Talk:God/Archive 22

the gender of god
the article on god is a highly controversial and volatile subject. that said...it is highly offensive to many that the supposition that god is a male based on books written by people who claim to speak for god. these books...such as the bible, torah, qur'an, ect. should be held highly suspect as being considered fact over a very proven to been dangerous fiction. the fact that the sacred feminine divine is totaly excluded from this article is more than an outrage. it has been the essential factor for the continuing spiral downward for the very existance here on earth. at best god should be referred to as love...love is god...god is love. otherwise it would be best if there was no god at all. it is critical that the consideration of a female essence be included in any reference to god. love and peacejamiejojesus 00:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)jamiejojesusjamiejojesus 00:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)jamiejojesusjamiejojesus 00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC) 23:28, 7 June 2011• contribs)
 * Here are the reliable source guidelines. Here are the neutral point of view guidelines.  Wikipedia does not take any stances, but simply summarizes sources.  It does not engage in original research nor is it a soapbox for people's views.  For the record, so you can assume good faith from me, I see the concept of applying gender to the Deity to be a limitation, and that either (or neither) gender is acceptable in relating to God, but no such image (male, female, androgyn, or neuter) is acceptable in limiting God.
 * Now, where exactly does the article say that God is male? It doesn't.  You are reading a male identity into this article when it is not there.  In fact, God (male deity) is a completely different article.  Don't sack Constantinople when you're trying to crusade.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

thank you for your input ian, but under See Also in this article all NINE gods are male, not a single female to be found. it is unexceptable and i could not find one single artical that could be put on the list. so i guess it is time for me to gain the expertise in writing my own article presenting a more balanced approach. in the meantime, this is the venue in which to offer suggestions for how the article can be improved and i feel i am legitimate in saying that the feminine part of god need be included in articles concerning god. jamiejojesus 18:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)jamiejojesusjamiejojesus 18:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiejojesus (talk • contribs)


 * I think the statements that started this are not accurate, and as one example position, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church #239 which specifically states that "God is neither man nor woman: he is God".See it here. I think Ian said it very nicely: Don't sack Constantinople. History2007 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Two reliable sources about God's sex are mentioned in the article:


 * Elaine H. Pagels "What Became of God the Mother? Conflicting Images of God in Early Christianity" Signs, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter, 1976), pp. 293-303


 * See also God and Sex for an abstract of what the Bible says about God's sex: he is described therein as a sexual being, having multiple wives and being himself (or themselves, since using a plural) male and female, as shown above. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Epitheta: God of Bible not "male"
Contrary to the claim in the Epitheta section, "God is always characterised as male in Biblical sources, except Genesis 1:26-27", both Hebrew and Christian Bibles refer to God using feminine language and metaphors, listed below (see also http://www.womensordination.org/content/view/234).
 * In the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament:
 * -Hosea 11:3-4 God described as a mother
 * -Deuteronomy 32:11-12 God described as a mother eagle
 * -Deuteronomy 32:18 God who gives birth
 * -Isaiah 66:13 God as a comforting mother
 * -Isaiah 49:15 God compared to a nursing mother
 * -Isaiah 42:14 God as a woman in labor
 * -Psalm 131:2 God as a Mother
 * -Psalm 123:2-3 God compared to a woman
 * In the New Testament:
 * -Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 God as a Mother Hen
 * -Luke 15:8-10 God as woman looking for her lost coin

Because the current language in the Epitheta section is inaccurate, I therefore propose the following edit:
 * From: Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bible there are many names for God that portray his (God is always characterised as male in Biblical sources, except ) nature and character.
 * To: Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bible there are many names for God that portray his nature and character. (God is usually characterised as male in Biblical sources, with some notable exceptions: female in, , and ; a mother in , , , , , ; a mother eagle in ; and a mother hen in and )

--Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

History is missing
I came to this page looking for the history of the judaic god, his evolution from earlier polytheistic beliefs and so on. Surely a big section has been missed here and I don't see any other pages on Wiki dealing with this, beyond articles on books dealing with the subject, which themselves might make reasonable secondary sources. I am not an historian and could not attempt such a section myself. 86.177.195.186 (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That is discussed in Yahweh. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency
I just noticed that the page on Superman starts, "Superman is a fictional character." Why doesn't the page on God start the same way? I know this is not supposed to be discussed here, but I am arrogant and feel my views should take precedence over others' views, since I am arrogant, and have been shown through special powers the entire knowledge of the world. Oh wait, doesn't that mean I also believe in the supernatural? Oh boy, I'm such a hypocrite; that or I actually do NOT know all the answers to life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.54.82 (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither his existence nor his lack of existence are objective facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it help if we could get a photo of him to run at the top of the article, establishing his (or her) identity for all to see?Codenamemary (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We should probably also get a photo of Homer too, as long as we're talking about disputed entities. OH WAIT. Stop trolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.7.207 (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But Homer was not alive in a time when cameras were invented. God, however, is eternal and everlasting. So he is still around to pose for a wiki photo. I say we get one. I will pursue this, and get this photo of God, with me in it. Clearly, when I don't succeed, you all will see how pointless my contributions to this discussion are. Codenamemary (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Most religions consider God to be incorporeal, unless their pantheistic. Hard to take a picture either way. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But if man was made in a (Christian) God's image, He must have looked like something to begin with...?Codenamemary (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The Imago Dei bit is actually in Genesis, which is accepted by Jews as well. Jews and Christians (except Mormons) generally figure that the image of something incorporeal would likewise be incorporeal. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as far as Judo/Christianity goes, God has a physical presence when He wants to. See Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? (ie, God was walking through the garden of Eden and couldn't find Adam and Eve. Which is very physical and not very omniscient.) Then in Genesis 32:24 Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day... 30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. (So with Jacob, God used to be physical enough to physically fight with.) At any rate, it seems God has/had a physical form, so he should be able to pose for a picture. Codenamemary (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As we try to get a photo of God to use in the article, we might have better luck if we assure Him it will be photoshopped to be flattering, if necessary. It's possible there aren't any existing (?) pictures of Him because he's getting older, and is self-conscious about it? If anyone here is on good terms with God and wants to help with this project, please assure Him He will have final photo approval. The wiki article will obviously be more complete if it features a photo of God. Codenamemary (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said, Wikipedia does not state as a fact that God would exist. Nor that he wouldn't. Since it is not a fact, it does not require a photo. Myself I am a pandeist, I believe in Deus sive Natura so any photo of some piece of nature would do as evidence of the existence of my God (or photos of people, machines or buildings, since they are part of nature, too). Otherwise, read WP:NOT, since your comments, although witty, are not meant to improve the article, and talk pages are meant for discussions about improving the articles. Even in Village pump (miscellaneous) are discussed only subjects related to Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: << As I said, Wikipedia does not state as a fact that God would exist. Nor that he wouldn't. Since it is not a fact, it does not require a photo. >> I would point out that the wiki article at THIS point has a detail of a Michelangelo painting that depicts God. It seems that finding and adding a contemporary photo of the subject would certainly improve the article, as it would be better than (or a good addition to) merely showing a 16th Century piece of art. Codenamemary (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The article does not give that picture as "THE picture of God," but far later in the article as one artistic representation that's fairly common for how God is represented in western art. It says in the caption right below it "a well known example of the depiction of God the Father in Western art." This isn't a place to be a smartass. If your problem was that there's a painting of God and you thought that it didn't clarify that it's an artistic depiction, you should have tried, oh I don't know, actually stating it. If you honestly thought that that is a real picture of God, we don't need you here. Any more comments that are not about article improvement will be removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is anyone concerned that my 21:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC) post was vandalized and edited? Setting the photo of God issue aside for the moment, I would hope that disturbs other editors. (I also don't think threatening to delete others comments altogether is really in the rhelm of Good Faith.) Codenamemary (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've hopefully fixed that. Both and  have vandalised comments on this page, but they've now been undone. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is very kind of you. Thanks. I would think vandalizing other editors' posts would be a bannable offense. EDIT: oh dear, vandalisims is still there. I don't know what I originally posted, but I'm quite sure it wasn't << I will pursue this, and get this photo of God, with me in it. Clearly, when I don't succeed, you all will see how pointless my contributions to this discussion are. >> Did Mr. Thomson do that?? Codenamemary (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page's history, you can clearly see that it was not me. Talk pages are for article improvement. Do you have any comments relating to article improvment in any way? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You have left an unsigned comment, so I do not know who you are... Codenamemary (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any comments relating to article improvment in any way? After this, I will remove any further discussion not relating to article improvement.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know my way around wikipedia as well as you do, apparently, but IMO, a photo of God would improve the article. I never said I thought that that Michelangelo detail was a photo of God, I just said that if we're showing a depiction of God's face and form in the article, we may as well show the real thing in addition. The Bible states God has a physical form that can wrestle and be seen face-to-face, etc., so if you believe in the Bible, it's not outlandish to think someone can photograph it. But if other editors, or some with an anti-Biblical bias, don't want to be involved in a try, okay. (Also, I don't think we're supposed to remove others' discussion posts without their consent, which I wouldn't give, in my case, as I'm not pro-censorship. If you would like to remove something, perhaps you would be kind enough to put the posts in this thread back into their original forms. The first one reads like it was tampered with, as well.) (I don't want to mess up anyone else's posts by trying to do it myself.) Codenamemary (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is only if one takes a literalist interpretation of the Bible (which in the grand scheme of things is pretty recent and far from universal), and only if one accepts the Bible's events as historical facts. This site operates off of what peer-reviewed academic sources have to say, and they look for physical evidence first. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Etymology
There is an error in the Etymological part of the article, it is assumed that the word used by Arab Christians and Muslims is the same, due to nothing more than the sounds of the words, but they are two completely different words, though based on the same proto-Semitic roots. The word Alaha used by Christians is based on the Aramaic Biblical translation of the Hebrew word for God, Elohim (the Lingua Franca of the Middle Eastern Christians was Syrio-Aramaic), the same word in Arabic is Ilah (NOT Allah, which is a completely different later Muslim construct and personal name). The AUDITORY similarities, and that's the limit of the similarities, are due to the fact of close relationship between Syrio-Aramaic (which was a very high cultural language) and much borrowing and development by Arabs for their language, which eventually became "classical" Arabic, Arabic originally being a very low cultural language, with no standardization until well after Islam was established, as well as both political and religious missionary reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.11.188 (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, most Arabs don't speak Hebrew. However, find a reliable source which says that, and you may add it to the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Subjective Text Removal
The following passage has been removed: These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides, Augustine of Hippo, and Al-Ghazali, respectively.

Reasons: -Subjective statement which is capable of: (a) Utilizing an argumental fallacy of appealing to higher authority for authenticity of a particular subjective and often debated idea, conception, or reality. (b) Discounting a particular argument by utilizing sources of higher authority which may be seen in a very subjective light. -Wikipedia standards promote neutrality and objectivity, and this passage has been removed to retain quality in accordance with standards. --Tatoranaki (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you are misunderstanding Wikipedia policies. WP:SOURCES is a pillar of Wikipedia, as are WP:VER and WP:NPOV. About the latter, you did not prove a violation of NPOV, you just state something as WP:IDL. I suggest that you read these policies before contributing to Wikipedia, otherwise your contributions could be seen as WP:VANDALISM. To cut the story short: there are no facts or objective information about God, there are just philosophical theories and theological opinions and we render them according to their notability. Of course religions as Judaism, Christianity and Islam have very notable ideas about God and definitely they are subjective in doing this, since there is no such thing as objective knowledge about God. We render these views according to their due weight, see e.g. WP:FRINGE. In itself, the idea that there is objective knowledge about God is a fringe theory. No serious theologian or scholar of religion would agree with it. So, we cannot do otherwise than render religious and philosophical authorities who are notable on this subject. This is not a fallacy of appealing to authority, since in this matter there is nothing except statements done by those who are regarded by some as authorities. I have undone your edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you also read this, this and Argument from authority. They explain that an appeal to authority isn't always fallacious. In matters of religion, everything depends upon quoting the proper authority (Bible, Pope, notable theologians and so on). There are simply no "supernatural facts" whereupon a consensus could be reached by scientists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I'll keep that in mind. I'll stick to writing pages on novels. I apologize for the inconvenience. --Tatoranaki (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement "In itself, the idea that there is objective knowledge about God is a fringe theory. No serious theologian or scholar of religion would agree with it." seems an opinion. First, "fringe" implies crackpot, which tends to dehumanize someone you disagree with. Second: Instead of "No serious..." it should say "Few serious...." Paramanhansas Ramakrishna and Yogananda studied many religions and their lives illustrate there is objective knowledge. Third: Some Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and other religious scholars consider the material world an illusion, therefore the "objective" does not exist; everything is subjective. 71.22.155.114 (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE is an official Wikipedia policy and we have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise we could dehumanize some people so we could give AIDS denialism equal footing with science. Here we simply render the academic consensus, if any. Otherwise we simply render the most notable opinions. About Ramakrishna and Yogananada, they were gurus, but I don't think they count as scholars of religion or as academic theologians. In theology, scholars have agreed to disagree, this is an important progress from the situation wherein Catholics and Protestants thought they were the sole owners of the Truth and waged religious wars which scarred Europe. The idea is that in theology there is no objective truth, there is just opinion which depends upon one's church or pet theologian. What is valid in Protestant theology could be invalid in Catholic and Eastern-Orthodox theology. What is valid for Mormons could be invalid for Adventists, Baptists and Jehovah's Witnesses. So it is ridiculous to claim that a couple of gurus proved with their own lives that there are objective theological truths. I think that only adepts of such gurus are inclined to accept their lives as proofs of such claim, which renders it a fringe view by the dictionary definition of the term "fringe". Anyway, I don't see any mainstream Hindu support for their theories, they were just some of the many gurus which India had and they were famous mostly in the West, i.e. famous among the hippies and the New Agers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lede redaction
The last sentence implied that there was a vigorous debate in Medieval times, presumably Christian Europe and the Muslim lands, in any case whatever the unstated but implicit cultural context is with atheistic viewpoints authentically defended as would later be the case. This is patently false. Atheism is of course much older than the European Enlightenment and there are whole large areas of the Earth that are essentially atheist now and were (at least in the classes that could have expressed an opinion) in the European medieval period, but that is beside the point. The point is, in the Medieval European period of world history, atheism and arguments for the existence of god were not given the balanced treatment the former text implied. Where gods and demons had already been put aside in scholarly debate it was a non-issue. Where the Abrahamic god held sway no serious disbelief was tolerated. Would be noteworthy as an example of ignorance of history of Atheism in the west if it wasn't. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sign for bias complaints?
As this article is open to attracting complaints of a bias for or against whatever worldview you like, and such complaints almost never come with any real evidence, perhaps we could have a sign at the top of the page to the effect of "please provide evidence in line with guidelines or policies such as WP:RS or WP:NPOV when making complaints of bias, or your post will appear to be trolling or an attempt to insert your own bias." Thoughts? I know it wouldn't eliminate all the unevidenced or biased complaints, but it would at least give us something to point to when they occur. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

origins required
there is no section on main page that gives the origins of god if any one has an explanation about how the concept of god began in first place write it here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.16.133 (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

New message
Hi Wikipedia. I don't desire to edit articles but to add SBT pages to them for further Biblical historical facts that clears up Myths to Wikipedia articles on any of the references quoted if needed---Can some help me get stated doing that for the Articles on GOD or god And John 1:1 updates --Open http://simplebibletruths.net/GODorgod.htm  and http://simplebibletruths.net/John-1-1-Updates.htm If someone could work me up an example on how the easiest way to do that and to create a new page if one I doesn't exist how---I only ask this because I am disabled and small print is hard for me to read—put once see and easy WAY to read AN example with all my information printed in it correctly. I CAN get all others done without assistance. I WROTE this in 16Sise then pasted it to here---And all articles I READ I copy AND PASTE them to a bigger size of I CAN READ them. Thanks for any and all the help that I CAN Get Gody Verde — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.42.98.30 (talk • contribs)
 * New stuff goes at the bottom, not in the middle of templates. Those sites do not appear to meet the reliable sourcing guidelines (linked to here).  We have no idea who the author is or what their education is, and we have no evidence the site was peer-reviewed by other academics.  Also, this article is on the general concept of God, not just Judeo-Christian beliefs.
 * As for reading the articles, try holding down CTRL (at the bottom left of your keyboard), SHIFT (just above it), and then +. This should increase the size of text on your screen. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Talk of the first sentence in the God article at Wikipedia, the English section
Ok. This is quite complex. My hope of convincing any majority that the first sentence in this article about God should better be changed is not strong. Obviously God is for most English speaking people regarded as a name, or even The Name (cf. Hashim) lest of the singular being for which there is no way to express; except, for the indications of the tetragrammaton; but I do question wether the accuracy which is sought, of the first line in the article, hits the point: God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism. It seem to compromise, and suffer from a lacking consistency. I find that the sentence is trying to be accurate. That's good. It is difficult to say it is a good sentence though. It doesn't feel good neither in the mouth, when reading it loud, nor in the ear, when hearing it. Please try, taste it. I think most people will agree, independently on standpoint, religiously, theologically or academically. On the other side, what to expect from a wikipedia article on God?

