grouped by the locality of the origin, not by the founder's name. Wikidās ॐ 07:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"we can not mix and match the system to favour one group over the other". I agree. That is not what is happening here. Currently they are all being treated the same way: They are given familiar groupings if available, or geographical groupings otherwise. It is a consistent system with a sensible rationale. There is no mixing or matching. Ilkali (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

They are not being treated in the same way. If you want to treat them the same way, select one single criteria - at the moment it is country of origin not the founder. Wikidās ॐ 10:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My words: "Currently they are all being treated the same way: They are given familiar groupings if available, or geographical groupings otherwise". If you want to argue for a different categorisation, you have two options: 1) Show that this system is not being applied consistently, or 2) argue that this system does not benefit the reader. Ilkali (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The selective system ie if you call only one group of religions by its founder and for some strange reason would not accept the origin of the group is a mistake. What is 'familiar' groupings? Familiar to whom? And its clearly a POV to say that for some religions there are no 'familiar' groupings? Wikidās ॐ 10:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Familiar to our readers. Is Christianity more often referred to as a Semitic religion or an Abrahamic one? There are ways we can test that - for example, Google returns about three times more results for "Abrahamic religion".

Also, I think you're conflating different kinds of POV. Acting on opinions about the language we use is unavoidable. You can call that a kind of POV, but it's not the kind addressed by WP:NPOV. If you'd like to suggest other, more familiar names for the groupings we have, I'd be happy to hear them. I think geographical groupings are at best a decent last resort. Ilkali (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Since we can not come to an understanding on it, the only way forward is to use the same structure as in other article. Gender of God article is such an article which you were an active editor of and it has a consensus as a far as the structure. Wikidās ॐ 11:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Gender of God is ordered chronologically under the assumption that the ideas of gender in earlier religions influenced those in later religions. The same can't quite be applied to names. An alternate way forward is to leave the categorisations in the same state as before you edited them until you can show consensus for change. Ilkali (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that assumption ideas of name in earlier religions influenced those in later religions apply here as well in the same degree. Other two options are by name and size without grouping. Unless an objective criteria for grouping is found of course. Wikidās ॐ 12:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You believe that the naming of gods in Hinduism contextualises the naming of God in, say, Christianity? How? Ilkali (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not just Hinduism, so other ancient traditions particularly of Egypt. For example: No weight is to be laid on the equation Krsna = Christos, for Krsna was a god before Christ was born. - Epic Mythology With Additions and Corrections: With Additions and Corrections - Page 216 by Edward Washburn Hopkins - 1968; It can be seen from the perspective of Proto-Indo-European religion or from the perspective of Proto-Indo-European language. Wikidās ॐ 22:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinese terms for God

it appear that items listed in the Chinese religions section are hardly fitting the description and are more like terms used by other religions in order to compensate for the fact that there is no specific equivalent. Should be moved to Phrases and alternatives. Wikidās ॐ 14:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

African religions

There is no evidence since two months as to wether the claims in the section of African religions are true. It appears to be a list of names, that refer to some forms of tribal gods without any sub-articles. The section should be cleaned up to omit OR list. Wikidās ॐ 14:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OR removed

I have removed complete OR section. It was tagged for 15 weeks. It is unreasonable to have so much OR in one section. Below is removed material/ -- Wikidās ॐ 09:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• The Maasai name for "God" is Ngai, (also spelled:'Ngai, En-kai, Enkai, Engai, Eng-ai) which occurs in the volcano name Ol Doinyo Lengai ("the mountain of God").

• The Shona people of Zimbabwe refer to God primarily as Mwari. They also use names such as Nyadenga in reference to his presumed residence in the 'heavens', or Musikavanhu, literally "the Creator".

• The Khoi names for God are much disputed but generally the following are accepted, Thixo,Uthixo, Tsui, Tsui Goab, Gunab, and Touqua although it must be remembered that the actual concept of God may vary from people to people or individual to individual.

• The Bushmen or AbaThwa name for God is generally quoted as being /Cagn, the mantis God, however this is also disputed and varies from group to group.

• The Zulu name for God is Nkosi Yezulu (lit. the Lord of the Sky) and Nkulunkulu.

• The Yoruba of West Africa refer to the highest god, that is the God of gods, the Almighty asOlodumare.

As it is with many translations by early missionaries, the existing names of God existing in many Africanlanguages were employed in the Christian Bible such as Olodumare in the Yoruba version.

• The Xhosa take their name of God from the Khoi, Uthixo, and this is considered a powerful and sacred name.

Ethiopian tribes

This is a brief list of Ethiopian tribes and their respective names for the Supreme Being.

• Boran - Waqa

• Afa - Yaroz, Robboqua, Fogatza, Musa, Musa Gueza

• Koma - Yere Siezi, War, Wal

• Konso - Bamballe, Adota, Waq

• Male - Sosi

• Mekan - Tuma

• Murle - Tummu

• Sangama - Zabi

• Sidamo - Magano

• Zala - Taosa
• Chiasson - Calins 09:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is this article about?

