Talk:Henotheism

Need some mention of the role of saints in Catholicism as a way of incorporating polytheistic religions into the explicit monotheism of Christianity. There's more ambiguity in this than some would admit--the Trinity itself is vaguely polytheistic.

---

Indeed, some Jews and Muslims critique Christianity's "monotheism" on precisely that basis. --FOo

---

Removed Jehovah's Witnesses. They monotheistc.

About Henotheism

The acceptance of other gods means that certain powers are assigned to other gods as well or they are just like spirits that can't do anything on their own? If second concept is true then why call them as gods. If first concept is true then what is the difference between polytheism and henotheism? PassionInfinity 08:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that in henotheism only one god is worshiped, though the existence of other gods is acknowledged (ancient Judaism may have been henotheistic; Zoroastrianism as well). In polytheism, several (or many) gods are acknowledged and also worshiped in some way. KHM03 11:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

By way of example: I Kings, chapter 18. Here is the account of the battle of the burnt offerings, with Elijah representing Yahweh and 450 unnamed priests representing Ba'al. The challenge is that both teams will lay out an altar set with sacrifices and call upon their respective gods to light the fire. Elijah succeeds, Ba'al's priests fail. The reason given is not that Ba'al is a "false god" or does not exist, but that Ba'al has no power within Yahweh's territory. The implication is that, had the same contest been done on Ba'al's turf and among Ba'al's people, Elijah would have failed. (TechBear 03:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC))

Isn't this essentially the same thing as monolatry? I see no real differences. - Wikigeek, 24 June 2007

Christianity section

Just want to interject that you cant say "mainline" forms of Christianity permit the asking of saints to intercede...forms of protestantism reject this outright... please see the section on protestantism in particular the tenets Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria. Christianity is often confused with Catholicism - just sayin... 71.187.66.95 (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

On Ig0774's edit: It may be more traditional in Western Christianity, but "person" is a very inadequate translation of "hypostasis". Since the paragraph purports to tell us what the Council of Nicaea said, it's perhaps best to avoid a term which it didn't use. ("Persons" translates "personae" or "prosopa", which is a gloss of "hypostasis" but actually means something different.)

On Paul Barlow's edit: After reading Trimurti and looking around some, I have to say I couldn't find a mention of a "divine essence" at all. If anyone does say that, it must be used in a very different sense than in Nicene Christianity. There, "essence" doesn't refer to anything with a concrete existence. It's an abstraction, which if it is to have any real existence must be expressed in a hypostasis. All created beings express their essences (*what* they are) as a single hypostasis (*who* they are). The Trinitarian God in this conception is unique in expressing his essence in three hypostases. On the other hand, the single God of Hinduism is believed to exist as an absolute unity, but adopts different "roles" in his actions. As far as I can tell, the reality believed to exist behind those roles is thought to exist in a real way, so this is not like the Christian "divine essence" at all.

("Essence" and "substance" here are synonyms, but since "substance" can translate either "ousia" or "hypostasis" I prefer "essence" for the first and "subsistence" for the second, to avoid confusion.)