First thing that comes to my mind is the problem of truth-tentativity. The expression "God is the English name given to..." excludes what is perhaps the original intention of the first line of translators/theologians/missionaries into the Germanic speaking world. I believe they sought, in communication, in dialogues, word-name(s) that could express the divine character, but not attach specificity, nor a particular image of a god. Odin/Wodan was All-father too, and God, of course, but Odin is a Name, and an image of God. God is not that, this or anyone to which we can reduce, the early messengers would hold. The God is rather like a gate, a door, an index; but only the fool looks at the indexfinger pointing to the moon. The proper theological tradition of the Abrahamitic Religion will point to the fact that the name of God is hidden, and protected most dearly. The force in, and the taboo of revealing, the Name(s), (Hashim), are expressed most poetically in the Song of Songs, an allusion to the nature of God, without ever mentioning Gods name but the name(s), Hashim, in the opening verses (Salomo was bearer og the title Messiah, remember). Jews normally refer to God, just by saying Hashim, the Name(s). The name(s) itself (tetragrammaton(s)) are only to be named in the holiest of holy, in ritual, or in prayer. When speaking about God, in conversation, Hashim is what to be used. This was revered by the earlier christians too. It seems to be rather forgotten in the contemporary world. I would say, on the basis of intuition that true names hardly can be translated. I will say this is even a feature of names. When I was young the Capital of China was called Peking. Now it is renamed Beijing in order to be more sounding as Chinese people expresses the name. Translation of names, I regard as a de- and reconstruction. Which may lead to a renaming at best. Which is ok. It is evident for most people that God is a translation, primarily of the Greek (New Testament) Ðeos (Latin Deus), also of various Hebrew renderings of course (Old Testament), El, Elohim among others, and especially Hashim which, I believe, is the most frequently used in the scriptures translated mostly into God in the English Bible(s) (sometimes 'the name' as in the Song of Songs).

It is not on a theological ground, nor a religio-historic basis that I will argue that the first sentence in the article is partly misleading. I may hold that God is not a name, but a word used primarily as translation of the Hebrew word Hashim, which simply means the Name(s). That is not the point. For some, or most people it is a name. Thus it is not wrong to say it is the name of the singularity, or of a singular being. My suggestion for an alternative opening line simply comes from the fact that as it stand now (11.03.2012) it actually excludes the point that makes God interesting. In other words the mysterious, the anonymous.

My suggestion: God is the English rendition of the Names given to a singular being of primarily Abrahamitic religions, but not exclusively. --Xact (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Volcano God
There doesn't appear to be any mention of the fact Yahweh was clearly described as a volcano. --FieryDarts (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:VERIFY & WP:RS. You have to find reliable sources making this suggestion. Dougweller (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the Bible not a reliable enough source? It contains all the proof needed except the word 'volcano'. If not the Bible then how about this...

“According to Exodus 19 … Mount Sinai blazed with fire, was enveloped by a huge plume of cloud or smoke and shook violently as in an earthquake. Flashes of lightning and sounds like trumpet blasts also occurred. The description fits a a volcanic eruption. The emission of hot gases from fissures can produce trumpet-like sounds, and observers have reported seeing massive electrical displays emanating from volcanic clouds. No volcanoes are known to have erupted during that period in the Sinai Peninsula, but Arabia has many volcanoes. One volcanic mountain in the western Arabian Peninsula, Hala al Bedr (Mount Bedr), is according to this theory a particularly promising candidate for ancient Mount Sinai.” NIV Archeological Study Bible, p. 123.

--FieryDarts (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see nothing in this paragraph that would suggest that the volcano is God. --Pgallert (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Improvement of Article Neutrality and General Objectivity
Wikipedia is intended to be a source of neutral information, not a source of one-sided conjectures. Therefore, in order to improve the neutrality of this article, I propose the following changes: "God is most often conceived" becomes: "God is often believed to be" etc. Conceived means "to bring forth," which inclines human creation and falsehood thereof. "Believed" makes things much more objective. Instead of stating anything about God's Biblically stated gender, I propose the statement be removed entirely. On one side, some Christians would likely agree with the male/female incorporation revision, while others would be offended since they advocate a particular gender, etc. To remove this statement would make the article much more objective, effectively neutral, and much more reliable (due to the removal of possible conjecture) - plus, the statement seems quite out of place from a literary standpoint. According to my propositions I have made such revisions. --Tatoranaki (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have made such edits as stated above in other sections as well to improve neutrality and remove argumental fallacies (statements which incline one side of the argument is "more right" than another). There is much more work to be done, however, before the article is more objective than subjective. (Please note my use of objective refers to the following definition: "not influenced by irrational emotions or prejudices," as subjective "influenced by opinion-driven emotions or prejudices")--Tatoranaki (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your justification is preposterous, see WP:FRINGE. There is no such thing as objective knowledge about God. In this respect, there are just views which some hold as authoritative. See also my answer below. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Besides, in matters of religion one is in general prejudiced to hold on to the religion of his/her parents, this is generally not a choice made rationally. Also, conversion to a specific religion has more to do with emotions that with a cold analysis of rational arguments. Also, deconversion (becoming an atheist/agnostic) has more to do with emotion than with rational analysis. As Hume said, reason is and ought to be the slave of passions, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Doing away with three major thinkers on this matter as "prejudiced and irrational" is the worst kind of character assassination I have ever encountered. I don't agree with many of their theses, but they still have a place in the history of philosophy and they influenced theology for centuries. You cannot be serious in denying that they lacked critical judgment or rationality. E.g. Strauss and Cropsey have included two of them as relevant in their book upon political philosophy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And another reason: one man's superstition is another man's holy writ. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is a mess. It purports to be about "God in the context of monotheism and henotheism." Then it goes on to discuss the full range of concepts of deity, while confusing and conflating those other concepts with a purely Biblical definition - with all serious theological discussion only Christian apologetics. In fact, this article is redundant as other articles handle the subject perfectly well, in manageable semantic and historical scope. I propose that this page be gutted and remain as a disambiguation page, only. Keep the first paragraph and the See Also section. It would be nice to see some links included to articles in the anthropology, archeology, and evolutionary psychology domains to fill out the picture with the science of the subject matterlKcornwall (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jews (such as Maimonides), Muslims (such as Al-Ghazali), Hindus (including Vaishnavists), Mahayana Buddhists, Theistic Satanists, new agers, David Hume, Anthony Flew, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Sigmund Freud, and Émile Durkheim are not Christian, but all of their views are discussed. The only thing that begins to be purely Christian is the Gender of God section, but the majority of the verses in that are from the Tanakh (which, hey, the Christians got from the Jews, and the Jews still use).  I believe your finding Christian bias in this article is a confirmation bias on your part.  Material applicable to theism or monotheism in general is applicable to Christianity, but that does not mean that it is inherently Christian and does not also belong to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Mahayana Buddhists, etc, etc.
 * Breaking it down:
 * Intro: General, mentions Jewish, Christian, and Muslim thinkers towards the end (btw, the Christian thinker was influenced by the other two and pretty much only changed "Allah" to "Christ.")
 * Etymology and usage: Discusses proto-Germanic language (general), Jewish terms, Islamic terms, and Hindu terms.
 * General conceptions: Discusses Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist views
 * Oneness: Discusses the general idea, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and mentions the Islamic repudition of Christian doctrine (rather than elaborating on the Christian view of that doctrine).
 * Theism, deism and pantheism: Discusses the general idea, and mentions in a sentence (out of the entire first paragraph) the Catholic church's rejection of certain ideas, as an example that not all the ideas discussed are universal. The deism section is secular, while the pantheism section only mentions the Liberal Catholic Church for any Christian groups, but does mention Theosophy, Hinduism, Sikhism, Neopaganism, Taoism, Kabbalah and its acceptance within Hasidic Judaism.
 * Other concepts: Discusses dystheism and nontheism without really discussing organized religions except for an offhand mention of Theistic Satanism as an example of dystheism. Towards the end, the section mentions some philosophies which are accepted by a minority of Christians, but these philosophies are not Christ-centric and are applicable to most other theistic religions as well (replace any mention of "Christ" with Allah).  Two writers who happen to be Christian are mentioned, but any Christian nature of their ideas is not discussed.
 * Existence of God: Discusses different positions, with the only mention of religion being Stephen Jay Gould's agnosticism. A Christian author is mentioned, but his ideas are not Christian-specific and have been argued by a number of theists.
 * Epitheta: Discusses Jewish, Islamic, and Vaishnavist Hindu ideas.
 * Gender: Starts of general, but in going into Bible verses, it brings up nine Tanakh/Old Testament verses and three Gospel verses. Reminder: The Jews read the Bible, too, particularly the Tanakh/Old Testament.  Still, this section could be improved by adding Quranic and Vedic ideas.
 * Relationship with Creation: Discusses Christian, Islamic, and general ideas. If there is any bias, it is anti-clerical, but not pro-Christian (as many Christians happen to be pro-clerical).
 * Theological approaches: Mentions Jewish, Christian, and Muslim thinkers in the first paragraph, but goes with ideas that most religions agree upon. Discusses medieval philosophy (hey, Jews and Muslims were present in Europe then, too!).  Eventually discusses more secular discussion, including skeptical views.  Any bias present is Eurocentric, but not Christian-centric.  (This is perhaps a result of most of the editors only being able to use sources written in English).
 * Non-theistic views regarding God: Yeah, try and tell me there's any Christian bias in this. Do it, I dare you.
 * Distribution of belief in God: Just gives the figures for different religious beliefs. Reality isn't a bias.
 * Of the 13 sections of the article, 6 discuss non-Jewish Christian ideas (7 if you want to count Islamic views of Islamic understanding of Christian ideas). In contrast, Islamic ideas appear in 6 sections, Jewish ideas in 7 sections, and Hindu ideas in 5 sections, and disbelief is discussed in 4 sections.  Considering 53% of the world's population belong to Abrahamic religions, it's not really all that undue.  The only way one could pretend that the article has a Christian bias is to either not read the article, or interpret any secular or Jewish ideas as only Christian and not belonging to any other religion (which would be a bias towards Christianity on the part of the reader, not the article).
 * As for gutting this article: The article provides a general overview of the other articles. This isn't paper, so redundancy is not a problem when what would otherwise be a gigantic article is split into several other articles and a summary of those articles is left as a central page.  The current arrangement works for those who want a general overview or who wish to go more in depth on specific topics.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice summary, Ian. A huge problem and the main one for "God" as treated here is that it is a proper name in Christianity. It is exactly on par with the name "Zeus". It would be weird to stretch "Zeus" into being a reference to "more or less like other people's gods". But that is what is being done here. Anyone coming to this article is not going to find a nice summary, they are going to be extremely confused by finding a superficial mishmash like what is here. Now, if the article was titled "Deity", it wouldn't be so bad as that subject fits the content here. But if this is intended to be about the more general idea of "god", as you claim, then my previous objections stand. This misses the mark. I need to apologize though, as I see I wasn't clear. I could have saved you a lot of trouble by referring to "the Big 3 Middle Eastern originating religions who all share the same predominant concept of a monotheistic god - which other religions do not'," instead of referring to Christianity, like I did.


 * So, if this is article is going to be about "God," it should be reduced to the purely Abrahamic religious aspects, and then we can pour on all the Western theology related to MidEastern lineage that is there now. On the other hand, if the goal is an article to be glutted up with every conceivable angle on "deity", I can easily triple the length with hundreds of ethnographic references, along with dozens of scientific references from anthropology, to neurology, and evolutionary psychology as to the what-wherefore-and-why of supernatural deities in human culture and the human brain. We can't have it both ways and still claim objectivity/neutrality. Which is it going to be? Again, because all else is properly discussed elsewhere I vote for disambiguation. The first paragraph, plus something about "God is popularly used to refer to the name of a character who appears as the major deity in the stories of Abrahamic religions. Though on superficial inspection it might seem that the major supernatural deities in the stories of other cultures might be translated as "God" (even though most often there is no other translation), the similarity is superficial. Any urge to conflate extremely different conceptions of the supernatural should be resisted." Kcornwall (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Any further support or objections to proceeding with my recommendation. As the Hindus' say, there are many names of God. A situation like that is why we have disambiguation pages.Kcornwall (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This article does not stretch the Abrahamic deity into other religions. It discusses common and divergent points among different religions about the highest being in those religions, as well as some that reject the existence of such a being.  It discusses monotheism, henotheism, pantheism, deism, polytheism, dystheism, and atheism.  Only a fool would say that all of those apply to the Abrahamic religions as a whole.  Cite one section that is pushing an Abrahamic POV onto other religions.  Really, do it.
 * The Abrahamic religions are not the only religion out there that believe in some higher being.
 * As for your degree: Credentials are irrelevant, noone here cares about them, we will ignore them. That you failed to refer to the Abrahamic religions from the beginning (and then used a definition that excludes Baha'i) and started off with Christianity makes me question your claim of a degree, or that you specialized in anything relating to religion.
 * Even then, the word God is used by English speaking Sikhs, Yazidis, Vaishnavists, Theistic Satanists, and some Neopagans; and we already have an article for the Abrahamic God. Changing this article to be about the Abrahamic God would be unnecessary and would shove aside those other religions.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki is ment to be neutral, this does not mean it pretends there is any valid claims about or for god. It does mean it should treat the facts as they are. God was created by humans. You dont get to claim fictional characters are true because of ther brain washing your recieved as a child! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.71.160 (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "God was created by humans" is also a manmade claim that this site should be neutral to. Try actually responding in a way that has anything to do with the conversation next time.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Lede
The page "God" gives false information. It implies in the first sentence of the article that the God in Islam is different than the one in Christianity. This is false. I am Muslim and Allah is GOD, the same god embraced in Christianity and Judaism. Allah is simply a title for God, NOT his name. It only means the "One and Only God." There is no such thing as "the Islamic God". The same god in Christianity is the same god in Islam. They are one and the same. The Quran is founded on Christianity. It is only an extension of the same religion, nothing more, or less.