The lead of the article first talks about Names of God in "monotheistic" religions (whatever that is), then contradicts it by "Conceptions of God can vary widely" in the second paragraph, before which there is a breach into "Holy Names", while the bulk of the article is/was about words for God in different religions as if languages were co-eval with religions.

The original intent of this article was Names of God in Sikkhism, which -- within a year -- morphed into Names of God in so-called "monotheism" (and included the word "Christ"!). It then gets progressively weirder (no wonder given its magnetism for OR), leaving us with the mess we have today. That its an OR magnet is not surprising given the 6 billion different definitions of "thingamabob". There is not a shred of proper sourcing either.

Something needs to be fixed. We have (as far as I can see) only two options:

• either the article gets renamed to something else (perhaps "List of words ..."), and the silly lead gets fixed appropriately. This approach will however retain the OR magnet effect.
• or it gets turned into a disambig ala

Names of God may refer to:

• [[Names of God in Judaism]]

• [[Names of God in the Qur'an|Islam's 99 Names of God]]

• [[Names of God in Old English poetry]]

• [[Sahasranama|Sahasranama - Names of God in Hinduism]]

wherein however "Chinese terms for God" and similar stuff does not have a place.

Perhaps there are other options?

Thoughts? Ideas? -- Fullstop (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree the article is a mess, nor do I accept your implication that monotheism isn't a meaningful term, but I do agree that by its structure this article could easily be {{split}} into a disambiguation page to a discussion of names of God sorted by religious tradition. The problem with this is that in spite of all you say, names for the notion of a singular God tend to come grouped by language, not by religious tradition. viz. Allah is the Arabic for "God" regardless of which flavour of monotheism you happen to prefer. Your objection to "Christ" figuring as a name for God in monotheism, viz. in the particular brand of monotheism that is Trinitarian Christianity, contains the implication that Trinitarian Christianity isn't monotheistic. All Muslims would agree with this, but 99% of Christians would disagree. So there. Protesting a lack of sources for this is disingenious, since the problem is illustrated perfectly adequately at Trinity/Christology. --dab (𒁳) 15:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point. Its irrelevant what you think monotheism or trinitarianism or whatever is. That is not pertinent to Names.

And treating a protest of a lack of sources as "disingeneous" is inordinately dumb. Wikipedia is not a publisher of your thoughts. The supposition that I should go off and "educate" myself at other -- equally unsourced -- articles, written by (probably) equally uninformed people, is absurd.

If you have an explanation that answers "What exactly is this article about?", then for heaven's sake spit it out. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no need to split it - it survived both AfD and has a healthy size for a topic. No sub articles at present can justify trunking it to da. Wikid^as© 18:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you are so certain, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt until Friday (so, three days), by which time you ought to be able to meet Wikipedia policy. That is, you ought to be able to come up with with reliable sources for this article, that A) establish that there is a connection between Names and monotheism, and B) for each of those "names" lists.

Should you fail to come up with the necessary sources by that time, the article will be returned to the cleaned-up state, in accordance with the Wikipedia policies on WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, this is an inversion of policy; you are required to substantiate your claims, not vice-versa. So yanked. For further information, see WP:Verifiability, WP:No Original Research, WP:Reliable sources, WP:Not#indiscriminate and -- for good measure -- Jimmy Wales. Feel free to restore content when/if you can make your thoughts adhere to Wikipedia policy. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want you can use AfD to generate consensus for your move, so far your unilateral interpretations of policies are in conflict with existing consensus. [4] You are not the person who sets guidelines, you are to seek consensus, if if a section of two of the article needs work tag it. Do not use WP:CFORK for the purposes of desintegration, it is seen as vandalism, not 'clean up'. Wikid^as© 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The notability of the subject is not under discussion, so pointing out the AfD is not meaningful. I also do not need to seek consensus to enforce Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is already established by consensus. I also do not need to tag, especially since *all* the sections are already tagged with {unreferenced}. So, either address the WP:V, WP:OR etc issues noted above, or the garbage vanishes.

Although I initially suggested three days, your wikilawyering and gaming the system indicates that you do not have the best interests of this encyclopedia in mind, and I have accordingly reduced that period to 24 hours.