I'm therefore reverting. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear. The Hindu notion is that Brahman is an impersonal concept of consciousness or "thought", that is understood, according to the Vedanta, to be the precondition for divinity - as manifested in Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti etc, etc. The Trimurti is not the central issue here. The point is that Vedanta claims that the force/substance of divine being precedes divine personality. The argument is that the Nicine formulation of divinity also implies that - by asserting that something called "substance" precedes and determines the relationship between "persons". I've no idea what is meant by the seemingly tautological assertion that "the reality believed to exist behind those roles is thought to exist in a real way ."Paul B 20:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Your error is in supposing that "essence" in Nicene thought is a "thing". It isn't; it's an abstraction that does not exist without a hypostasis. It cannot then "precede" the Three in any sense of the word, which the Nicene definition doesn't say anyway. You have demonstrated very clearly that, whatever is meant by "essence" or "substance" when discussing Trimurti in English, it is not the same idea. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. At this point, I have no idea what I was thinking when I wrote that sentence either. Probably that what you call the "force/substance of divine being" is thought to be something that has real existence on its own. As I said, this is unlike how ousia is used in the Nicene definition. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is part of the problem isn't it? There can be no single "correct" interpretation of the creed, or of the concept of Brahman. The creed exists as a form of words filled with ambiguity (or "mystery"). As for Hinduism, it isn't credal so there is no definitive statement of "Hindu doctrine", or of the meaning of the word "Brahman" - which can be understood as a concept, as a god, as a substance, or in another formulation. No one, I think, is suggesting that the ideas are the same - that is, identical - but that there is a significant commonality or similarity. What is meant by "ousia" or "substantia" is not asserted, beyond the fact of the use of those words in Greek and Latin. I'd suggest that we cannot say with certainty whether or not "Brahman" gestures towards the same meaning (or the same "thing") but we can legitimately point to the connections between the formulations. When I said that substance "preceded" "divine personality" I did not mean that in a chronological sense, though admitedly my language is inadequate here (in fact the Rig Veda sometimes does seem to imply chronological precedence to what is there called "the one"). I was trying to suggest that it is conceived of as a necessary condition for the "persons". But of course that statement is as arguable as others. Paul B 10:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be absurd in reading any statement of any kind, credal or not, to expect it to define for itself all the terms it uses. Communication would be impossible if that were true. I'm giving you the sense of ousia as it was intended when used in the Nicene definition (and further developed at I Constantinople). This is easily determined from the writings of, for example, the Cappadocian fathers, or for that matter, any modern Orthodox writer on dogmatic theology. It's not controversial at all; it's a standard. As I said, it's not a "force" or "thought" or anything of the kind.

Ousia is not a necessary condition of the Trinity; rather, it how the Unity can be understood when both it and Trinity are revealed truths that must be taken as axoimatic. (And indeed how the Unity must be understood in a small-"o" orthodox manner.)

I'm sorry, but can't see how there is any kind of similarity between this and the concept of divine unity in Hinduism. The Hindu idea appears similar to Sabellianism, a Christian heresy that was rejected decades before Nicaea, and which is believed today by only a small minority of groups calling themselves Christian, all of relatively recent origin. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Classical Greco-Roman Paganism

I excised "Paganism" from the above title on the main page. It wasn't necessary to the section, and it doesn't seem logical (to me) that the Ancient Greeks would be described as Pagan....

--Arkayik 04:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'M confused, but what would be illogical about refering to Ancient Greek religion as Paganism? Themill 07:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As Wikipedia's own article on Paganism says, "'Paganism' frequently refers to the religions of classical antiquity, most notably Greek mythology or Roman religion, and can be used neutrally or admiringly by those who refer to those complexes of belief." This is indeed still one of the more common uses of the word. 66.241.73.241 (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a logical difficulty with this section. Ancient Greek "religion" is being defined by a quote from a 2nd CE century Roman. Am I confused (always a strong possibilty), or could this section be better worded by someone in the know about the subject...?

--Arkayik 04:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

He's a second century Greek. It's just that his name is Latinised. Paul B 10:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of CE and BCE preferred over AD and BC