Reference: http://www.godallah.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.254.22 (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * New stuff goes at the bottom. I've rephrased it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Lede
Instead of saying in a hatnote "For the Arabic version of this concept, see Allah" why not do as we do in other articles where different names apply and write a paragraph which covers some of these other names: Allah, YHVH, etc. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, what's more the "Allah" page discusses the word, whereas God in Islam is the actual discussion of the concept. No, it's definitely not encyclopedic to have that in the hatnote, I'm just gonna remove it. Peter Deer (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well to be fair, if were going to remove that hatnote we should get started on the additional paragraph on nomenclature. I'll give it a shot. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK Ive cobbled together a basic introductory paragraph on the names of God, with plenty of links. Any suggestions are welcome. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems fairly straightforward. I'd almost submit that the names and significance of names merits its own paragraph, but I also think that the subject merits inclusion in the lede. Peter Deer (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Capital "G"

 * Please refer here first before undoing the parenthetical note about capitalization in the first sentence. This is standard in English writing and is used to differentiate the so-called "one" God from the more generic word meaning "deity." Wolfdog (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved it to etymology Pass a Method   talk  00:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes to the Lead
I noticed that there have been several recent changes to the Lead, which I believe have a number of problems. First, the Lead has been transformed from being a general overview on the subject of "God" to being an essay about what theists, agnostics, atheists, deists, pantheists, polytheists, henotheists, medieval philosophers, and modern philosophers believe about God. The result seems to be an article that sounds more controversial than it actually is: that is, an article that would debate the existence of God(s) rather than simply say what God is conceived to be. (For instance, it goes without saying that "atheists believe that no deities exist", and we don't need to have that in the first paragraph of the Lead.) Additionally, "Allah" has been dropped as one of the names of God, while the "Tetragrammaton" has been kept, favoring a Judeo-Christian point of view.

On a related note, the new section on "Evolution vs creationism" that was added today is using this article as a WP:COATRACK, in my opinion. It is, in effect, hanging the controversial debate of evolution/creationism on an article where it's only tangentially related. The evolution debate should be mentioned in the article, perhaps in the See Also section, but it should not get its own subsection, and it should definitely not be under the section "General conceptions". ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are several problems with the current lede. Firstly, only half of the worlds population follows an Abrahamic religion however, three of the three lede paragraphs currently discuss God from an Abrahamic point of view. Adjwilley, can you you explain why you prefer this POV version of the lede? Pass a Method   talk  18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Christianity and Islam make up more than half of the world population, and the next largest religion is Secular/non-religious/Atheist/Agnostic . Additionally, the scope of this article is "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism, which definitely excludes Hinduism (the next largest religion), and arguably some of the Chinese traditional religions, and Buddhism. So the large majority of believers in God (singular) are in fact adherents of Abrahamic religions. Also, since the concept of a single deity is historically tied to Abrahamic religions, they should receive more weight in the article. Additionally, I would be careful saying that the Lead discusses God from an Abrahamic point of view. The Abrahamic view is that "God created humans and the universe", while the article is careful to say, "God is often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of humans and the universe." ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Im am dissapointed with your response since it is very biased. If this bias (such as aiming to exclude Hinduism/Buddhism from this article) continues on this talk page i will resort to raising your username at WP:AN/I or another noticeboard.


 * Firstly, this article is not about monotheism and henotheism. Secondly the concept of monotheism long predates Abrahamic religions, for example zoroastrianism. Thirdly, there are dozens of different denominations within both Islam and Christianity many of whom have different god concepts. Fourthly, this source states that slightly more than half of people follow Judaism/Christianity/Islam/Bahá’í faith. Even within Abrahamic religions, many of those follow it in a syncretic form. Fifthly, only a imbecile would call atheism/agnosticism a "religion". Even a kindergartener knows that atheism/agnosticism are not religions. Your infantile responses are getting really tiresome. Your above post also indicate that you think Abrahamic views on God are homogenous, when in fact they are not.


 * Furthermore, there are many reasons to reduce Abrahamic weight in the lede; there already is an article entirely devoted to the Abrahamic God (see God in Abrahamic religions). Why do we need a replicate? There are also already multiple articles focusing or related to an Abrahamic God, (i.e. Abrahamic religions, God the Father, Omnipotence, Creationism, God of Abraham, monotheism, Throne of God, trinity, God in Islam, Godhead in Christianity, Great Architect of the Universe, Personal god, God the Sustainer, God in Christianity, People of the Book, Intelligent designer, Nontrinitarianism, Tawhid, etc.) Why do we need more of that here? There are many other concepts of God besides the Abrahamic one, such as the Egyptian, the indigenous religion, Dharmic, neo-pagan, new age religion, Confucianism, Zeus etc. Why do they not deserve a mention? Per WP:LEAD, the lede should briefly summarize the rest of the article - your version doesn't do that.


 * Also, some denominations of Buddhism and Hinduism do actually have a henotheistic view of God, therefore by your criteria, they should be in the lede.


 * Your version also deletes sourced content and ignores the fact that the word "god" has various definitions. The evolution/creationism section is not a coatrack but lines more closely with WP:WINAC. The evolution debate in my opinion does deserve a sub-section since it is a major topics of discussion in both academic and legal circles. Although i agree it does not belog in the "general conceptions" section. As for the atheism in the lede. I strongly support its inclusion because the meaning of atheism is not always understood by everyone. A "general overview" should include whats mentioed in the article body, per WP:LEAD (as i already said above).


 * I have reverted you partially as a compromise and reworded the article to address some of your concerns. However i would appreciate it if you could avoid mass reverts since such edits can be seen as provocative. It would be more constructive if you opened seperate discussions, one for the lede, and for the body so we can discuss this until we reach an agreement. I have removed what i think you might have meant about controversial aspects and i am open to making more concessions. Pass a Method   talk  07:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm...a lot of straw man arguments above...You're putting a lot of words in my mouth that I never said, and attributing ideas to me that aren't mine. It's probably best to break the discussion up into sections to cover the various points. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass a method, ANI is a venue for discussing behaviorial issues--not content issues. This is obviously a content issue. Please be more careful about throwing around the ANI threat. – Lionel (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: even though I told him what would happen, Pass a Method reports Adjwilley at ANI and just like I predicted they ruled it a "content dispute" and threw it out. Hahahahaha!!! – Lionel (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Scope of article
The scope of the article is currently "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. If you don't believe me, read the hatnotes. If you would like to change the scope of the article, then you should so state on the talk page and gain consensus for your change. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Evolution vs Creationism
I stated before that an entire section on "Evolution vs creationism" is using this article as a WP:COATRACK. It is a controversial debate that is an extension of the debate on whether or not God exists. It is tangentially related, but should not be "hung" on this article, because it's not about "God". You sated: "The evolution/creationism section is not a coatrack but lines more closely with WP:WINAC. The evolution debate in my opinion does deserve a sub-section since it is a major topics of discussion in both academic and legal circles." WINAC says that when an event is the subjects main claim to notability then the article can give more weight to the event. Are you saying that one of God's main claims to notability is that he/she happens to be mentioned frequently in debates on evolution vs creationism? ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Im saying one of Gods main claims to fame is creationism. Even this current lede reflects my opinion since it says God is a creator. The most notable opposing view rests on evolution. Nevertheless i am willing to drop thi for now, and i might have an RfC on the issue at a later date. Pass a Method   talk  17:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Minor correction: the Lead says God is often conceived of as being a creator. I also support dropping this for the moment, as it may work itself out as we discuss the other sections. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead
Your rewrite of the Lead is still inappropriate for many reasons. It still makes it into an essay about what the many many groups think, while failing to give an adequate overview of the subject itself. If I were writing an article about Bananas, I would say what bananas are. I wouldn't write an essay saying that group A likes bananas, group B hates bananas, group C doesn't care, group D grows them, group E boycotts them, group F denies that they exist.

Also, another problem with your edit is that you are changing the meaning of sentences that are cited to sources. You changed the sentence "God is either the sole deity in monotheism or the monist deity in polytheism" to "God usually refers to either the single deity in monotheism or one of the plural deities in polytheism". There is a big difference between a "monist deity in polytheism" and "one of the plural deities in polytheism". I'll bet the source only supports one of the statements, and I'll bet that it's not your rewrite.

That said, I agree with you that the Lead needs some work, and I'm willing to make some concessions as well. It could use less about the names of God, and as you have pointed out, it could use less of a focus on Abrahamic views. I'm going to revert your edit, and then see what I can do from there. I'd prefer, though, to start from the old, consensus version, because it's more likely to be quoting the sources accurately. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your analogy of a banana is very poor. 100% of people on Earth agree that bananas grow from cultivated plants. Theres nobody who says fresh bananas typically cant be eaten. Theres nobody who says bananas are typically rectangularly shaped. Theres nobody who says bananas can communicate with human beings on an interpersonal level. The difference between bananas and God is that humans roughly agree on bananas, however views on God vary to almost an extreme extent.


 * It is impossible to give an normal overview of God since people within the same religion cannot even agree on what God is! For example in Islam you have Sufis who believe learned humans or graves can intercede with God, whereas Salafis believe this is a huge sin. Also, Sunnis believe that God has human-like attributes (hands, feet etc.) whereas Shias believe its a sin to believe that.


 * Or for example in Christianity there are some who believe that God is three in one whereas others believe the trinity is false. How is it possible to give an overview of God when people in the same religions can even agree? Please explain that. Pass a Method   talk  17:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Like any analogy, my silly banana example breaks down if you stretch it too far :-). In the case that many disagree on something, I believe the best solution is to present a general overview on what most people generally do agree on. Regardless of one's religion, the word God generally conjures up the idea of a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, etc. etc. That is what the Lead should talk about: not the smaller details that nobody can agree on (trinity, whether God has a corporal body, etc.). ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're failing to see the point Adj. The point is that God is one of the most contradicting concepts in human history. Why do you want to turn something that is disputed, into something that is unison? To make the lede unison would make it misleading and imprecise.


 * Imagione the lede of abortin having only a pro-life view? Imagine the article circumcision only mentioning the medical benefitys of circumcision? The lede should describe both agreements and disagreements. Pass a Method   talk  18:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In fact WP:LEAD says that articles should include any prominent controversies! Pass a Method   talk  18:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we may be getting to the root of our disagreement. In my opinion, an article on circumcision should primarily describe what circumcision is, which can be done without endorsing a pro- or anti-circumcision point of view. The article should include a section on the the medical pros and cons of course. The article on Abortion should primarily describe what Abortion is, its history, etc., which can all be done without endorsing a pro-life or pro-choice POV. The opposing views should be mentioned, but should not overwhelm the article. Finally, an article on God should primarily explain what God is perceived to be, noting the various differences in perception. The article should contain a section discussing the debate over the existence of God, as it does. The Lead should summarize that. It does. The point is: it is possible to explain what God is perceived to be without endorsing a theistic or atheistic point of view, and that's what I believe the article should do. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You, Pass a method, do not determine what is a "prominent controversy." We do not edit articles based on the personal POV of editors. Please keep in mind: (1) the lede is a summary of the article body. To mention a prominent controversy in the lede, it must first be covered in the article body. (2) An issue is only a "controversy" if a reliable source explicitly says so. The same holds for "prominent." Thus an issue is only a "prominent controversy" if a RS says it is a controversy and prominent. – Lionel (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Use/Mention Distinction
The top of the article states that this article is about the term 'God' (as it appears in English, since this is an English encyclopedia), but portions of the article seem to forget that the term, and not the thing, is under discussion. For instance, a portion of the article discusses the "names of God" (in different cultures). So what this actually means is: "Names for the English term 'God' in other languages". That's like me saying "English names for the French term for cheese", as if there were an English word to describe the French term 'Fromage'.

But what's actually meant is: "Terms in other languages which stand for beings that an English speaker would consider 'God'".

Similarly, when attributes of God are described, the article means to discuss the being, not the term. After all, the word 'God' is not ascribed omnipotency, the being itself is. You get the idea.

