Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spirituality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Paraphysics article in danger

there is currently a big discussion going on at the paraphysics sections wether its going to be deleted or not. if this article is to be deleted, it would be a shame, and a great loss to paranormal, occult and spiritual research. i suggest, and hope, that you vote for its continuing. and maybe even write a few sentences about the subject if you know about it, as it is currently very messy, and not much has been written about it yet.

details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paraphysics

thank you. user:openforbusiness

I don't find deletion of this article to be much of a loss, actually... As it stands now, of course. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of the project

The initial statement of scope for this project is, “This WikiProject aims to promote better coordination, content distribution, balance and cross-referencing among pages covering topics of spirituality, as well as pages on topics that can be compared or contrasted with spirituality.”

When I think about Wikipedia, I notice four fundamental "ways of knowing" strongly expressed here - science, philosophy, religion and spirituality. By strengthening the spirituality-related pages, my hope is that this spirituality project can go a long way to help show how these ways of knowing interrelate with each other, not just emphasize their differences. — Richard_RDF^talk 14:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't religion a part of spirituality? I mean, I noticed Sephirot (Kabbalah) is part of the spirituality group, yet isn't Kabbalah a religion? I'm a little hazy on this whole thing and it'd be good if you could explain it. Out of interest, are those four ways wiki policy or some such? Seems like a good project though. fel64 18:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Oh, and what's vegan organic gardening doing here? I can't see a connection myself. fel64 18:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu near-vandal

Could someone "into" Hinduism please review Special:contributions/141.156.144.99 and Special:contributions/SWDesai21. They seem to be largely copy-and-pastes and have all been multiply posted. -- RHaworth 08:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I posted a link to your request at the Hinduism project talk page. — Richard_RDF^talk 02:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] mysticism

hiya

User:Mel_Etitis removed a paragraph i wrote from the mysticism article and placed it on the talk page. User:Blainster commented right away, but there's been nothing for about a week or two. it'd be great if you guys could share your thoughts so some resolution can be effected. --Heah [[User_talk:Heah|(talk)]] 00:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Would someone please review the article Rhiannon Waits and comment? I think a neutral party's review is needed here (take a look at the associated discussion page and you'll see what I mean).--Caliga10 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ask for new language version of the portal

I wont to work for the project, but there is no information how to do this. Please explain for example how to make new language version of Spirituality Portal. Best regards, Razum 08:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD FYI

Just an fyi that the article for Neo-spiritualism is an AfD. I'm just a kind, thorough messenger, and neutral on the topic's deletion. :-) Keesiewonder 12:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banner image

I was wondering whether the members of this project would want the articles within the scope of the project to be assessed. One other consideration which struck me is how to find an image which would draw attention to the project banner. Y'know, there really aren't a lot that fit. About the only kind I could find that didn't specifically suggest specific creeds were non-denominational sunrise photos. Having said that, I kinda like Image:Kaloe.jpg and Image:Rayofsunshine.jpg. Would the members want to engage in assessments, and would they like one of these, or maybe some other image, added to the banner? Badbilltucker 18:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Religion

The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help requested

Help could really be used in expanding the stub internal alchemy. The Taoic religions article has recently been expanded, but needs further expansion and reliable sources. Any assistance would be dearly appreciated. Vassyana 14:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entry on heart rhythm meditation

Hi there, I'd like to request something on Heart Rhythm Meditation, as depicted in the book "Living from the Heart" by Puran Bair (my father). The method has an authentic lineage within Gnostic Christianity and Sufism, and the method is not described in the meditation entry. I think it deserves an entry (or at least a subsection in the meditation entry). I can serve as a resource if anyone's interested (I'm a certified teacher of Heart Rhythm Meditation, with 18 years of experience of daily meditation practice). I have a few thoughts on what the entry might contain, but I do not wish to violate Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy.

The school of meditation which teaches Heart Rhythm Meditation is http://www.appliedmeditation.org

thanks! Asatar Bair 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Dr. Asatar Bair, City College of San Francisco

[edit] The Photon Belt

I have proposed a deletion review of The Photon Belt if anyone wants to contribute their comments about it. -Eep² 09:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New project proposal

There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Con AfD

Conspiracy Con has been nominated for deletion--even after extensive sourcing. Please give your comments/vote. Thanks. -Eερ² ^(t|c) 21:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving article

Eastern religion is currently being improved. Please help bring this central topic article up to standard. Vassyana 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crimson Circle article

Hi folks! I've been working on the article found here User talk:Geir Solerød/Crimson Circle. To day I published it under the title Crimson Circle (Shaumbra). Within one hour it was deleted. As you can imagine I become very upset, after all I did put a lot of effort into making the article. Please give me your opinions.
I also wander what experience you've gained on matters like this on Wikipedia. Is there an attitude against articles with spiritual matters? Geir 16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The article in your userspace is based on primary sources. Primary sources should be used cautiously and sparingly. We should try to make sure the claims and facts in an article are verifiable using reliable secondary sources. No assertion of notability is why the article was deleted. Since the organization has a heavy web presence, you might also want to check out the web notability guidelines. If you have any other questions, please ask. Cheers! Vassyana 18:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll do my homework better next time.. Geir 13:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Age nominated for Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive

This article has been nominated as a candidate for the collaboration above. If you would be interested in helping to improve this article in this collaboration, please indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter 22:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Otherkin