As I said, either address the WP:V, WP:OR etc issues noted above, or the garbage vanishes. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of this is sourced, if from other articles. I note that the Rastafari movement article mentions Halie Selassie (sp?) as being God incarnate in the first paragraph, with a citation. I have a feeling that a lot of the items listed might have been arrived at in that way. Having said that, all list articles need to have the items included in the list cited individually. As an alternative to the total removal mentioned above, one thing that has been done in the past elsewhere is remove all uncited material, but place a list of the individual items on the talk page, so that those interested in providing sourcing can more easily see which items were removed and thus have an easier time finding sourcing. I do note that the list isn't particularly complete yet, no big surprise given the number of monotheistic religions out there. As I remember, there were multiple forms of Gnosticism, and I don't remember that they all used the same name. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Some sections are following WP:SS format. Look into the relevant articles for references. We will continue to follow the system established. And unless you go and remove all unsourced material from anywhere in Wikipedia in the next 24 hours your demand is empty. I give you 24 hours to remove all unsourced material from anywhere in Wiki:-) You know perfectly well the little tags. ^{{fact}} - please use them and stop inventing deadlines you get in your school. We are serious people here. Wikid^as© 14:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy that excuses you from not providing sources for the claims you make. You are obliged to source your claims, without exception. You are also obliged to cite with fidelity, which is not the case for the "citation" that appears in the very first sentence of this article. You still have a few hours to fix the article to conform to policy. -- -- Fullstop (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with sourcing - I hope you are up to task and are willing to work on the article. To date it was almost only me who added sources to the areas of this article, areas that require it. If you want more sources and are willing to work on the article I will suggest some more in the references section. At the moment you are just removing wholesale material without consensus. I have removed specific unsourced sections before you came in -- all discussed and with a consensus as you can see (can you) above. Regards, Wikid^as© 15:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You are obliged to source all material that you insist on having. You have no "consensus" to keep unsourced material. You have no consensus, period.

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material

That is per "one of Wikipedia's core content policies", and applies to material that is unsourced, or inappropriately sourced (which includes out-of-context OR). Material that you do not source is going to vanish, per policy. I have seen no effort from you to improve the situation, and only edit warring and wikilawyering, so the deadline stands. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the section quoted by Fullstop above also contains the following statement, "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references, especially in an underdeveloped article. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." Note that the "reasonable efforts" are not in that specifically limited to the party making the addition. And I have reason to believe that several editors would probably object if the threatened removal in short order were to be undertaken, particularly without having given the specific citations needed templates as is requested. Also, as per WP:NOCITE, we are asked to consider the following in determining what actions to take:

• If a claim is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Wikipedia, use the {{fact}} tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.
• If a claim is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it as very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense. All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel.

I don't see yet how either of those steps has been carried out here, and, personally, the question of the doubtability of some of these statements is at best a minor one, if really even extant. "Grass is often green" geneassrally doesn't need a specific citation either. Therefore, I have to think that, until the proper citation templates are added to the specific items challenged, and by that I mean items, not sections of the article, and all parties involved given time to react, it would probably be a bit of an overreaction to remove material which is not specifically "doubtful". John Carter (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Every section in this article is already tagged with {unreferenced}. What more do you need? Would you like me to tag every sentence? I will wait for your explicit instruction to do so before doing anything of the kind; it is (in my mind) uneccessarily disruptive, and serves no purpose, but will do so if you want it.

I will of course cross-post the expicit instruction to AN/I to ensure that I don't get kicked in the face for following such bizarre POINTy instructions.

This article is completely contrived. Its "doubtful" in the premise (which is flat out false, and inverts the source being cited), and its "doubtful" that anyone who ever added anything here has an informed (read: educated) opinion on "Names of God", instead of what they think "Names of God" are.

I initiated this very talk section one month ago. To date I have yet to receive a coherent reply from anyone. One month is plenty of "time to react". None forthcoming, ergo, the garbage vanishes. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There can be and is at least to some degree a reasonable cause for there to be a list of names of monotheistic gods, with links to articles about the same. Therefore, I have reason to believe that your conclusion regarding the premise is perhaps, to use your language, "flat-out false". Just out of curiosity, did you call any attention to the discussion elsewhere? I don't remember seeing any, although I at least acknowledge I can and do make mistakes. And perhaps, if you used language which was more clearly in line with WP:CIVILITY and other general conduct guidelines, you might receive answers more to your liking. However, I do believe, in the interests of following policy and guidelines, which is something I would hope we all would like, it would make sense to indicate specifically what sections, by which I mean bullet-points or names within sections, if there are more than one, you have so clearly and judgementally written of as "garbage". Thank you. John Carter (talk)

"a list of names of monotheistic gods" is not the premise of this article. The premise of this article is explictly that

"The Name of God, or Holy Name is the name in monotheistic traditions or religions that is used in liturgy or prayer.[1]"

which is a doubly-false assertion.

• there is no correlation between "Name of God/Holy Name" and "monotheistic traditions or religions". Most (if not all) traditions can (and do) construct "Name of God/Holy Name" through prayer.
• the source being "cited" does not support that assertion. Indeed, it compares different Name of God prayers in different cultures, both east and west. It even observes that "Some version of the Holy Name prayer is available in most of the major world religions. Herbert Benson has uncovered historic traces of the Holy Name prayer in Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shamanism, and Taoism. Thus, the Holy Name prayer provides a common ground to explore the deepest dialogue with the Ultimate Other among many of the major world religions."