So, if the article purports to be about the term, it should be a little more careful with the use-mention distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6043:A:641F:B85F:80A9:DCF (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. You have a good point. I would point out, however, that names of God like "Allah" or "Jehovah" aren't necessarily in other languages. English speaking Muslims use the term "Allah" over "God", and similarly Jehovah's Witnesses use the name "Jehovah". ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible Origin of 'G.O.D.'
I added the following... '==Origin of 'G.O.D.'== "G.O.D.: The initials of Gomer, Oz, Dabar. It is a singular coincidence, and worthy of thought, that the letters composing the English name of Deity should be the initials of the Hebrew words wisdom, strength, and beauty''; the three great pillars, or metaphorical supports, of Masonry. They seem to present almost the only reason that can reconcile a Mason to the use of the initial 'G' in its conspicuous suspension in the East of the Lodge in place of the Delta. The incident seems to be more than an accident. Thus the initials conceal the true meaning." - Masonic Glossary''' [ref] http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/masonicmuseum/glossary/glossary_g.htm [/ref] - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That only works in English, and is etymologically laughable, even if one accepts the idea of an Adamic language (it certainly wouldn't be English). The word God comes from the same root the German Gott, the proto-Germanic Gudan, ultimately going back to the Proto-Indo-European Ghutom. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ian, what are your credentials so as to take the action that you did and to make the statements that you have? Maybe I'll find your credentials "laughable"? The "Origin" of the word 'God' has been historically traced as the article says ad nausem. Everybody knows the tired old explanation of "the English word 'GOD' came from the German 'Gott'". I even refer to that on page 2 of my 74-page booklet There Are No Coincidences - there is synchronism. And yet, there is another history that you are unaware of (very few are aware of it). You are quite WRONG about "even if one accepts the idea of an Adamic language (it certainly wouldn't be English)". Freemasons, Kaballists, Rosicrucians and others are well aware that "there was a 'Holy Tongue' that GOD used to create Earth". And according to the Tower of Babel (Ziggurat of Babylon) Story Genasis 11:1, "Everyone was speaking one language and had one purpose". Of course, this is the BIGGEST contradiction in the Bible since only two verses earlier in Gn 10:31 we have "many tribes and many tongues". Those enlightened through the centuries have been on a mission to reconstruct the Holy Tongue and they have, it's English! There are many lingistics proofs to this including Theory of left-to-right, hieroglyphic/symbolic nature of English Alphabet, historical/Biblical references, Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74): GOD=7_4, etc. I again added this very important definition/possible origin of 'G.O.D' to the bottom of Entymology, but it doesn't really belong there. It probably should be given under the title of Possible Origin of 'G.O.D.' - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but much of your proof is not very strong, and would be classified as fringe theories by many. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has to present mainstream views, and your sources are not that.
 * Or to use your own words "what are your credentials so as to take the action that you did and to make the statements that you have" in the context of mainstream scientific view. Arnoutf (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I go to cook a little Chinese food and miss everything.
 * Brad, editor credentials are irrelevant, no one here cares about them, we will ignore them. What matters is reliable sources (as detailed here) and neutrality.  Fringe, new-age, pseudoscientific, and superstitious ideas will not be given credence on this site.  All my links there are to relevant policies, guidelines, and essays supporting my statements.
 * By the way, I've gotten into the SRIA's website before (it's not that hard for fans of rational study) and enjoy reading their papers from time to time. You do not appear to know anything of real Rosicrucianism, but the work of new-age charlatans disgracing the name of the Rosy-Cross.
 * Also, as any real Kabbalist will tell you, God speaks Hebrew, not English.
 * And finally, your appeal to Freemasonry doesn't work on people who read Arthur Edward Waite. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ian, I didn't refer to 'Kabbala'/"Kabbalist' - please pay better attention - I referred to 'Kaballa'(7,40)/"Kaballists". Possibly you are aware of its different spellings and their associations with different teachers? You SCREAM about the rules here while ignoring them by posting "I go to cook...". This is NOT a forum where one discusses their personal life! While ignoring all your irrelavent comments, your inapropriate editing actions, your desire to promote unqualified editors, and your veiled insults, the question here is, "Is the following link/source a legitimate reference?" http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/masonicmuseum/glossary/glossary_index.htm . If the consensus is that it is, then the quote from it should remain on the article page. Obviously, I say that Freemasonry Encyclopedias are very "reliable sources" for Wikipedia. I've been using them for many, many years. Also Ian, please DO NOT send me any more personal messages, DO NOT post again on my Home Page/Talk Page, and DO NOT edit any more of my posts. If you have a problem with this request, then contact the adminstrators of Wikipedia... I will post Possible Origin of 'G.O.D.' again on the Article Page. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That you think there's a difference between Kabbalah and "Kaballa" is a pretty good indication you don't know what you're talking about. Have you even met a rabbi?  Or perhaps just read some rabbinical works?  Even read up on post-temple Jewish history?
 * It doesn't matter what you think a reliable source is, just see this site's definition. The Phoenix Masonry website, aside from not having any peer-review or editorial oversight (which is how this site defines reliability), not to mention its failure to discuss whether they're in amity with the United Grand Lodge of England), does not define God the way you have.  They describe that assigned meaning as an additional reason for why the lodge uses the word, but do not pretend that is the historical origin of the word.  Then there's the fact that your plagiarism of that site is completely unacceptable and dishonest.  How dare you steal their writing?!  Copyright violation is not tolerated here.
 * I am perfectly entitled to undo edits to my user page, and I'm perfectly entitled to revert any edit which does not meet this site's policies and guidelines. Refusing to bother with those policies and guidelines will only get you in trouble with the admins here.  If you cannot handle this site's policies and guidelines, and refuse to take the advice of those who understand this place, you probably should not be here.  You're holding your chisel backwards with a loose grip.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Ian WP:Bite and Brad, let's keep this discussion civil please.
 * @Brad, the use of bolding and/or capitals in talk pages is seen as shouting, so please don't. Also, user talk pages are meant to leave personal messages but are under editorial control of the use. So as Ian mentions above, evertyone is allowed to leave personal messages on another users talkpage, and every user is allowed to edit his/her own talk and user page including removal of content. Final remark to Brad, in this post I have wikilinked (bluelinks) to relevant Wikipedia policies (as did Ian above), please read, accept and internalise those rules. While you may not agree, these are rules of Wikipedia, and editors who are not willing to live by the spirit of these rules tend to end up in a lot of nasty conflicts, and usually end up being blocked from editing; which is a waste of time and energy for a lot of people (including the editors that end up being blocked). So either accept the rules, or consider that Wikipedia may not be something for you after all.
 * With regard to the content, in my view there seem to be 3 issues here where we need to achieve consensus on each of them before agreeing to add text of this kind.
 * 1) Are Freemasonry Encyclopedias reliable sources for the etymology of the word God?
 * 2) Does the quote from that freemasonry encyclopedia indeed claim anything of relevance to the etymology of the word God?
 * 3) Is the acceptance of the freemasonric etymology of God relevant for this (specific) top level article, or does it give undue weight to a minority idea?
 * My position towards these is: Re 1) No, these sources maybe reliable for freemasonry topics (albeit possibly biased because of self publication). Re 2) I do not really know, but Ian.Thompson makes a case against Re 3). I would say it is not sufficiently relevant, as Wikipedia should give a readable overview of a topic to the reader and not overload articles with indiscriminate amounts of information, in this case I think this would give undue weight to this explanation for this top level article. That does not say that this information cannot be relevant for other, more detailed articles (e.g. God (word)), only not here (note that for other articles, you also have to address points 1&2). So in summary - no it should not here as far as I can see right now. Arnoutf (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My main objection is the rather obvious violation of WP:OR in asserting the possible origin of the word "God" based on the material provided. Nowhere in the text provided is any such assertion made. All I can see is a proposed linkage, substantively similar to some of the claims of Eric von Daniken and others. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Should Zeus be in the lede?
Do you support or oppose mentioning Zeus in the lede? Pass a Method  talk  18:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Zeus is commonly described as a henotheistic deity:, , , . Zeus is also possibly the most frequently-cited god in ancient history. Since this article is about the henotheistic view of god, Zeus would fit in perfectly. Pass a Method   talk  18:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is being mentioned as a possible henotheistic god sufficient criteria for inclusion? Does having a long list of deities in the Lead help the readers to better understand the concept of God? Is Zeus prominently mentioned in the body of the article such that he should get a big long sentence in the Lead? The lead is supposed to summarize the article, after all. I recommend that you move your sentence to the body somewhere, and if you feel the urge to add other deities that you add them there as well. Not every detail that every editor feels is important needs to go in the Lead. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * comment I am willing to shorten the Zeus sentence as a compromise. What do you think? Pass a Method   talk  00:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I feel like if I put aside my other concerns and accept this compromise you'll just come back tomorrow wanting to stick a long sentence about Pastafarians in the Lead. The length isn't the only problem here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot see any reason not to allow the RfC to run its course. There are other questions to consider, as Adjwilley has said, and I don't myself see why there should be a rush to decide this before a broader number of editors have made the comments that the RfC was presumably started to receive. John Carter (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The conclusion made by the editor who started this discussion seems to be, basically, OR/inductive reasoning. The editor asserts one thing, which is itself somewhat dubious, then makes an unsourced allegation about Zeus being possibly the most frequently cited god of ancient history, which is, like I said, not sourced, and seems to believe based on that flawed reasoning that the content of this article should be changed. I cannot support that conclusion, and honestly, I believe that I will be more than justified, based on the sourced statements I presented above, to file a separate RfC after the conclusion of this one on the subject of whether, as per [{WP:NAME]] and the sources I provided, that this article should be about only those deities who are regularly referred to by their worshippers by the appelation "God". That request has reliable sources to support it already presented, while this RfC seems to be based on one editor's interpretation of things. But, in direct response to the question of the RfC, if reliable sources are produced which clearly indicate that Zeus is of sufficient prominence in the reliable sources relating to the concept of "God" to merit inclusion in the lead, maybe. Until and unless those reliable sources are produced, and examined by editors who are not seemingly so driven by their own inductive reasoning, no. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that reasoning about what should be in an article is not subject to the policies that govern content. Rich Farmbrough, 03:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC).


 * Oppose the article is about God according to the lead, therefore mention of Zeus in the lead seems unnecessary. Discussion about leaders of pantheons in  the body of the article might however be reasonable. Rich Farmbrough, 03:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC).

Comment i removed the rfc template because i feel like the consensus is against me. Feel free to close this rfc. Pass a Method  talk  10:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for both lede and body of the article. We need to distinguish "God" and "god", Zeus is of the latter sort. --Pgallert (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Henotheism
There are sources that describe Hinduism and Taoism as henotheistic. Hence i thought it wuld be ok to include them. Pass a Method  talk  06:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure we could also find sources describing Hinduism as monotheistic as well (depending on the school/sect/denomination). Henotheism seems to be enough reason to include a religion in the article, though.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling Hinduism henothesitic is a pretty big generalization/oversimplification, and there are many branches of Hinduism: some polytheistic, some henotheistic, some monistic, etc. Tausism is pretty clear-cut polytheistic. Zoroastrianism is extremely small, ( <20,000 <200,000 members I think) and doesn't really need a shout-out in the Lead, especially if they're not in the article body. Ik Onkar is a symbol for God, not a name for God, and doesn't really fit in the Lead either. There was nothing particularly wrong with the Bahai sentence, but I removed it as well, since it's fairly redundant with Islam. I also changed Vishnu/Krishna to Brahman, since Krishna's just an avatar of Vishnu, and Brahman is more widely regarded as a monistic deity. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree pretty strongly with the above comment by Adjwilley. "There are sources that" say any number of ridiculous things about individual religions and religion in general, and we can't and shouldn't base our content on them at random. John Carter (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are several sources desscvribing Hinduism as henotheistic, i.e. . As for zoroastrianism, they have 2.6 million members (see . As for Baha'i, thats a completely different religion to Islam. Pass a Method   talk  03:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Baha'i is about as distinct from Islam as 2nd or 3rd century Christianity was from Judaism. Zoroastrianism is notable for possibly being one of the earliest monotheistic religions, and pretty much any comprehensive study on monotheism includes it.  However, I do have to agree that the change to Brahman would be more accurate, as the monist, monotheistic, pantheistic, and henotheistic sects use Brahman (but not Brahma, a different figure) to refer to the supreme being.  Vaishnaism sees Vishnu as the truest understanding of Brahman, and Krishnaism sees Krishna as the truest understanding of Vishnu (or just Brahman), but both still see Brahman as the supreme being.  Reading the bit on Taoism, that... doesn't quite cover the supreme being.  It covers the three supreme beings, and citing Journey to the West strikes me as a bit WP:OR, kind of like citing Pilgrim's Progress to make swathing statements about Christian doctrine.  A scholarly source that studied a variety of Taoist ideas would be more appropriate.  Also, replacing the bit about Ik Onkar with something about Waheguru would be more accurate and appropriate.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't mean to imply that Bahai and Islam were similar religions. I was saying that the Bahai and Islam have several honorary names for God in the Lead was redundant. I must have mis-remembered the Zoroastrian number. Sorry about that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, I remembered the Zoroastrianism number wrong. It was 200,000, not 20,000 (as of 2004, that is. They're shrinking fast.) I've corrected that above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Adherents.com is a more reliable source than a newspaper. Adherents.com states they have 2.6 million adherents. Pass a Method   talk  05:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the long silence. I was out of town yesterday and didn't get a chance to write a response here. Before I begin, I should probably say a few words regarding the accusations recently levied against me at AN/I. Contrary to what Pass a Method said, I am not opposed to mentioning various religious views in the Lead section of the article, but there were several problems with Pass a Method's edit, which is why I reverted most of it. It was an exceptionally Bold edit with little justification; I reverted it, and now it's time to discuss. Since there were a lot of issues mixed into the edit, I'm going to break it down an analyze each piece.


 * "Vishnu and Krishna are among the most popular Hindu gods."
 * The scope of this article is "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism and there has been no consensus thus far to change that. (As the hatnotes point out, there are several other articles discussing the various aspects of the subject from many points of view.) Pass a Method made the argument that some sources describe Hinduism as henotheistic, so s/he could include various Hindu gods in the article. I argued that calling Hinduism henotheistic was a gross generalization/oversimplification, but compromised, changing the sentence to: "In Hinduism, Brahman is often considered a monistic deity." Brahman is a much more appropriate example than Krishna and Vishnu, since Brahman is the "one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe" while Vishnu isn't quite as all-encompassing, and Krishna is just an avatar of Vishnu. PassaMethod reverted me on that, and I think it should be changed back. Ian.thomson seems to agree with me there.


 * "In Taoism, the Three Pure Ones are considered the highest gods."
 * As I pointed out, this is straight polytheism, and doesn't really belong in the article, especially in the Lead. If someone would like to change the scope of this article, they should propose the change on the talk page where it can be discussed.


 * "Baha'is believe that the greatest name for god is Baha, Arabic for all-glorious."
 * Granted, the paragraph this was inserted into was talking about names for God, but it was talking about specific names that people use in the place of "God". For instance, Muslims call God "Allah" while some Christians call him "Jehovah" while some Jews call him "Adonai". Well, Bahá'ís generally call God "God" though they have several honorific names like the "All-Powerful", or the "All-Loving". This concept of having multiple titular names for God is interesting, but not unique to Bahai's. For instance, the paragraph in the Lead already says, "Muslims regard a multitude of titular names for God." so adding the same information about Bahai's is fairly redundant. Besides, Baha'i faith is fairly small, especially compared to Islam, so if I have to decide between using Bahai or Islam as an example for something, I choose Islam.


 * As a side note, I was accused me of violating several WP:LEAD principles at AN/I. Here's a quote from WP:LEAD. "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." If we're summarizing the body of the article, why should we insert the above sentence in the Lead, when the body of the article doesn't say anything about Baha'i names for God?


 * "The Ik Onkar is the symbol of god for Sikhs."
 * This is pure trivia and has nothing to do with names for God. It should also be thrown out per WP:LEAD.


 * "Zoroastrians believe in one god called Ahura Mazda."
 * I initially made the mistake of saying there were 20,000 Zoroastrians instead of the 200,000 that I meant. I got slammed pretty hard for that, and I deserved part of it. Apparently on Adherents.com they list it as 2.6 million (another factor of ten higher) although they acknowledge the other numbers as well: "The current estimate posted on this page of millions of Zoroastrians in the world (rather than 100,000 to 150,000) is still under evaluation."
 * The point is, whichever number one chooses to believe, the number of Zoroastrians is very, very small compared to other world religions, and is small even when compared to the various sects within the major religions.
 * That said, I realize that Zoroastrianism is an important topic when speaking of monotheism, and I thought twice before reverting that part. The fact that no argument had been made for inclusion (and that the edit summary used to include it was so generic that it looked like something was trying to be slipped in under the radar) was part of the reason for my revert. I would be fine with including it in the future.

I apologize for the long wall of text here, but I am trying to be thorough, since this seems to be a sensitive subject. I would ask that in responding, editors focus on article content, and not the perceived biases of other editors. I'll wait a day or so before reverting again to see if there are any objections. If there are none, I will revert, fixing the Hindu problem (Krishna-->Brahman), and leaving Zoroastrianism in this time. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No problems with the length. My own suggestion, as I said elsewhere, is for me to look tomorrow at the most recent edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones. With the possible exception of Religion Past and Present, a source which also has strong historic ties to a particular school of religious study, it is considered the most highly regarded academic source on religious topics in general, and its articles on major subjects tend to be closer in length to our own as well. So, in general, I think it is probably the best "baseline" source we can use to determine content. If the scope of that article is roughly the same as ours, or if they have an article under a different title roughly similar, I think it would be a very solid indication of what material to include, and to what weight, in our own article. John Carter (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding Hinduism, i just changed that, and added a source.


 * Regarding taoism, there are henotheist apects such as the supreme deity belief. See this source for example


 * You called baha'i small. Well, Judaism is 14 mil compared to Baha'i at 7 mil (see ). Thats not a lot of difference. You should remove Judaism too if you're consistent. Baha'i is commonly described as a major religion, , and is the second-most geographically widespread religion after Christianity. The Association of Religion Data Archives estimated some 7.6 million Bahá'ís in 2005. Furthermore the name Baha is not among the 99 names of god in Islam, so its not redundant.




 * Ik Onkar is directly relavant to a paragraph about God's names since it is the title of the Sikh God.


 * Regarding Zoroastrianism, it is among the largest religions in ancient history.