Among historians, proper notation is to use C.E. (Common Era) and B.C.E. (Before Common Era) rather than A.D. (Anno Domini, Year of the Lord) and B.C. (Before Christ,) as C.E. and B.C.E. do not make assumptions about religious belief or the veracity of presumed events. Please stick with this protocol. TechBear 01:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no such protocol. Wikipedia policy allows either notation. For articles with a multi-faith content, however, the CE notation usually preferred. But that's convention, not polcy. Paul B 07:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Among historians, BCE and CE is the protocol in all cases except one: material dealing exclusively with Christian history, religion or dogma; even there, the use of BCE and CE is becoming widespread. Regardless of Wiki's policy allowing notations that are no longer in use by scholars of a particular field, I believe it is a valid request to stick to the accepted practice of those scholars. TechBear 16:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TechBear. —Nightstallion (?) 16:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This subject gets a lot of play on WIKI; further, it is a constant, repeated near whine from a small subset of individuals that have this passion about CE. Agreed, in most academic circles it has become the style of dating; however, the rest of the English speaking world (the common individual) understands AD/BC. It has meaning to them. In this instance, I favor using that which is most easily understood by the most people. Incidentially, do really think the majority also understand the that AD is Anno Domini. Latin went out generations ago; let's not get to excited about original meanings. It is like saying you can't practice Christmas because it is celebrated a the same time a pagan festival was held thousands of years ago. Much ado about nothing. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My own field is Architecture History in which B.C. is the almost universal norm, generally nothing is used for the A.D. period unles there is doubt (first couple of centuries usually) and in that case one uses A.D. C.E. and B.C.E. is in my experience used only among scholars of religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Masonic Belief

While going through the various '-isms' listed in connection with this article, I found nothing to express the beliefs of Freemasons. Freemasons, while claiming not to be a religion or to have any dogma or belief system, do subscribe to one or more particular ideas about the Deity. Freemasons admit men of any belief system, except atheists. So, that makes them at least theists. But they also refer to the Supreme Being as "The Great Architect of the Universe" and they obligate men on the holy writings of their choice. So, if men who are Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Christian or Hindu can stand together in a lodge and direct a prayer to the Great Architect, and can show equal respect for any particular revelation of the Deity, then they must have some agreement.

That agreement could be extrapolated as a belief. What is that belief? It would seem to be that the Deity for one man who is a mason is the same Deity for another mason who believes differently, but that Deity is merely known by another name. This is not really henotheism, which is the worship of one God, while accepting the existence of others. Masonic belief seems to proclaim that God gave different revelations to different people at different times and while known by many names, is still the same God. I find no particular '-ism' that encompasses this belief. Monotheism, by its traditional definition, does not seem to fit because it tends to confine its Deity to a particular revelation. It says that my God is the only God, but gave only one revelation and is in communion only with those who accept that revelation.

So, therefore the idea of one God with multiple revelations seems to fit Freemasonry alone, although perhaps Unitarianism comes close. As such, I propose that a new definition of "Masonism" be added to your list.Guy of Auvergne 16:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Freemasonary arises from 18th century deism. I don't think that Henotheism is an appropriate term for its characteristic claims. Paul B 16:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Deism does not recognize revelation. A lodge of Deists would have no holy writings on its altar. Also, when a Bible is opened on a Masonic altar, it no longer represents the religious views of Jews and Christians alone. It symbolizes the holy writings of all religions. Therefore, I believe that Henotheism is a good starting point for discussion of Masonic belief (or philosophy, for those who to object to the idea of Masonic religion), though ultimately, I think it deserves its own classification. This is no small matter, because the concepts of religious freedom enshrined in the US Constitution have at least some basis in Masonic philosophy, owing to the number of our Founding Fathers who were Freemasons.Guy of Auvergne 19:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Gnosticism

The article says:

Christian Gnosticism is generally henotheistic.

How so? In what way? This is all that it says. This is way too little information. Bytebear 05:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Israelite beliefs and Judaism

I object to the following as mealy-mouthed:

"2 Kings 3:27 has been interpreted as describing a human sacrifice in Moab that led the invading Israelite army to fear the power of Chemosh."

Actually, 2 Kings 3:27 describes the king of Moab sacrificing his own son to Chemosh, and the Israelites breaking off their God-directed war against Moab when confronted with a mysterious "wrath" or "indignation" that seems to be a direct consequence of the sacrifice. In other words, it does not so much suggest that the Israelite army was fearful of Chemosh-the-false-god as it suggests that Chemosh-a-real-if-lesser-god drove them away.