Thus, what we have is an article with a false premise, and even citing a source that explicitly states the contrary. The contents of the article -- if at all they follow the premise of the lead -- are consequently invalid.

The solution to that is of course the one I stated elsewhere (putting that in a different article per religion, as Islam and Judaism already do). -- Fullstop (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Names of God"

names of god article

http://www.nawawi.org/downloads/article2.pdf

check it out its great i think it should be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.38.232 (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe move the avatars?

I do see that there are some names on this list which are not technically "names of God", in the sense of names used by worshippers for their God in prayer, etc., but rather names of avatars or incarnations of God, which is a rather different matter. And it is fairly likely that some people would be confused by seeing both kinds of names included in one list. It might be a good idea to separate out the names of avatars from the names of the general name of the god to prevent that sort of confusion. John Carter (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea to remove items that relate to not-supreme-Deity, ie names that are not used to address Supreme Being. The idea of one Deity being Supreme Being or equal to Supreme Being is exclusive to a very few traditions that claim to be monotheistic. 92.251.255.15 (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words remove non-theistic or non-monotheistic names. Avataras in Krishnaism are forms of polymorphic monotheism and thus for example Rama and Krishna as well as Vishnu are names of the same person in different forms or dresses. Wikid^as© 14:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

John Carter's observation that worship through names is what qualifies a word as a name is correct. But, such a definition is not practical as a benchmark on Wikipedia since it then includes at least "father", "lord" and "son" and its equivalents in every language into which the Lord's Prayer and/or In Nominem has been translated.

The premise that "Names of God" is somehow tied to "monotheism" is false, and there is no reliable source that would suppose such a thing (least of all the source being "cited", which does not even contain the word "monotheism").

There is also no need (even if it were legitimate) to invent litmus tests for inclusion that no reliable source knows of. There are several (read: dozens) of Hindu and Buddhist prayers that worship through/by names. The genre is called namastotras, lit "name praise". A proper noun that appears in any of these it is by definition a Name of The Divine. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The premise Fullstop is contending is based on the first sentence of the article, which seems to make it clear that this article is apparently dealing with monotheistic religions. Also, "God" (capitalized) is generally used almost exclusively in monotheistic situations, "god" being used in polytheistic ones. Jupiter, for instance, is rarely if ever called "God". The contention that regular words which are, at times, in some translations, also used as "names" is at best arguable. On that basis, I think that words like "son", "father", etc., are reaonably excluded, as those are not "names" in the conventional sense of that term but more along the lines of titles. Regarding polymorphic monotheism, I know that there is some discussion among some people called "Hindus" about whether Vishnu, Krishna, or someone else is the "original form" or whatever of that entity, but I think that the list should be limited only to those who are contended by someone to be the "original form". I do however still think that perhaps, given the complexity of "Hinduism", that a separate list for that faith might be a good idea, as it could establish a bit better where and in what context a given name is used, and how it might or might not be used on the various candidates for "Supreme Being" in that tradition. Regarding the possibility of listing all the various names given to individual gods in general, I personally think that the main article on that entity, or, in some cases, a subarticle regarding that entity and his/her/its names and their meanings is probably the best way to go. This would also make sense in that some entities which are not considered to be "gods" even if "godlike", like Metatron and, among some branches of Christianity, Mary (mother of Jesus), are given other names as well. But we should definitely differentiate between titles given these entities and names, where that is possible. So, for instance, while Mary is called Our Lady of Perpetual Help, that is generally seen to be a title, not a separate name, and probably should be treated as such here. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I was addressing the remark of anon, who (apparently) presumed that the first sentence in the article is valid. It is not. Somebody made that up, and the "citation" is a fraud.
• Re: capitalization: that is not a meaningful distinction/benchmark. After all, those prayers referred to are not necessarily written in Latin script, or even if so, do not necessarily have a capitalization rule comparable with that of English.
• Re: Jupiter: That is a perfect example to demonstrate the flaw in the "monotheistic" and "capitalization" argument. Short version: The assertion that Jupiter is not called "God" falls flat because this article includes a section on Latin deus.
• Although I don't necessarily disagree, I don't understand "On that basis ... son/father" conclusion. There was no "basis" previously established for "son/father" etc.
• With father/son etc, I was merely pointing out the meaningless of the "by prayer" benchmark on WP. It is a perfectly valid benchmark in the real world (and its an important theological concept) but its not a useful measure to make WP lists with. Deified common nouns are dime-a-dozen, and if father/son etc (how about creator, maker, lord, almighty etc?) are to be excluded, the article ought to restrict itself to words that mean "God" (and nothing else). -- Fullstop (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)