 * I object to any removal of the above religions. Pass a Method   talk  01:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hinduism is good now, thanks.
 * Baha'i: You still haven't responded to my objection of using Baha'i to illustrate the very same point that's being illustrated with Islam in the same paragraph. Nor have you responded to my concerns with WP:LEAD. Besides, Baha'i is an Abrahamic religion, and didn't you want to reduce the weight given to those? :-)
 * Taoism: I don't see how you can link to Three Pure Ones (the three highest Gods in the Taoist pantheon) and argue henotheism. Taoism is complicated, as it consists of a variety of related religious and philosophical traditions. Calling Taoism henotheistic is controversial at best. Besides, who is to decide which god to present in the Lead paragraph? A fair argument could be made that the Jade Emperor is the head deity. Maspero, Henri. Translated by Frank A. Kierman, Jr. Taoism and Chinese Religion. pg 41. University of Massachusetts, 1981.
 * Ik Onkar is not a title of the Sikh God, but a symbol of the unity of God. It is a combination of two characters, the numeral ੧, Ikk (one) and the first letter of the word Onkar (constant).
 * We are already agreed on Zoroastrianism. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I stated that in the 99 names of God in islam, the name "Baha" is not in there. Besides the history of the term "Allah" and "Baha" are very different so they are not illlustrated together. As for LEAD, that is simply a guideline, not a code. I was going to move the baha'i sentence to the body, but i figured a more appropriate place is the lede coz thats where the rest of Gods names are mentioned.


 * As for Abrahamic religions, i only wanted to reduce Abrahamic weight if other religions are also dismissed. If all monotheistic/henotheistic religions are mentioned equally i have no problem whatsoever.


 * Regarding Taoism, a supreme god venerated over other gods would fit the definition of henotheism. Can you find a source calling Taoism non-henotheistic?


 * Regarding Sikhism, Ik Onkar is the most common description of a monotheistic god among many other descriptions. That would fall under the same discourse as the paragraph i placed it.


 * I feel like you might possibly not understand the definition of a paragraph since you keep questioning the location of my entries. In case you dont know, a paragraph is "a piece of writing usually dealing with a single theme". Therefore if i add an entry about a name of god, i should add it to a paragraph which corresponds with that. Thats exactly what i did. Pass a Method   talk  04:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * LEAD is a guideline, yes, but it's a pretty good one to follow. Keeping something in the Lead because you can't find a place for it in the body is a poor argument.
 * Ok, let's take your definition of henotheism: "a supreme god venerated over other gods". Are you saying that the Three Pure Ones are the "supreme god"? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "supreme gods"?
 * I'm glad you've backed off from saying Ik Onkar is the "title of the Sikh God" to saying it's the "most common description of a monotheistic god". You are a step closer to being correct, but not quite there yet. Ik Onkar="one constant", or more specifically, "1C"=a "symbol of the unity of God". "1C" may indeed be a description of a monotheistic god, but I definitely wouldn't say it's the "most common description".
 * I still don't understand why you want to clutter the Lead with what seems to be a random smattering of names for God. There are thousands of honorary names and titles. What made you pick stuff like "Ik Onkar" and "Baha" ("All-Glorious") over stuff like "Lord of Hosts", "God Almighty", "Everlasting God", or some of the names in Islam? Seems those would be "most common" :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (e-c) First, I very strongly urge some of the editors here to perhaps read WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. I would also, perhaps, think that it may well be in their best interests to also read WP:OR, regarding one editor's as yet unsourced claim regarding Taoism, and it is presumptuous at best to demand of someone else evidence when that individual has not yet shown any evidence acceptable by our standards of WP:RS themselves. The fact that in one individual editor's eyes something fits a definition is not in and of itself cause for inclusion. We use evidence that meets WP:RS, and one individual editor's opinions do not qualify as such. I tend to believe that perhaps, despite claims that one editor "has no problem whatsoever," that perhaps one or more editors here has demonstrated perhaps very serious problems regarding conduct and POV.
 * Now, having pulled out the Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, I find it in fact is less help than I would have liked. It does not have a single article regarding the subject, but rather a collection of articles. Those articles are "God in the Hebrew Scriptures," "God in the New Testament," "God in Postbiblical Judaism," "God in Postbiblical Christianity," "God in Islam," and "African Supreme Beings," running collectively from page 3537 through 3579. None of those articles discuss the subject of "God" in the broad sense however. Nor is there any clearly apparent article discussing the topic, although their article on "Deity" seems to come closest. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, New Edition, edited by Ted Honderich, 2005, pp. 341-342, clearly limits itself from the very beginning of the article to, quoting the beginning, "The three main Western religions,..." The Edwards Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1967, has no article about "God". The nearest approach is "Concepts of God." On the basis of all of the above, I personally tend to think that as per WP:NAME it is not unreasonable for this article to perhaps limit itself exclusively to Abrahamic faiths, as per the Honderich encyclopedia and the regularity with which individuals of that faith use the word "God" as a name for their supreme being. Considering they are roughly 3.3 to 3.8 billion people today, out of roughly 8 billion, that is about half the extant world population, and that can make a rather strong case for it being the best place as per WP:NAME, although it may well be possible, I don't know, that in some African faiths and other religions they also might also regularly use the word "God" as the informal name of their supreme being. I am myself unaware of Zoroastrians using the word in that sense, although I do not presume to know everything. Supreme being is another extant article which can deal more closely with other instances of "high gods" or "supreme gods" in other faiths, and Deity is a good place for gods of a polytheistic type, which would include henotheistic gods. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Theology: A very short introduction might be a good book for what you'd like to do...In my experience the Very Short Introductions series are great for sourcing Wikipedia articles because they are short enough to be an easy read, but still have the essential topics. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Adjwilley Allright i concede on Taoism as a compromise. But you have not given men a good reason to exclude Sikhism. I feel like you have simply been playing with words there. Can you give one good reason to exclude Sikhism? (P.s. i am willing to reword the Sikh god with a different name) Regarding the clutter-smattering, i simply want a fair representation of other religions thats all.  Pass a Method   talk  15:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being willing to compromise on this. How does this edit look as a compromise on my part? I have removed Taoism, but kept the other religions in abbreviated format. I also replaced Ik Onkar with Waheguru, which is the most commonly used term for God in Sikhism. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks okay, thanks. Pass a Method   talk  16:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Adjwilley, can you explain why you abbreviated three religions into one sentence? Pass a Method   talk  22:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. It reads better that way, and is more concise. Rather than saying:
 * Baha'is believe that the greatest name for god is Baha.
 * The most common name for God in Sikhism is Waheguru.
 * Zoroastrians believe in one god called Ahura Mazda.
 * we condense them into a single sentence that reads:
 * Other religions have names for God, for instance, Baha in the Bahá'í Faith, Waheguru in Sikhism, and Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism.
 * You'll note that I also merged Judaism into another sentence. We want to be as concise as possible in the Lead, since it is meant to be a summary of lots of other information. Merging the four smaller religions (Judaism, Baha'i, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism) also makes sense in terms of WP:WEIGHT since they represent a small minority of believers. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weight is not necessarily reliant on adherent numbers. For instance zoroastrianism is the world's first monotheistic religion, . Does that not give weight to Zoroastrianism?  Pass a Method   talk  12:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, when you replaced Ik Onkar with Waheguru you never replaced the reference. I fixed that and also placed zoroastrianism in a chronological order. Pass a Method   talk  15:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Zeus was a henotheitc God and one of the most cited deities in ancient history. I have added a sentence about him. Pass a Method   talk  15:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no need to add extra words to give extra weight to Zoroastrianism. If you think it needs more weight than religions such as Bahai and Sikhism, consider this: when it's positioned at the end of the paragraph like it is, "Zoroastrianism" is the last word of the Lead: the last word many readers will read of the article. Also, the Greek/Roman pantheon is without a doubt polytheistic. Thanks for catching that reference. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Adjwilley, why do you think smaller religions deserve less coverage in the lede? Doesn't the fact that these religions are less understood mean they deserve more or at least equal coverage? Pass a Method   talk  13:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like you are asking why we don't give equal validity to all religious viewpoints, regardless of size or number of adherents. If this is what you are asking, I commend you for being so democratic, but point out that's not how Wikipedia works. We can't give the thousands of small religions equal weight with the few large religions that are tens or hundreds of thousands of times larger in size. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Im not arguing to put everything in chronological order. Ony a general categorical outlook (of dharmic religion, Abrahamic religions and small/new-age religions) as it looks now. Pass a Method   talk  18:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is still primarily about the monotheistic god of Abrahamic religions. The Lead should reflect that. The Hinduism sentence is more of a parenthesis, and should not precede the stuff about Christianity and Islam. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * An rfc about whether this article should be changed to an Abrahamic viewpoint is ongoing below. Wait for that to finish please. Pass a Method   talk
 * The RfC has no effect on this. Your change is Undue for the current scope of the article, regardless. If the RfC passes (which I doubt it will) then Hinduism will be removed entirely. If the RfC fails, Hinduism should still stay after Islam and Christianity, as it was before the RfC. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Adjwilley, i believe smaller religions have more substance in an article such as this one, because whereas smaller religions are more likely to be homogenous with a basic view on topics, larger religions such as Christianity and islam tend to have dozens of denominations, each of whom disagrees with the other on fundemental isues. Pass a Method   talk  20:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass a Method, There may be some merit to your reasoning, but I keep getting the feeling that this isn't the real issue here. Would you be opposed to having a frank discussion about what you want done to the article? Just you and me. I'll ask you questions, you answer. You ask me questions, I'll answer. I'd like to understand your point of view, but it's hard to do when we're arguing over these minor issues. So: would you be willing to have a dialogue with me? It doesn't necessarily have to be a public venue like here or on your talk page. You can create a sandbox for it if you like. Otherwise, I'll just create a ===Dialogue=== subsection here, and collapse the discussion after we've come to an understanding. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There honestly isn't much more to it. Perhaps an additional concern of mine is that the average english-speaking reader could be more interested in religions which are not that common-place. For example if you grew up in the US Bible belt and the only religion you've ever heard of is Christianity, it doesnt help a lot when he enters wikipedia to search about God and the broad scope of the article is about ..... Christianity. Another example is a Muslim. Islam only recognises People of the Book, hence some Muslims will therefore only hear about Judaism, Islam and Christianity in their lifetime. Wikipedia should be a place where we bridge this narrow viewpoint some people see in their lives. I feel like you're reinforcing this narrowness. Pass a Method   talk  21:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, Pass a Method, do have any real evidence to back up your assertion above about what English-speaking readers are interested in, or is this just more OR/POV on your part? None of what you said actually seems to address WP:WEIGHT issues either. I'm not sure if you have any acquaintance with the major reference works on religion, the Encyclopedia of Religion and Religion Past and Present, but having gone through the former of the two extensively in recent months, including all the reviews of it I could find, it also tends to use examples relating to the major religions more often, because in general those are the references the average reader will understand. After all, if I made reference to the Australian Rainbow Serpent as an example of the world being a physical form of the creator, most readers, probably even including many Australians and Polynesians, are likely to think, "Huh? Wtf?" and that would detract from the clarity of the text. I cannot see any reason to sacrifice clarity without purpose. Regarding your own personal feelings, you are free to have whatever opinions you want, as is everyone else. Because of this variation in opinions, we in general prefer having editors provide independent reliable sources which indicate the material being discussed receives the due coverage and weight, and, regretably, I have not seen any real evidence of your having provided evidence to support the changes you seek to make which have received consensus before you make the changes. John Carter (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * John, your reasoning is flawed because those books were published/authored in predominantly Abrahamic countries, hence they are not free from a certain POV. Pass a Method   talk  23:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass a Method, your reasoning is not only flawed but basically in violation of existing policies and guidelines. I asked you if you had any evidence to support your assumption about the personal beliefs of others, and no evidence was provided. Instead, you attempted to indulge in misdirection and obfuscation. Your reasoning is not only apparently flawed, but possibly nonexistent, and, in fact, I honestly have no reason to believe that "reasoning" is involved at all. Your assertion regarding the books is also completely unfounded. If you have any rational basis for your as yet completely unsupported assertions, please provide them or at least adhere to WP:TPG. There seems to be a rather significant history of violations of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:AGF, and numerous other behavior guidelines related to this article, and I am becoming increasingly convinced that possibly the only way to resolve it might be through further contact with administrators, through the noticeboards, or possibly through arbitration. John Carter (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * John, when you reply to one of my comments, it would help if you read the previous paragraph i was replying to. The above posts make it clear you took my comment our of context. For example my use of the word "could" indicates im not stating a factual claim. Therefore your blowing my comments out of proportion. The previous paragraph also asks for my opinion. An opinion does not need a reference/evidence. Pass a Method   talk  10:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * John, when you reply to one of my comments, it would help if you read the previous paragraph i was replying to. The above posts make it clear you took my comment our of context. For example my use of the word "could" indicates im not stating a factual claim. Therefore your blowing my comments out of proportion. The previous paragraph also asks for my opinion. An opinion does not need a reference/evidence. Pass a Method   talk  10:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Dialogue
@Pass a Method: I appreciate your willingness to answer my questions. If I understand correctly, you believe that the article needs to be revised because it primarily covers the views about God of large world religions like Christianity and Islam. The problem you see is that there are schisms within these religions, so it's hard to say that Christians believe such and such. If we had the article focused on lots of smaller religions, it would be much easier to say Zoroastrians believe such and such. The other problem you see with the article is that if a Christian or a Muslim decides to search online about God, they should find an article that teaches them new things about small religions like Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Baha'i, etc., widening their perspectives from the narrow perspective they had before. Is this correct? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not excatly. I believe that smaller major religions should get equal coverage in the lede because smaller religions are probably less understood. This does not inclde tiny religions (such as rastafarianism, scientology, mandeans etc.). However this does include religons with at least a few million members or historically influential religions/Gods. Also i think that adding weight to the Islamic and Christian God is unnecesssary because they already have numerous articles on wikipedia. Pass a Method   talk  22:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so equal weight for all religions above a certain cutoff, say, somewhere in "few millions" range. If we go by the list at adherents.org, and set the cutoff at Zoroastrianism (2.6 million cough) then we get 17 major world religions (16, if you exclude the one they list as Secular/Nonreligious/etc.). If you give each of the 16 religions equal weight, you'd get 6.3% of the weight for Christianity, 6.3% for Islam, 6.3% for Hinduism, and so on down the list. Is that what you intended?
 * On the other hand, you mentioned the problem that the major religions like Christianity have a multitude of disagreeing sects, so it is hard to summarize their view on God. Following this reasoning, if we are going to list all the religions that have more than 3 million adherents, it would be to our advantage to give weight to the views of the different Christian/Muslim denominations that have that many adherents as well. For instance, of the 1.2 billion Catholics in the world, we have eight churches that have over 3 million members (Latin Church, Maronite Church, Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Apostolic Catholic Church, Philippine Independent Church, Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church) In Protestantism, we have forty. I'll stop there, but I could go on to count the denominations in Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Restorationalism (Mormonism, Members Church of God International, New Apostalic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo). Following your logic, it seems we should give each of these denominations an equal weight in the article as well. Is this correct, or did I make a mistake somewhere? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Adjwilley, im not sure why you put some much emphasis on religion statistic numbers. They fluctuate. For instance a Zoroastrian empire once made up 40% of thee world. Today Zoroastrianism is a dying religion. Shia Islam was once the dominant form of ilam, but today they are a minority. In Britain and Scandinavia Christianity was once the dominant belief, but now these countries are leaning towards atheism/irreligion. Nevertheless, there are some refs which specifically mention the major religions; . However i acknowledge than not all of them are suitable for this article. Pass a Method   talk  00:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions discussed roughly 2300 religious groups in the United States as per here. Some of the material above makes some sense, but probably not as much as some might hope. One of the factors we have to include is WP:WEIGHT. And it is a violation of WP:OR to say, basically, that "I don't like that source, so we can't base our conclusions on it, we have to base our conclusions on my opinions." And, honestly, there hasn't been that serious a fluctuation in the relative adherents of religion, barring population multiplication, for some time. The fact is religious population statistics have been fairly consistent, broadly, for a few hundred years now. This is not a History of the concept of God article, although, honestly, I think that probably is a notable and valuable topic for an article. The fact that some cherry-picked sources which one person finds supports their own apparent preconceived contentions does not necessarily prove that their conclusions are either responsible or of sufficient importance to alter content in their favor. And, honestly, if, after several decades, if the statistics change enough to support changes in the article to reflect the almost glacial "fluctuation" Pass a Method places so much emphasis on, we could always change the content to reflect that. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass a Method, I was only using the "few millions" metric because you had suggested it yourself as a cutoff for smaller religions. I'm not quite understanding your point about Zoroastrianism. Are you saying that Zoroastrianism should receive greater weight than others because it was significantly larger at one point? Because that seems to go against what you were saying earlier about all religions getting equal weight regardless of size (as long as they're over a few million).
 * You never answered my question about giving the various sects within the larger religions equal weight with the other smaller world-religions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Adjwilley When i said greater i meant that in an equality context. As for giving sects within larger religions weight, that would be appropriate if they have a concept of God that is suficiently different from their mainstream sect. For example Mormonism would fit that description. Or if reliable sources sufficiently cover their distinct god-view. I repeat that my criteria for a major religion is what reliable sources describe as major religions; i.e.,  Pass a Method   talk  09:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain what you mean by an equality context, but I think I understand the general plan: Equal weight to world religions who have more than a few million members, and give weight to the larger denominations within the larger religions whose views differ significantly from the mainstream. It sounds like a lot of work to create what would be ,in my opinion, a fairly messy article.