Yes, lots of Bible commentators prefer a monotheistic "interpretation" that obviates Chemosh's routing of God's army. But in the actual passage there is not a word about the Israelites being afraid, and given our topic on this page, I feel we should at least mention the real possibility that the chronicler of 2 Kings is himself henotheistic enough to believe that Chemosh exerted god-like power in response to a sacrifice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.73.241 (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What is not accepable in the article is to quote a primary text and assume that as sufficient. If there is an interpretation by a notable expert/reference, then quote he(r). If not, then the section is OR. As longs as there is a reference for a postion, it should typically be included in the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

-I protest the inclusion of Judaism and the Hebrew religion as henotheistic on the grounds that this page's own definitions of henotheism and monolatry display that the ancient Israelite peoples are better described as monolatrous in their earlier periods. Additionally, a distinction should be made: the mentioning of historical accounts which contain the actions of individual peoples or people groups should be differentiated from accounts which intend to establish doctrine or law. In other words, it may not be appropriate to identify any Hebrew religion as henotheistic or monolatrous, though it may be appropriate to note that, at times, the people claiming to follow these religions were henotheistic or monolatrous even if their religion's teachings did not reflect such beliefs. Troa (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire section is an unsourced opinion piece and I removed it. If a real secondary source can be found that states such claims the section can be recreated, starting with the words "according to [whatever scholar]". Until there is someone to pin these ideas to the section is original research and inappropriately presenting one point of view as a general consensus. Jon513 (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How does 'fixed...substance issues' and 'corrected tons of mistakes' become 'grammatical corrections'

I see we have an editor who first says he is fixing substance issues and correcting mistakes, after having his edits reverted, now claiming here and on my talk page that hs is only correcting "grammatical errors and sentence phrasing". Doug Weller (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Correcting mistakes=fixing substance. Don't make POV complaints out of thin air! Did you even care to look at the original article under Hinduism and the grammar in there? It had tons of errors in it. Fixing errors should be lauded. I thought you were smart. BTW, most people don't expect arbitrary reverts from a normal admin. VedicScience (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

if I can intrude momentarily... having read through the give and take, here, I think the argument has gotten out of scope. none of us is going to be able to determinately say that Hinduism is or is not henothistic, because Hindus themselves can't do it. Dvaita and advaita sects squabble about this all the time. I think you should trim the hinduism section back a good bit, and restrict it to Müller's view of the topic, making it explicit that this is a Western philosophical/sociological take on the matter and not even touch on the issue of whether or not it is a realistic representation of Hinduism as its actually practiced. any attempt to do the latter is bound to fail.

and VedicScience - while much of what you did was just grammatical, you are certainly adjusting the tone of the section to give it a particular spin. let's call a spade a spade. while I salute your beliefs and your knowledge of the faith, we do have to approach things a bit gingerly on wikipedia. it would be better all around if you found sources to present these opinions for you, rather than just throwing them out there. --Ludwigs2 06:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ludwigs2. I agree, he did make some grammatical corrections, but to call them all grammatical is not on. VS is now busy reporting me - he's up to 4 places now! You can gain more insight into the situation at Talk:Aditya . Doug Weller (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

VedicScience's edits certainly didn't go towards improving the section, but the section was already incredibly bad as it stood. I have tried to fix it. --dab (𒁳) 07:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this revision looks much better, and is certainly more on point. --Ludwigs2 19:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

VedicScience (if you don't know) was blocked this morning for 72 hours. Nothing to do with me although his complaints on 5 different forums (strange ones too, including talk:Arbitration Committee, drew attention to some of his edits, especially the last one he did here that he called grammatical. But he will be back, and I doubt that he will be happy. But some uninvolved editors are trying to help him, perhaps he will listen to them. For his sake, I hope he does. Doug Weller (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Brahman

aDvaitaFan... sorry, I think you're using a particular POV on the hinduism section, but I'm willing to be educated otherwise. why do you think you're version is better? --Ludwigs2 01:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, In one of your edits: "Historically the introduction of Brahman establishes a concept of a transcendent or divine reality". This is incorrect. The concept of Brahman implies a transcendent and immanent reality. It's no introduced concept. It is present in Vedas and Upanishads. Also check Brahman and Immanence in addition to many other places on Wikipedia and numerous books and sites on Hinduism. Smartism is not monotheistic, it is openly soft polytheistic.