Although I have little to no interest in the topic, I've noticed that the Otherkin article has been ripped up rather ruthlessly by deletionists. The article is currently composed of a introduction, 7 entries in a 'See also', 4 references, 5 notes, and 5 external links.

although it's it's probably not the highest ranking religious/spiritual article, in terms of importance, this article is on the brink on not existing, perhaps someone here could help restore some of the article?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a member of this project (what do I have to do in order to become one?), actually I'm very new to Wikipedia editing, but I've submitted a draft for the Otherkin page. It can be found via the Otherkin discussion. The topic of Otherkin is very important to me, that's why I just don't want to see the respective article as short and uninformative as it currently is. Kahoku 11:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to to the richness of wikipedia! My best feelings for you and your page. I'm partisipating on some other articles (Norwegian, english), and I'm trying to understand some of the same dynamics of how wikipedia works at it's current state. My conclusion, at this moment, is that we humans as a collective is supressing a lot of energy/information, and thus limiting ourselves and others in the possibilities to express ourselves. I'd love to read a fully fleshed out article about Otherkin, yet, the current article was informativ to me. :) :) You can join this project by putting your name here [1] and watch the page. Se also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal Geir 09:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! This article, of course, doesn't cover everything you could possibly know about Otherkin. Wikipedia articles shouldn't go too much into detail, I was told. The links I added to the bottom of the draft should help you at finding more information (I like Otherkin Alliance best, but, to be honest, I'm biased, being an admin there). The major problems I'm facing are firstly the lack of "reliable" sources, and secondly the question if this article should exist here at all. But it's been there for at least 2 years now, not giving any kind of information, that's why I thought it would be better to either delete it or improve it. :) Kahoku 10:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are important here, and in this case, secondary sources will help you a lot. Wikipedia articles can go into detail, but it depends on the subject. I looked at your Otherkin Alliance page, and I understand why someone wants to limit your page. We're not used to the kind of material you present. So I'll advice you to make a short informative page with a few good links. Love Geir 12:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope

Hi. I'm slightly uncertain about the scope of this project. Wouldn't all articles within different religion wikiprojects and several articles of wikiproject philosophy come under this? Amit@Talk 02:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of life

With much regret I have proposed this article for deletion, the discussion is here. It doesn't seem possible to have a single article on such a topic that is reliably sourced without its being at best an original research synthesis. There also seems to be difficulty complying with WP:NPOV on the subject. There seems to be no way to determine, for example, what weight to give opinions. A number of articles seem to be dumping grounds for POVs and their pushers, but there doesn't seem to be a practical way to construct a policy-compliant article. If I am wrong in this I could not be more pleased. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritualism articles with technical errors

The article on Spiritualism and on Spiritualist Church are more historical in nature and contain many errors if considered it in regard to "modern Spiritualism." For instance, I am ordained with the National Spiritualist Association of Churches (NSAC) [2]. I am also a NSAC National Spiritualist Teacher. It is true that there are a number of Spiritualist organizations and although some are similar too one another, I am most familiar with Spiritualism as practiced by the NSAC.

I am not sure how the articles can be updated because they seem reasonably accurate in that there are some Christian Spiritualist churches and there are some Spiritualist who still believe in an anthropomorphic god. There are also Spiritualist churches in some communities that are little more than store fronts for mediums. However, after attending a few International Spiritualist Federation conferences [3], I have found that virtually all of the attendees from around the world were in agreement during services. Assuming that this is true, then the two articles give the reader a rather false impression of a fair segment of Spiritualism.

With a quick read, a few points of concern are:

A medium does not necessarily conduct a service
Reincarnation is not universally considered a given in Spiritualism
Because Spiritualists attempt to maintain the religion current with research, communication with "spirits" is more often thought of as communication with people on the "other side" (or similar reference such as "loved one."), as the relationship is seen as a personal one, rather than the general, "some spirit."
In the reference to animism, animals are also seen to survive and communicate.
Old habits die hard, especially religious upbringing. Some Spiritualists will refer to God as if it is a person, but Spiritualism does not officially believe in a father god, rather Spiritualism is all about natural law as expressed in Infinite Intelligence.
Spiritualism shares some concepts with there New Age culture, just as it does with other some other religions, but it is incorrect to cast the Spiritualist church with New Age.
The NSAC is specific about it being based on science, and none of the religion is considered faith-based. Obviously, this is a point that is not agreed to by the skeptical community, nevertheless, that is one of the tenets and I think it is common to most organized Spiritualist groups. See [4]

There may be others, but my point is that the articles as written today do have technical errors for some parts of Spiritualism. I am not going to attempt to make changes, as I agree that if changes are made, it should be by an informed consensus, and there is a chance that I would be to specific to NSAC. Because the errors I think I see are pretty well embedded, perhaps the expedient thing to do is to have a footnote to the effect that: "These articles address the general concepts of Spiritualism and Spiritualist churches, and individual Spiritualist churches may be substantially different. Please refer to the links section to examine the tenets of each group." Tom Butler (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And may I say it, it is not just a matter of what is "technically accurate" but what the references and citations say ... especially when it comes to universal pronouncements of what "Spiritualism ... officially believes".

If the NSAC has produced any peer reviewed scientific papers on any aspect of the movement or practise, then I propose that is the first place to start. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Wyllie

This is an article started recently, but the original editor has now left, and needs a lot of work. From what I gather he has published information on "non-human intelligences" such as angels. Would this fall under the remit here? Paulbrock (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)