Talk:Personal god

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Personal god article.

Article policies
WikiProject Vaishnavism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vaishnavism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Vaishnavism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Christianity This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Scope of Article

Personal god is a scope that is covered by at least two traditions, one is Vaishnavism specifically in Bhakti and another is Christianity. Both points of view should be represented. Wikidās ॐ 21:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I deferred commenting here and then somehow forgot about it.
Anyway, while I'm sympathetic to your view, I think your insertions are haphazard and somewhat poorly worded. For example:
Exclusive definition of god, as the personality both containing all, and at the same time being in the intimate relationship with his devotees, up to stage of personal involvement in the intimate care and dependence that can extend beyond the concept of denominational care to the realm of bhakti is found for example in monotheistic school of Bhagavata in India,[1] Placing it as the earliest example of personalism in relation to God in 4th century BC.
This sentence is very difficult to parse, partly due to its length. Is the entirety of as the personality both containing all, and at the same time being in the intimate relationship with his devotees, up to stage of personal involvement in the intimate care and dependence that can extend beyond the concept of denominational care to the realm of bhakti a modifier on Exclusive definition of god? This much information should be broken up into separate sentences. Also, there are various places where it seems you are missing an article.
I think the best thing for this article would be to extract the religion-specific information into their own sections - one for Christianity, one for Hinduism, etc - to reflect in what sense the relevant gods are personal. If you're willing, I'd like you to take the first step in that by consolidating all your contributed information into a single section on Hinduism, and then hopefully I or someone else will do the same for the Christianity-related material already in the article.
Lastly, I would ask you to follow the MoS on issues of capitalisation. It is not appropriate to capitalise pronouns, as you did: but is of universal importance, as Lord Himself.
Thanks. Ilkali (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, some of the ideas and suggestions are fine, some as in case of capitalization may need to looked at as if the case be of the actual quote. I would not separate all religions as yet, mainly due to the fact of the number of personalist religions. Of course if sufficient material is found separate sections will be needed. Wikidās-