Furthermore, this statement is inaccurate - The former polytheistic deities of historical Vedic religion, the Devas survive, but their status is similar to "demigods" or angels, supernatural powers within the material nature, and authorities over mankind, but who aren't supreme.

This is all misleading. I'm helping fix it in good faith. Please read this book if you dont know: http://books.google.com/books?id=IhLN2I9yTTkC

BTW, it also denigrates devas as "surviving" - this is really bad!!! Wikipedia is not a place for POV. Please stick to NPOV and don't engage in RVs for the fun of it or inject your own ideas and opinions. I don't like edit wars. Let's work together. ADvaitaFan (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Advaita - I'm not criticizing your intentions here; I know you're trying to improve the article. my main concern is that you are imposing a particular advaita viewpoint which may not be accurate in the history of ideas. for example, Brahman is in fact an introduced topic - the term did not exist prior to the creation of the vedas, and has evolved with different meanings over the course of Hindu history. the sense that you are relying on came into being with Shankara in the 8th century, and though it may have been implicit or dormant in the vedas before that time, we can not say that it was used that way.

this isn't to say that it's a wrong view, because it's probably not. however, we can not impose that understanding on people who probably didn't believe it.

I'm not happy with the 'angels and demigods' part either - that can probably go - but we need to reflect the idea that what were originally independent deities shifted to become manifestations of a single deity or monist principle. and we also need to reflect the fact that this entire topic is a western rationalization of hindu philosophy, right? --Ludwigs2 02:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ludwigs2, "for example, Brahman is in fact an introduced topic - the term did not exist prior to the creation of the vedas, and has evolved with different meanings over the course of Hindu history." Vedas are the oldest among religious texts. Vedas are said to be "compiled" by Vyasa. The Vedas themselves declare that they have always existed "in the remotest skies"! So even Vysa only compiled them. Then "the term did not exist prior..." means we should go about every page on religion and say Allah was an introduced concept and so on. That would be POV and denigration of followers of a particular faith - not recommended at all~! Listen, Hindu schools of thought have differences over perspectives, but Brahman has always consistently meant "transcendent and immanent reality" to all schools throughout history. There was a POV statement in here which said Brahman is transcendent, and had to be fixed. It's done. Just as Tanakh is a canon, Vedanta is a canon. The Upanishads only summarize of the concent of the verbose Vedas. Vedas, Upanishads, as well as later texts describe the nature of the multi-dimensional Brahman, which still remains a difficult concept even for scholars and theologians to understand.

"the sense that you are relying on came into being with Shankara in the 8th century, and though it may have been implicit or dormant in the vedas before that time, we can not say that it was used that way." The Upanishads precede Adi Shankara by more than 3000 years. Shankara's philosophy was real simple - worship one or more forms of God, doesn't matter - All is Brahman! He didn't write the Upanishads, he wrote "commentaries" on Upanishads. So did dozens of other "acaryas" of many schools of thought but is not widely known. Neither did Shankara make bones about "soft polytheism". It was all okay to him and in fact he even recommended it along with absolute monism. See the ref links in the main article and study all philosophies right here on Wikipedia.

"this isn't to say that it's a wrong view, because it's probably not. however, we can not impose that understanding on people who probably didn't believe it." All we are doing here is stating "what it is" at face value. No POV or trying to be semitic monotheism. Just state facts, regardless of whether someone likes it or not, or believes / rejects abstruse concepts. :)

"I'm not happy with the 'angels and demigods' part either - that can probably go - but we need to reflect the idea that what were originally independent deities" - Nope. Rta is the cosmic order which binds all devas together. Who told you they were originally independent deities? There are many books on Vedas and Upanishads on Amazon if you want to really dig in.