 * Let me try a slightly different track. I'd like to make some wild assumptions and paint a different picture, for the sake of argument. Please understand, this is not a personal attack, and I expect that I'll be wrong for at least half of it. (I hope you'll let me know where I do go wrong.)
 * So you're a decent editor and a decent person. You have a point of view, just like anybody else, and it probably lies somewhere on the atheism/agnosticism/deism side of the spectrum. You also have strong points of view about various social and political issues. They are perfectly valid points of view, and you feel that it they often under-represented or mis-represented on Wikipedia. You decide to fix that. You go about inserting them into various articles, trying to follow the Wikipedia rules of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Yet you meet a large amount of resistance from other editors: usually Christians. Probably of the American Evangelical variety. You feel this is wrong so you push harder. They keep winning.
 * You come to this article. You read it and it bugs you because so much of it seems to be coming from that pesky Judeo-Christian point of view that you've been fighting for so long. You decide to fix that by adding sections on atheism and agnosticism, and another one on the evolution/creation controversy. You get reverted, and after some discussion on the talk page you realize that the new sections are a lost cause. You don't want to come across as pushing a particular point of view so you decide on a different track: Dilute the Judeo-Christian point of view. Take up the cause of oppressed Zoroastrians, Sikhs, and Greeks, put on the mantle of NPOV, and fill the article with controversy. If you can't win, nobody should. Or everybody.
 * The problem is, it just doesn't seem to catch on. It doesn't quite work with the scope of the article. Logic snobs like me keep poking holes in your arguments and you have to keep changing them. You have to do a bunch of extra work digging up sources, and people still refuse to see the logic of your arguments. It's a tough position to be in.
 * Anyway, I'll stop now. I hope I haven't offended you. I know I'm probably way off base, but this is what things look like from my perspective. I am telling you frankly because I hope you will point out the places where I went wrong. I want to understand where you're coming from. I've been honest, now, and I hope you will reciprocate in good faith. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Adjwilley, i admit im not a religious person but believe it or not, i was at a place of worship last night .... praying. Yes praying. And it took me 1 hour to travel to my preferred place of worship although i admt this is not a usual habit of mine. My spirituality levels flucuate. Back on topic, i honestly think this lede is not comparable with similar articles with a controversial theme. For example mosque which is a featured article does not give more weight to the largest mosques in the world. In fact the lede does not even mention the largest mosques. Another FA atheism does not give more weight to Hinduism than Wicca despite Hinduism being much larger. Pass a Method   talk  12:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass a Method, I appreciate you sharing that. I'm still not quite clear on your motivations (you didn't really comment on the scenario I painted above) but that seems only fair, since I have said very little about myself and my motivation. So here's my philosophy. I believe that most articles can be noncontroversial. Even articles about subjects that are controversial don't have to be controversial themselves. The featured articles on mosques and atheism are not written in a controversial manner, even though some might view the subject matter as being controversial. Muslims/non-Muslims/Atheists/non-Atheists can read those articles and pretty much agree with everything said.
 * I think editors often lose sight of this as they battle each other. Everybody wants to show their point of view is the correct one, and everybody wants the article to reflect their point of view. This leads to edit wars that harm the article, "controversy" sections to hold the Coatrack material, and articles that are have a "tit for tat" tone. You end up with a fractured article that spends most of its time covering the various disagreements, but still does a poor job of covering the subject itself, which is what it was supposed to do in the first place. (Of course, please don't take that as me saying that I want to sweep any controversy under the rug. That's certainly not the case either. Significant controversies should be covered, but in a neutral tone, and without taking sides.)
 * Call me boring if you like. Articles I write aren't very exciting. I don't try to sensationalize things as the News Media does. I don't focus on the negative and controversial aspects as is the norm in American politics. My articles are less likely to attract POV editors because there's really nothing they can disagree with. Same with vandalism and edit warring. I basically try write "boring" encyclopedia articles for "boring" people who simply want to learn about a subject without all the hype. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, i just noticed that the artcle God in Abrahamic religions is more concise about Abrahamic God names than this article. What do you think about making it more concise? Maybe making it sound similar to the sentence used in "God in Abrahamic religions". Pass a Method   talk  21:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Should Hinduism come before Christianity and Islam?
User:Pass a Method has repeatedly made changes to the third paragraph of the Lead beginning with "There are many names for God, and different names are attached to different cultural ideas about who God is and what attributes he possesses.", moving the sentence "In Hinduism, Brahman is often considered a monistic deity." to the beginning of the paragraph so that it precedes the discussion of Christian and Muslim names for God (i.e. Jehovah, Allah). This screws up the flow of the paragraph, and also causes weight problems. There is some additional discussion above. I've reverted the change twice, but Pass a Method continues to revert me, and I'm trying to avoid an edit war.

So, the question is: Should Hinduism come before Christianity and Islam in the Lead? Here is the edit in question. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, Hinduism should not precede Christianity and Islam in the Lead, per my arguments above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * you have not actually explained how it "screws up the paragraph". Can you explain in what sense it "screws up the paragraph"? Pass a Method   talk  20:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Take the two sentences, put them together, and read them. The second sentence has little to do with the first. There's no logical flow from one to the next. Making it flow correctly will require more work than a simple copy-paste. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Adjwilley. There has been no discussion regarding this change, and there is no apparent reason for the change. Therefore, there is no reason for the change. I would ask the editor who has been supporting this change to offer some reason for it first, and I will acknowledge that I have seen no particular such reason given to date. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @ John there is a discussion about it above. John, you have still not explained why you prefer the current version. Pass a Method   talk  20:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First, Pass a Method, you are jumping to conclusions about what I do and do not prefer, and I wish you would stop that. I am not obligated to do so. I believe as per WP:CONSENSUS the obligation falls on you to receive approval for substantive changes before they are made. I have seen no appearance of such a consensus. I believe that recent history indicates that you may have a rather clear POV as per WP:POV regarding this topic, and as such it is in fact the case that editors with POV problems should receive consensus before making changes. Please make a more visible effort to comply with WP:POV. Thank you.
 * P.S. Also, I note that the only real discussion I see above is discussion which began after the change was first made and reverted. It makes very little sense to say that discussion after the fact qualifies as discussion before the fact, which you seem to be implying. If there was any substantive discussion which led to some sort of consensus on the issue being received, would you be so kind as to indicate specifically where that consensus was achieved? John Carter (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, and I think Pass a Method's continued edit-warring to push their idiosyncratic POVs has crossed the line into disruption. I think having a neutral admin look at this would be a good next step—a block or edit restriction would be appropriate, in my opinion. Admin looking at Pass a Method's use of misleading edit summaries would also be helpful. First Light (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Scope of this article
Should the subject of this article be changed to "God", the deity of the Abrahamic faiths and possibly other faiths known to their followers by the sobriquet "God"?