"shifted to become manifestations of a single deity or monist principle. and we also need to reflect the fact that this entire topic is a western rationalization of hindu philosophy, right?" Nothing was shifted. Many parts make the whole. It was and still is as simple as that. Monism was there from day one - for example, Nasadiya Sukta and many other places in the Vedas. I agree though that we should not try the approach of Western rationalization of Hindu philosophy or portray it for what it is not. Western dualism is based on mind-matter separation. Vedanta is very different - consciousness is all-pervading and the ground of matter. HTH~! ADvaitaFan (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

ADvaita

1. stop Edit_warring. I've left a message on your talk page, and if you keep it up I will be forced to report you and leave it up to administrators. I'd rather not, if you don't mind.
2. you are speaking completely from within the Advaita perspective, and that is not proper for an encyclopedia. yes, in fact it would be proper to say that allah and yahweh were introduced concepts in those articles - the existence or non-existence of a god-like being is well beyond the scope of wikipedia to decide. you need to take a properly encyclopedic perspective, and that often means putting aside your beliefs for the purposes of editing.

I know more about Advaita than you seem to realize, so I don't need children's lectures on the subject. what I would like is for you to sit down and discuss changes so that we get a version of the article that is (a) correct, and (b) properly encyclopedic. but please know that your knowledge about (a) in no way supersedes (b). now, I'd like it if you would revert your last edit so that we can discuss the matter civilly; if you don't, someone else will (since you've been reverted by three different editors already), and that kind of thing will only lead to administrative action. --Ludwigs2 03:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lugwigs2, It seems to me that you and I are in agreement with most of the things. I don't even see a reason for us to progress towards animosity. Please care to check the reference links added to the article for verification instead of walking into rv traps. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is "verifiability" - Wikipedia:Verifiability. Anyone who does not respect good faith edits without first checking out reference links and materials, they'd be walking into a 3RR for no reason and perhaps even a block. The admins can see what's going on here. Don't imagine that it is not so! Not recommended. ADvaitaFan (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Advaita - I see no reason to progress towards animosity either. all I'm asking is that you discuss the changes you wish to make here on the talk page, first, rather than continually trying to put them in the article proper. and I'm only asking that because a number of editors are objecting to the change, otherwise I'd have no problem with you editing boldly. now if you wouldn't mind, could you take the time to explain to us why the changes you want make for a better article? the problem I'm seeing (as I've said before) is that your edits strike me as being heavily vedanta - not a bad thing in itself (I have a certain devotion to nondual philosphy and a great respect for advaita) but it carries assumptions that most readers will not readily understand. wikipedia has to speak to people of all beliefs, so we can't make truth assertions that will alienate large classes of readers. so how do we include what you want to include, in a way that casual, unknowledgeable readers can understand? --Ludwigs2 18:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

minimizing off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ludwigs2, Let me intrude here. Advaita has already made a clear argument right here on this talk page stating verifiable facts. But I did notice that just as myself, Advaita seems to have run into the same problem with admin Dougweller. This further proves that Doug is the troublemaker again here just as in the recent Adityas debacle. All other editors have to go with it 'cos he has admin privileges, when it is clear that he is not capable of being an admin like at all. BTW, I've already reported him through several channels. His revenge - got me blocked for 3 days! You should also take note here that while ADvaitaFan has provided reference links in his or her edit, both Dougweller and Dbachmann are pushing their POV without verifiability. Wikipedia is not about reaching a "consensus" on meaningless POV but respecting "verifiability". Any admin who doesn't know that much should not even be an admin to being with! Moreover, admins abusing their special privileges should be monitored and banned when continued malpractice is observed through their stats. I think I am going to talk to programmers to see how this can be accomplished. Be well. VedicScience (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC) I did nothing. I didn't get you blocked. Your actions (eg claiming a substantial content change was just some grammatical corrections got you blocked for tendentious editing. You claim I wrote an edit summary saying ""We edit Wikipedia by consensus (not verifiable facts)". Please provide the diff showing where I wrote that. Put your money where your mouth is. Doug Weller (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Here's the Henotheism history link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henotheism&action=history - and your edit summary clearly says, "I have looked at the talk page, it is clear there is no consensus for this edit". Who made you an admin, lol? "Consensus" or "Verifiability"? Whatever happened to the NPOV you keep touting all the time? BTW, a lot of insiders are sure watching you. I'd be really careful not to lie as an admin. For starters, computerized transcripts are recorded in back-end systems, and are completely foolproof to childish bluffing. I wouldn't blindly and mindlessly support unverifiable POV either - I really thought you knew better than this, but you have almost guaranteed yourself monitoring on what you are doing all over the place. Dbachmann perhaps wants to be admin too (obviously trying to be in the "bandit ring"), but I'm most certain that rules will be changed this year if not earlier. Take care. VedicScience (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC) No, that couldn't be the link, your claim was clear, you said I wrote ""We edit Wikipedia by consensus (not verifiable facts)". Or are you saying now that you made up the alleged quote? One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that it is open, you can see all my edits, or yours for that matter. I didn't block you, and you know I didn't. I'm completely certain that the rules won't be changed earlier than this year. Doug Weller (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) VedicScience: please do not use talk pages to criticize other editors, and please do not export arguments from different pages to this article. and from a very brief examination of your and AdvaitaFan's editing styles and points of view, let me remind you (without accusation, but merely as a hypothetical) that there are very few acceptable reasons to use multiple accounts on Wikipeida. please don't give me a reason to investigate that possibility further.

Now, if you would like to participate in this debate without bringing in history from other pages, I welcome you, but let's keep it on point. --Ludwigs2 22:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, From edit styles and tone, it all looks like DBachmann all over again (to build "consensus"?). Anyway, let's not use talk pages to get personal, or post hallucinations, neither should you have archived solid proof of a total lack of conscience on part of Dougweller and a huge blunder on his part on his insistence of "consensus over verifiability" as adequately pointed out by VedicScience. Thank you Vedic, but too bad it is hidden above as off-topic! If an admin can't live up to standards of wikiquette, we need to take note of that. I wonder - Is Wikipedia a medieval free-for-all encyclopedia built through babblings and dabblings of a "consensus" of anywhos, or perhaps even a bunch of loonies with few books at home? Or is the foundation of Wikipedia "verifiable" facts? Now if it is indeed the former, then even this talk page is a useless exercise. The consensus can and will continue with the business of "anything goes" and mess things up all over the place, not just here. That's a given. Just go right ahead. Wikipedia may be hot today, but I'm sure some perfected Wiki project will come about from its demise. If subject matter expertise is mocked at and silenced, and uneducated consensus the de facto standard of Wikipedia, I can't say that Wikipedia itself can be trusted as a reliable source of information - defeating the purpose of why it was invented! I'm sure Wikipideans will suddenly realize somday that the project abruptly failed. If anything goes is the prelevant consensus attitude and can be enforced by some dubious admin guys, what is there to talk about? No one seems to have even read my explanations above. We could probably even move a hog into this page with "consensus". This is all nonsense. I've pointed out issues with POV edits of DBachmann (also forced in again by Dougweller - admin abuse?) and provided detailed explanations above to help eliminate the prelevant lack of knowledge about Hindu monism along with the fact that devas are "celestial gods" and not to be denigrated as "surviving angels". No one gets it. IQ must be an issue - let's leave it that. ADvaitaFan (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Now I can see what's going on here. Bach (Dbachmann) composes the symphony in the morning and issues rvs to look good and please to the so-called admins. Then in the afternoon, he switches onto another modem and sock-puppets in as Ludwig Van Beethoven (Ludwigs2) to fight it out for Bach (Dbachmann) edits. Very nice~! I need to get two cable modems too. Well, maybe not - as Advaita has rightly pointed out, why take the trouble to edit dimipedia? Its not the real wikipedia anymore, with so many clowns going around destroying other people's fine works, with absolute consensus. No verifiablity required - right on Doug Weller - "I have looked at the talk page, it is clear there is no consensus for this edit". Admin of "consensus" or "verifiability"? This place has become a sad joke. Ye all, take care now. VedicScience (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)