 * Yes -as per comments in the "Discussion" section below. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose There already is an article on the Abrahamic god, see God in Abrahamic religions. Why do we need a duplicate? There are also several articles closely related to the Abrahamic God, (i.e. Creator deity, God of Abraham, God the Father, Omnipotence, Creationism, monotheism, Godhead in Christianity, Great Architect of the Universe, Personal god, Intelligent designer, Nontrinitarianism, Tawhid, God in Christianity, Throne of God, trinity, God in Islam, God in Judaism etc.) Furthermore, limiting it to the Abrahamic God would omit important content such as Brahman the Hindu God, or the Zoroastrian God who is often credited as being the first monotheistic god. This propoal would violate WP:NPOV rules. Pass a Method   talk  21:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose No change in scope is needed. The article is currently a reasonably well-balanced Worldview of the general subject matter.  I don't see a problem with increasing the prominence of links to God in Abrahamic religions high up in the article, but changing the scope of this article would be anti-NPOV. Belchfire (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even though I sometimes use a digital copy of Encyclopedia of Religion as a reality check, similarly to how John Carter is using it here. I think that major religions should be mentioned in the lede, including Buddhism and Hinduism, because the English word and concept, "God," is widely used by scholars when studying those religions. Just do a Google Scholar search for "God in Hinduism" and "God in Buddhism". It is also used often enough by English speaking adherents of those religions, because "God" is a concept that has many names, in different religions and languages. As a worldwide and multicultural encyclopedia, I think Wikipedia needs to reflect that. I think it's overreaching to include Zorastrianism, Baha'i, and Sikhism in the lede, but they should be mentioned in the body of the article. First Light (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comment below . My very best wishes (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Dictionary of World Philosophy (http://www.credoreference.com/entry/routwp/god) says "In the singular, the concept can be found in monotheistic religions ranging from the Egyptian sun god Ra, through the Indian Brahman, to the Jewish Yahweh, and the Arabic ALLĀH." Chambers 21st Century Dictionary defines it as "in the Christian and other monotheistic religions: the unique supreme being, creator and ruler of the universe" The Columbia Encyclopedia "Divinity of the three great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as many other world religions". . -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose to avoid duplication, per Pass a Method and others.  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 13:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose If this happened, it wouldn't actually mean duplication as we can't two articles covering the same material, so we would have to merge and turn one into a redirect. But the scope of the article as it stands seems reasonable and the concept of god isn't limited to Abrahamic religions. Redtigerxyz, I have to say I have a real problem with a book that talks about " monotheistic religions ranging from the Egyptian sun god Ra" - that's just so wrong. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The term God in interfaith and inter-religious dialgoues is understood to mean the one thing: that divinity which goes by different names and forms in the world's religions. God is understood to be a catch-all word, principally used for a monotheistic deity as used by the Abrahamic faiths.Whiteguru (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hail Ra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastside  (talk • contribs)  16:24, 31 July 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Oppose The article name does not specify any particular god. That would be and is a different article.--Charles (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per Pass a Method. I am absolutely confident that the article with title god should be about god, as opposed to any particular god. I am also absolutely confident that most sources about "god" are about different gods, and particularly not on collective image of Abrahamic God. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see that a strong argument for change has been presented. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 14:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
I have consulted several reference sources to determine how they define the concept of "God". The Encyclopedia of Religion, second edition, edited by Lindsay Jones, is generally considered with Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwarts/Religion Past and Present among the best reference sources on the topic, it does not have clear historic ties to a specific religious "school," such as the Religiongeschichteschule which started RGG, and it generally has fewer, longer articles, more comparable to our own. EoR does not have a specific individual article on "God," but rather that name is the collective title for the group of articles "God in the Hebrew Scriptures," "God in the New Testament," "God in Postbiblical Christianity," "God in Postbiblical Judaism," "God in Islam," and "African Supreme Beings". Only one of those articles is not clearly about the "God" of the Abrahamic faiths. "The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, New Edition," ed. Ted Honderich, 2005, has an article under the title "God," on pp. 341-342, which clearly limits its scope from the beginning of the article to "The three main Western religions," Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. The old and venerable Encyclopedia of Philosophy ed. by Edwards has no article under the title "God". Based on all this, it seems to me that the other extant reference works on this subject which do have articles on "God" have those articles relating to the Abrahamic "God" and, possibly, some African faiths which might also regularly use "God" as a sobriquet for their supreme being. The Abrahamic faiths in particular number around 40% or more of the world population, and they all, to some form or another, refer to their god as "God". That makes a good case in my eyes that it is possibly the most common usage of the word as per WP:COMMONNAME. As indicated in EoR and elsewhere, "Deity" and "Supreme Being" are apparently the most frequently used terms for monotheistic/henotheistic supreme gods of other faiths. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In what ways would what you are proposing change the article from its current state? It isn't very clear. Formerip (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Substantially, I guess. based on the information above (and, by the way, I did not omit any sources in the above that didn't support this contention) the text of this article would change to, basically, reflect the extant content of God in Abrahamic religions, while much of the content currently in the article not related to the Abrahamic God, and potentially other gods called by the sobriquet God, would be moved elsewhere. I hadn't actually thought all the details out in advance, which is probably unfortunately rather obvious. Deity, and possibly monotheistic god if such is notable, could hold most of the other extant content, along with deity and supreme being. But, yeah, basically, the first step is to change the focus of the article - the rest can be determined later, based on the reference sources and other sources which have high academic regard relating to this topic. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to Pass a Method's comments about the books used, those comments are irrational in the extreme. It is nonsensical, possibly bordering on the insane, to say that one of the most reliable sources in the field of religious studies is biased. I believe that this is simply a continuation of the behavioral issues, including obfuscation, distraction, and otherwise, which have become prominent here lately, and I believe it only gives ever more evidence of both the incompetence of the presenter of the information and their own obvious POV and refusal to address any matters of substance. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this article provides a fair (although too brief) description of God in Monotheism. Monotheistic God correctly redirects here. It might be a good idea to expand this article and better reflect the concept of God in other monotheistic religions, but there is nothing wrong with current version. There is dispute about the order of mentioning different religions (edit summary) . I think we should simply follow chronological order per sources. My very best wishes (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a somewhat rational point, which is a bit of a surprise, honestly. However, the comment above is also, I regret to say, so poorly and vaguely worded as to be, basically, not helpful. The phrase "chronological order per sources" is too vague to be in any way useful, at least so far as I can see. I cannot understand whether it is referring to chronoligical order in the objective sense based on the sources, or in the chronological order of information presented in the reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Also, the word "sources" itself is problematic, as it does not make it clear whether it is referring to the primary sources or the secondary sources which we try to base our opinions on. However, without any clear idea what the editor above is trying to say, I cannot offer any sort of rational response, because I cannot be sure exactly what the editor above is trying to convey.
 * In response to First Light, that is a reasonable point. Unfortunately, as I think we all know, Google isn't a particularly reliable source, and its program is pretty much by definition subject to some degree of bias of its own. Regarding how the term is used in other languages, well, I think the wikipedias of other languages are the best place for content relating to the usage in other languages, but I haven't myself seen that we often adjust our own articles based on interpretations of what the similar content in other language wikipedias would be. We are the English wikipedia, and it seems, based on the evidence I have seen, including the Jones and other reference works, that in general the existing hatnote to "deity" and "supreme being" is sufficient to accomodate that disambiguation, although I might add another link to polytheism. And I grant the word "deity" is itself a little ambiguous in English usage, particularly India English, but that is a separate matter. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with most that the current state of the article is not bad; I think the move to narrow the scope was intended to keep the article roughly in its current state. (There's recently been a push to try and include the views of several polytheistic/henotheistic religions in the Lead. See Zeus above, for instance.) I think John Carter's reasoning makes sense, but has been misinterpreted as trying to narrow the scope of the article to include only Abrahamic religions: a position which most editors (including myself) oppose. I think the scope should be first and foremost Monotheism. A little Henotheism is fine, but let's not abuse it. Polytheism belongs in other articles like Deity. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Adjwilley, I agree, putting Zeus in the lede was absurd. And like I said above, I think smaller religions (Zorastrianism, Baha'i, etc.) shouldn't be in the lede, per WP:UNDUE. It could simply say "....and many other religions...". But I do think that all major religions should be included, such as Hinduism.
 * In response to the comment by John Carter (hey, do you think Burroughs chose a name with the initials "J.C." on purpose, and also made him a "Virginian", as in 'virgin birth', and savior of a world?): I confess to being lazy and just mentioning a Google scholar search for "God in Hinduism" and "God in Buddhism." I'll do more work here, and point out how many reliable, notable, and academic sources address "God in Hinduism", at least. This is just a small sampling, but I think it clearly shows that the concept of "God" (singular) in Hinduism is extremely notable and WP:DUE for the lede.
 * —Fowler has hundreds of mentions of "God" in her book, along with several mentions of "god" in lower case to show the distinction, in referring to Rudra for example.
 * —That book, by a Christian, has an entire chapter about God in Hinduism, referring to it being heir to a "tradition that sought God with a relentless search."
 * —That book shows Hindus dedicating an entire chapter to "God in Hinduism."
 * —That book is entirely about God (singular, concept) in the scriptures of all the main religions I've been mentioning.
 * —Huston Smith, in his book on The World's Religions (over 2 million copies sold), has an entire chapter on Hinduism in which many of the section headings even mention "God" (singular, concept): The Way to God Through Knowledge; The Way to God Through Work; The Way to God Through Love; etc.
 * Going further back, to show that this isn't just politically correct recentism, there is an article on "The Idea of God in Hinduism" in The Journal of Religion in 1925.
 * There is so much more, but I'm going to leave it at that. With all due (and sincere) respect to Lindsay Jones, I think he missed the boat by excluding God from non-Abrahamic religions. First Light (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies for possibly coming across as more strident than I intended to. But I would note the EoR actually doesn't include just the Abrahamic god in that group of articles. The last article in that set is "African Supreme Beings." Having read it at the time, but not since, it was on that basis, and the fact that the extant texts/stories of many African religions have been at least somewhat influenced by the West, that I indicated the scope might be those theological entities which are perhaps most frequently referred to by the sobriquet "God" (or some synonym) by their worshippers. So I assume that there are a few African deities called "God" or a rough equivalent by their followers, although, like I said, I'm just operating on memory here. I would have no reservations about a List of monotheistic gods, either, with short descriptions of them. So, Osanobwa, one of the gods in that article on African supreme beings, would merit inclusion, and his name, roughly, translates into something roughly similar to "God" in the Western usage. Henotheism has to be included here, because early Mesopotamian religions, including proto-Judaism, were henotheistic, and there are references in the Old Testament which have been taken that way, and it makes no sense to exclude some of the OT material on that God on that basis. But, except for similar cases, I really do think that the clearly monotheistic deities merit separate coverage.
 * I might include the various Australian gods referred to as "All-Fathers" as well, even though they're not included in that grouping of articles, given the very close similarity of their characteristics and, given culturally-sensitive translations, names. But I do think that there is a significant difference between gods/deities who are seen by their followers as being the "all-everything" original and sole creators and all other religions, even Zoroastrianism, which according to some of the books I've read might not even be strictly monotheistic, as there is evidently evidence of a separate, independent creation by Angra Mainyu in some of the texts. So, in a sense, I'm not so much concerned about a separate article on the "God" of the Abrahamics, but, like I said, those Gods who are called "God" or its equivalent and described as having similar attributes by their followers. That rather unique designation of a single god seems to be sufficiently different qualities and phioosophy than, say, Zeus, the son of two gods, brother of others, and father of an unknown number of others, who does not even come close to having the same characteristics.
 * Regarding ERB, personally, I think he was maybe coming up with as plain a name as he could think of that would still be recognizable. I sure hope he wasn't thinking of any sort of "savior" there. Eww. If you ever see any evidence of that, though, let me know, so I can change my name. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the expanded explanation, and for helping us to see the broader picture. I think we generally agree, and maybe the RfC could be rephrased to reflect that in some way, if needed. That John Carter thing was my own harebrained and sudden original research idea, but there are so many parallels that it's interesting (also he is immortal, at around 30 years old, works seeming miracles....). First Light (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What would you think of changing the phrasing to something like "Should the scope of this article be changed to deal primarily, if not exclusively, with the group of gods who are known to their followers/adherents to be the sole creator of the universe, and, in general, possessing most if not all of the qualities of the Judeo-Christian god, such as being the all-powerful creator of the entirety of the universe?" I acknowledge that this is a bit different from what some might call strictly "monotheistic", because some of these other religions have other gods, but they are apparently rather clearly gods who are in some way subordinate to the sole original creator god. But, honestly, Gabriel, Michael, and the other angels of the Abrahamic faiths would qualify as somewhat lesser "gods" in some other religions as well. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * john, are you going to keep moving the goal post? One minute its the Abrahamic God. Now its the Judeo-Christian God. Whats next? The Christian God? Pass a Method   talk  19:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass a Method, would it be asking too much of you to actually read the comments of others before making such comments? If you could be bothered to read them, you would note that the first comment of this discussion specifically indicated that African supreme beings would probably be included, in the group of those entities who are basically thought of as "God" in the sense of the capitalized, all-powerful, sole creator god. If you had read them, you would note that, basically, I am simply changing the phrasing. Is it really asking too much of you to actually read and respond to the comments made, rather than making such comments as the above which both fail to AGF and also, apparently, even read the comments of others? John Carter (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * John Carter, while I think the general idea is good and well-intended, it's hard to define God by having one particular God to whom all other Gods are compared... I think to say something more like ".... for example the Judeo-Christian God, Brahman in Hinduism, Allah in Islam, etc." Or just to say a supreme Creator, omnipresent, all-powerful, etc. And it may just be too tricky for us to define "God" with a capital "G" in any way, so we really should depend on Reliable Sources instead. Devotees of Krishna see him as God, for example, and there are reliable sources for that. All of which is to say that we should err on the side of inclusion. First Light (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't disagree with what you say above, and certainly not about Krishna, or, for all I know at this point, some Amerind gods, etc. Basically, the question I see is this. There seems to me anyway to be sufficient cause for there to exist an article on monotheistic creator gods. Honestly, strictly speaking, that might include the Krishnaists as well, and possibly the Australian All-Fathers, although I am myself not so certain about whether the impact of their concept of The Dreaming might make it reasonable for them to be primarily spun out into a separate article. But, if such an article were to exist on a monotheistic creator god, where would it be put. Montheistic single creator gods, which some might consider to be a possible spinout of Creator deity, for instance, seems to me a little excessive in terms of length and maybe even somewhat confusing given the unusual construction. To my eyes, personally, using the title "God" as the title of an article on the monotheistic creator gods who were the only parties involved in their creation seems the best, and probably most easily understood, title for that article. So, in effect, I am saying this not because I think nothing else should necessarily be named by this title, but, given the fact that every article has a title, and there exist multiple other titles which can be and have been used for other deities over time, those other terms tend to be have been used often enough that I think most of the other "types" of gods/deities/what have you could be included in articles with other titles which might not be the best possible titles in a theoretical sense, but which are recognizable and possibly recognized enough as relating to those thoughts to be easily understood. Except for something like the rather clunky four word title I have proposed above, I really can't think of anything comparable for this concept, and, based on what I have seen, I tend to think that a fairly strong case could be made as per NAME for it to be used as the title. John Carter (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, "God" is the best title, and it should be used in the capital "G" sense of the word. I notice that some academics use lower case and upper case "g" in their articles to make that distinction. Where there might be some room for flexibility is the use of capital "God" in reliable sources that refer to Lord of the Universe, Omnipresent, etc., but perhaps not the creator. That's why I mention Krishna, but only as an example. Within the article itself, that distinction can be make, if reliable sources do that. And in the lede, I generally support the current approach, without the need to specifically mention Baha, Waheguru, etc. This article is too Big for me to really spend time on—I think it would be an Omnipresent Problem to keep everyone happy :-), considering that people kill each other every day over the issue. First Light (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I specified in some sense the "monotheistic single creator god" because some groups, including some Gnostics, from what I can tell believe that there is/was a single ultimate creator, but that the material world we know was the creation of some demiurge, and that creation by a lesser being is the reason for the flaws in the world. Granted, I don't know how significantly different that would be in terms of theological impact, not myself knowing those groups particularly well, but I do acknowledge that there is likely to be some difference. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that because there are so many grey areas, that type of discussion should even be covered in the article, assuming there are reliable sources talking about it. As I alluded above, I'm already in over my head here as far as actual article content. First Light (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Atheism
Why does this fall under Atheism in particular, the God of abrahamic religion is not the only major deity of organised religion. 109.76.75.73 (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I feel this article is very one-sided and biased. It speaks about the Christian concept of God as if he is real and the others are fake. In fact, this should be an article with links to all the different Gods and discuss them in short. This article instead gives precedence of the Christian God simply because Christians have taken the TITLE God and gave it to their deity as its NAME. This is not the case. The Christian God's name is YHWH, Yehovah, Yahweh, Jehovah, etc. Not God. 75.190.244.183 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, maybe reading the article, which discusses the Jewish, Islamic, Bahai, Hindu, Neopagan, and Zoroastrian conceptions of God, instead of reading y'all's perception about Christianity into it. Maimonides and Al-Ghazali, both discussed in the article as much as St. Augustine, were not Christians.  Stephen Jay Gould, an agnostic, is mentioned for his views.  There are slightly more Christian authors, simply because most of the English-language sources are statistically more likely to have been by Christians.  Still, the article does actually discuss a variety of religions if you bother to read it. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

work
I need permission, do grant.

rgds

singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.97.223 (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you need permission for? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Male and Female is part of Creation
According to Genesis, the Judeo-Christian God created male and female ("male and female he created them" Gen. 1:27c). Therefore God precedes, and is above, sex and gender. Our use of pronouns referring to God as "He" or "Father" has to do with the limits of human language and human understanding.--Margaret9mary (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While I personally believe God is beyond gender, I have to point out that you are, once again, engaging in original research based on primary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do we only have pictures of *male* Gods on the page? This is phallocentric in the extreme, and has more to do with the tyranny of the penis than with religion. We need a non-gender interpretation, or at least one which takes into account the vagina and the importance of sisterhood (earth mother etc).  Once more, we seem to have Wikipedia as a men-only club, with the penis thrust into our faces once again and issues emanating from this and other articles borderline offensive to women.  Why, for instance, should I be told what to do or not to do with my body by men?  From the abortion debate to the depiction of God as a man, I feel more and more encroached upon by a violent and macho culture passed down from the early Christian church. I'm going to take a straw poll at my next support group and get a feel for what would be a non-offensive depiction of an almighty deity that is not an elderly male with a beard. Why not, for instance, an early African earth mother clay figure, or an etching of the Great She Wolf, or perhaps a more contemporary representation suggesting the channelling of deity rather than deity itself?  For instance, a photograph of Mother Theresa or Germaine Greer.  Everyone's God is different in a gender-neutral pluralistic universe, so why constantly fall back on Michaelangelo's interpretation.  This whole thing makes me very angry indeed.  I'm beginning to believe we need a separate Wikipedia for women in order to get some balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.202.213 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia is not to blame for the sexism of traditional Christianity. We just report what is in the sources. This article is specifically about the Abrahamic god. You will find other gods at Deities.--Charles (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, this article does detail the deity of Deism, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism; and touches on how God is viewed in Hinduism as well. Abrahamic God is actually a different article.
 * The limitations of patriarchial cultures' languages would be the problem (Christianity got most of it's views of God from Judaism, and the mystic traditions in both acknowledge that God is ultimately beyond gender even if limited gendered language is traditional). The Early Church hardly forced a chauvinistic view of God, the Holy Spirit in both Greek and Hebrew had a feminine name.  The Catholic Church's catechism clearly states "God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God."  Judeo-Christian mysticism's obsession with the Shekinah and Sophia shows a rather feminine side to the Abrahamic God.  This Christian bashing not only goes against WP:NOTFORUM, but it goes against any studied understanding of historical Christian belief (sexists of either gender would have a sexist vision of God whether they called It Yahweh, Odin, Mithra, or Sol Invictus; that is the problem, not Christianity).
 * Also, could the IP please name a particular "early African earth mother," instead of projecting their wishes on an extremely broad number of cultures? Of the figures I know of to include in this article, Cagn, Ngai, Nyame, and Waaq aren't goddesses.  As for the "Great She Wolf," I cannot find any evidence for any such historical deity, just a figure in a Dungeons & Dragons campaign setting specifically using the name "Great She Wolf," and some neopagans emphasizing wolf-ish aspects of often lower-ranking goddesses from cultures that had absolutely no communication with each other.
 * I would be quite open to including the feminine interpretations of the divine in this article, provided they were historical interpretations instead of stuff hippies made up because they didn't bother to do their homework.
 * Mother Theresa and Germaine Greer would be as inappropriate to include as Martin Luther King Jr or Carl Jung. There are no notable claims that any of those people is the Deity more than anyone posting here.
 * As for "more contemporary representation suggesting the channelling of deity," please read WP:No original research.
 * As for "Everyone's God is different in a gender-neutral pluralistic universe," Wikipedia articles are not for people to share their personal feelings on subjects, but to summarize sources on shared or notable conclusions that different people have. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Scope, Revisited

 * I feel it should be addressed that some people do use the term "God" in a rather benign and generic way. A person my call on God, or have some other indicator of God in speech, or thought, but may not understand who, or what, their God is. In no way would I suggest this become a place for any type of spiritual counseling, but I do believe that some kind of line needs to be drawn so that people have some kind of understanding of what and who God is - but possibly also what God is not. Feedback on this is appreciated, and I thank you in advance for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.105.70 (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Who and/or what God is or isn't is the main reason why theistic religions are so diverse. The best we can do is give a general overview of what the majority of religions and philosophies can agree on (omnipotence, omniscience, etc), and major notable distinct views, but we cannot give definitive views without favoring one religion over another (which isn't fair), or detail different religions' conceptions of God (which we already do with articles like God in the Bahá'í Faith, God in Christianity, God in Hinduism, God in Judaism, etc, etc).  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 November 2012
Please let me use a picture that mostly represents God (a Celestial Light), not a man in the sky. That is highly offensive to Christianity and all other faiths that know of God's nature; genderless and not human at all - Dizzzer

Pff, my god is a level 5 shape shifter and can look like an old man in the sky whenever he wants.67.200.143.138 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Michelangelo Sistine Chapel Picture of God: On Top or Further Down in Article
Let's get back to the issue please: I propose putting the God box back on top, with the picture in the Anthropomorphic or Gender section. I think this is a reasonable request. Allisgod (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The picture was put up without discussion in March and even without an edit summary, which is inappropriate.
 * 2) The lead picture shows a representation of the Catholic version of God. [not pantheism, not Islam, etc.]
 * 3) The lead picture shows a male God
 * 4) The lead picture is an anthropomorphic or personal version of God
 * 5) There was no lead picture in prior years
 * 6) The God box (on the Wikipedia God page) has been demoted below a male Christian personal God picture.
 * I'm sorry, There was no lead picture? Yes, there has been, This argument is an old one, and generally eventually goes back to some version of the Sistine chapel image. A quick perusal of the talk page history will show that. A few examples:


 * Mar 2005 Images; God's face? Talk:God/Archive_8
 * June 2006 God is not an old white man with a penisTalk:God/Archive_10
 * Jan 2007 God is not white Talk:God/Archive_16
 * Jan 2007: Can we remove the Michaelangelo image and have a symbolic sun image?Talk:God/Archive_15
 * July 2007: Image of Michaelangelo complaint.Talk:God/Archive_20
 * That's not to disagree with any of your other points, but There was no image is demonstrably erroneous. Not that it matters much; Consensus can change after all. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected on that point. I didn't look back that far.  Allisgod (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't either. I simply used the handy search box. I thought, Image must have been discussed before, so I typed in "Image" hit search, and scrolled through and read the ones that seemed relevant. I find if I do that on article talk pages which have a Search archives function, I don't waste people's time so much. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Points addressed one by one: I see merit in the argument that the image is a narrow representation, originally intended to represent the Christian God, who was understood to be also the Jewish God. One cannot call it the "Catholic God" because at the time there was no other Christian sect. The question is, is this the God who is primarily spoken of in this article? KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The image has been used on and off since before 2005 when editors were arguing about it on this talk page, so it was a restoring of an image, not simply adding an image. I agree the image has been controversial.
 * 2) The image shows Michelangelo's depiction of God, which is arguably Catholic, Christian, or Judeo-Christian. It is unarguably a work of art.
 * 3) Agreed, the image is male. This is the God article not the Goddess article.
 * 4) Lead image is indeed anthropomorphic. Whether it is personal depends on your interpretation of the term "personal God" and whether you feel it applies here. I suggest ditching that debate as non-constructive.
 * 5) Already shown to be false, for over 7 years.
 * 6) Agreed.
 * "[I]s this the God who is primarily spoken of in this article?" is not exactly the question I would ask. Although I think the answer to that would actually be inconclusive since, for example, Islam would find this picture offensive.  But I think in this case, a monotheistic (or henotheistic) God is an abstract concept that is pictured (and not pictured) in dramatically different ways.  So having the lead be a picture of one group's vision suggests that the page is about something more specific than it actually is.  I think it's like a page on Political Parties putting the Democratic party symbol as the lead image because it is the majority party.  That's not the way it ought to work here.  Allisgod (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are in error. We do not give equal weight, we give due weight, per NPOV, a core policy. You will not be able to change that core policy from this article talk page. KillerChihuahua ?!? 02:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say give equal weight. You're making a straw man argument.  Allisgod (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If my reply did not address your post, then I misunderstood what you were saying. KillerChihuahua ?!? 02:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry you don't understand. Your earlier statement, for example, that this is a God and not a Goddess page suggests you lack an understanding of an abstract version of God that does not fulfill your anthropomorphic bias toward the word.  If this page is about the Christian God, then the picture makes sense.  That picture as a representation of God offends Muslims, pantheists, and other monotheistic individuals and groups.  It does not belong on top of a page with such a broad subject matter. Lets wait for other opinions. Allisgod (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You haven't the faintest idea what I believe or don't, and I'll thank you to cease your snide and inaccurate guesses. Both your beliefs and mine are completely irrelevant to this article. KillerChihuahua ?!? 03:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed and I apologize for getting snippy. I'm rephrasing the topic to get us back on track Allisgod (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And I've changed it right back, per WP:REDACT; don't change your own comments if someone has already replied to them. Strike out and add text underlined or a different color if you must, but do not simply change with no indication left it was ever different. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Allisgod, you may wish to read I'm sorry you screwed up as well as Apology. You may not be aware of it, but whenever you say "I'm sorry you" tht is generally taken as an attack on the other person. You may wish to avoid such phrasing in the future. Killer Chihuahua 16:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Einstein's beliefs
The additions of: 06:07, 15 November 2012‎ Dethranity indicating the beliefs of Einstein should be removed. The paragraph is, in essence, providing an extremely simplistic view of Einstein's beliefs that do not actually add to this article in any significant degree. The arguments for Einstein's faith are ambiguous at best - he is noted as refuting a 'personal god' which is precisely what this article is discussing. If Einstein's opinions are considered important enough to be in this article, it would make sense to link directly to Religious views of Albert Einstein which gives a greatly more comprehensive analysis. --Mdb23b (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. KillerChihuahua ?!? 06:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the line about Einstein which was removed was inaccurate. But I disagree that Einstein's beliefs are "ambiguous at best" or that this page is only about a personal god. Einstein was an agnostic who believed in "Spinoza's God". Spinoza - arguably the most popular version of God among philosophers - was not mentioned in this article, so I have added a paragraph about Einstein and Spinoza. Allisgod (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A user undid my edit citing "no consensus on this issue", evidently because of my above disagreements? Note that the God article is NOT exclusively about a personal god. That's not a disagreement, it's just a fact. Also, Einstein's views are clearly laid out in Religious views of Albert Einstein and linked to the added paragraph, which is essentially a summary from that page. These were corrections, not disagreements. Allisgod (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The information is about Einstein's beliefs, and belongs in that article. It is not about the God of this article, and therefore does not belong here. Simple enough. See the top of the article, where it is stated:


 * KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Einstein's views are appropriate for this article. He's a smart guy and all, but theology wasn't his field. And as far as I know, his views weren't peer reviewed or formally published, which is what we normally require for Wikipedia sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Adjwilley, I did mention in my edit summary when I removed that content that he was not a theologian and we don't include random opinions. Looks like we're in agreement here. KillerChihuahua ?!? 18:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Monotheism includes pantheism, which is the view of Spinoza, Einstein and many individuals who use the term God (capitalized nonetheless). This information belongs in the article. Also, there are many non theologians mentioned in the article. Einstein is not just a 'smart guy and all', he proposed the theory of relativity based out of his fundamental view of unity - which he called God. I believe deleting/limiting this kind of information on this page is not appropriate nor is it helpful. If you limit the page to the God of Abrahamic religions, that's one thing and it should be clearly stated, but this is a page about the God of monotheism/henotheism which includes this view. Allisgod (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * His expertise was physics, not theology or philosophy. His opinion is not appropriate for this article. KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why is Steven Hawking's opinion included? There are also other names in the article who are not philosophers/theologians. Allisgod (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * He wrote an entire book about how God does not exist, and is an evangelical atheist. Please show me where Einstein wrote such a book or entered into such crusading. KillerChihuahua ?!? 02:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are dozens of books about Einstein's religion and great interest in his views on the subject, which he wrote and spoke about extensively. It's laughable to suggest Hawking's opinion is more valuable to this article than Einstein.  Hawking himself would disagree with you since he - like most physicists and astrophysicists - cite Einstein more often than any other scientist on the subject of God/religion. Allisgod (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way who decided that a major theoretical physicist's opinion on God is not an "expert opinion"? Society is even talking about the search for the "God particle" and you want to limit this article to what, PhDs in philosophy and theology?  Then why are there psychologists, biologists, anthropologists, astrophysicists, other physicists, and even fiction authors and politicians within this article.  I count well over a dozen names. Allisgod (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just getting argumentative. If you wish to examine the reason why any of those are in the article and they fail the Notable on This Subject test, then feel free to bring it up on the talk page. But how come other stuff is here is not a good argument for inclusion. And the "god particle" has absolutely nothing to do with any deity, real or imagined, that ever has or ever will exist. It's a nickname. KillerChihuahua ?!? 02:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I just defeated your ridiculous point that only expert theologians or philosophers belong in the article. Try again. Allisgod (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not make that point, although I can understand your confusion given the brevity of my edit summary. One cannot make fine distinctions in an edit summary. Insofar as to who needs to "try again", why that would be you, as 1) Policy is against you per WP:NPOV, 2) Consensus is against the edit, and 3) the onus is on you to persuade and provide adequate sourcing for content you wish added. You will have to provide a source which adequately assures editors of this page that Einstein was a theologian; a religious activist; or was otherwise notable for his religious views; any other type of notability is insufficient to make his opinion any other than irrelevant in this particular article.  KillerChihuahua ?!? 03:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, dozens of books, articles about Einstein's religious views. If your strict standards were applied to this entire article, then over a dozen names and their related opinions on God would need to be removed.  What is your agenda here? Allisgod (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Woah, nobody's got an agenda. KillerChihuahua is correct. You are responsible for providing secondary reliable sources that support your edit, and for building consensus on the talk page. Accusing people of having an agenda is not going to build consensus, and I haven't seen any compelling arguments for why Einstein's views are notable in this context. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The entry I added, which you removed, was the following in the "Existence of God" section:


 * Theoretical physicist Albert Einstein, whose religious views continue to be of interest to many, called himself an agnostic.[34] He rejected a personal God, but said he believed in Baruch Spinoza's version of God.[35] For Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature.[36] Einstein said, "I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things."[37]


 * This entry is as much about Spinoza's version of God as it is about Einstein's support for Spinoza's God. Spinoza is regarded as one of history's greatest philosophers so his version of God is obviously notable and is not discussed in this article at all.  I am not here to 'build consensus' as if this is a political campaign.  I'm just trying to add some facts that are not in the article. Allisgod (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Spinoza's views are probably fine. Also, you may want to take a minute to read WP:Consensus if you haven't already. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed we might want to have a sentence on Spinozism; "Spinoza's god" has been shorthand for years. I also think Spinozism should be at Spinoza's god, per COMMOMNAME, but that article needs more help than I can give it KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you should read it yourself since you are so quick to remove well sourced material rather than discuss the addition. I suggest you read WP:OWN Allisgod (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind the sharp tongue on my part. I just found it abrasive the way my additions were undone. I will just stick with the issues. I want to point out that there are sources (including direct quotes from Einstein) which suggest that Einstein's particular view of God was a necessary understanding for him to get to the theory of relativity, arguably the most important theory in science today. His faith in Spinoza's God (a unified God) helped lead him to pursue a unified theory of everything. I think that's a pretty notable addition to the God article, especially for the pantheist perspective. But I didn't go into any of that, all I tried to add was his general support for Spinoza. Here's an even more watered down two sentence version that I'll propose after Stephen Hawking's view, which is more about Spinoza than it is about Einstein but remains a natural segue:


 * Physicist Albert Einstein rejected a personal God, but said, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[36] For philosopher Baruch Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature.[37] Allisgod (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Having a source is required for content, it is not a guarantee a particular snippet will get into an article. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks, but nobody suggested otherwise. Allisgod (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am addressing your assertion, two posts up, " I want to point out that there are sources" which is basically the only argument you offer in that post, to which I was directly replying, for inclusion of Einstein's beliefs on this article. My point is that you must make a better case than "I want to point out that there are sources" and your twice-repeated "there are dozens of books, articles..." in order to persuade. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Allisgod, It's not that I have anything against Einstein (I am a physicist after all) but would it be possible for you to phrase a sentence or two about Spinoza's god, leaving Einstein out of the picture? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A few points. One, one of the best recent reference works relating to religion in general, the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion has a substantive article on "Albert Einstein and religion," which indicates to me that Einstein's views on science and religion are among the more important subjects regarding the relationship between science and religion; Having said that, there is a difference between "god" and "religion". Ask any Jain or Buddhist, who in general have what is called a "religion" but do not necessarily believe in a "God". On that basis, I tend to think that while Einstein's views are probably extremely important to Science and religion (which I think is probably what that article should be called here), I am far less convinced that his views are necessarily specifically relevant to this article. I might say the same about Hawking as well. I did read that book, some time ago, and remember that the philosophical arguments made in it have been regarded as being, well, weak, by those in the philosophy field. I do not remember however whether he was addressing "religion" in a general sense or the existence of "God" more specifically, and would be very appreciative if someone who did know that would indicate as much. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, since Einstein's beliefs may be summarized as "Hey, I like Spinoza's view of God," if we're going to discuss Einstein's view at all, shouldn't we just discuss Spinoza's view instead of namedropping to only indirectly discuss the actual belief? It's not really any different from going on and on about Niels Bohr to indirectly discuss the philosophy and theology of Søren Kierkegaard. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can include a line or two about Spinoza. Glad to hear John acknowledge the notability of Einstein on "science and religion", and agree that it makes no sense that Einstein's religious position on God, whose God is specifically Spinoza the philosopher's God, should be left out of the God article while Hawking (and a bunch of others) are in the article. The standards here are arbitrary if that is the case so on that point maybe we should first establish standards of being included in this article since there are many entries which should be removed if Einstein has no place here. Einstein's relationship with the word God is actually well developed and you are correct, Hawking's view gets very little attention from philosophers. Just consider this statements from Einstein:
 * "religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with the highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints."

Also consider how many entire books are written about Einstein's ideas about God. Most of these are scholars and this is just from a 5 minute search:
 * Albert Einstein's quest as a scientist and as a Jew to replace a forsaken God; Jason Aronson, 1997
 * God's Equation: Einstein, Relativity, and the Expanding Universe; Amir D. Aczel - 1999
 * E=mc2 the God in Einstein and Zen: A Skeptic's Search for the Meaning of Life and Personal Redemption
 * God in the Equation: How Einstein Transformed Religion; Corey Powell - Free Press 2003
 * Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology; Max Jammer - 2002
 * Putting God Into Einstein's Equations; Jerry And Marcia Pollock - 2012
 * Knowledge of God: Calvin, Einstein, and Polanyi; Iain Paul - 1987
 * Einstein's God: Conversations About Science and the Human Spirit; Krista Tippett - 2010
 * The Experiment at Philadelphia: Did Einstein Discover God?; Kurt B. Bakley - 2010
 * God in the equation: how Einstein became the prophet of the new religious era; Corey S. Powell, Free Press, Aug 21, 2002
 * Subtle is the Lord: The science and the life of Albert Einstein; A Pais - 2005
 * The language of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief; FS Collins - 2006
 * So what are the standards for inclusion in the article? Let's specifically consider Stephen Hawking's vs. Albert Einstein's inclusion/exclusion.  Allisgod (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would we do that? Consensus is clear; a brief bit of Spinoza is ok, Einstein is not. This is bordering on WP:IDHT now. What we should be discussing now is what verbiage to use for Spinoza's view, and what sources. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you ought to read WP:OWN a few times. You are not the moderator here, you are a participant like all of us.  2 of us have agreed that Stephen Hawking's inclusion with Einstein's exclusion makes little sense.  There is no consensus on this issue.  You are one person and your disagreement with this position has been noted.  This issue is only a few days old.  Relax. Allisgod (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am quite relaxed, thank you. Your patronizing instructions for me to read a policy I have helped write is noted. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Practice what you preach. I'll take note of being patronizing and hope you will take note of being condescending.  Nevertheless, I'm sure you are a better volunteer to Wikipedia than I am and glad you are here despite some disagreements. Allisgod (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I am or not, but I *do* know that your unfortunate habit of citing "own" to people when they disagree with you (twice so far on this page alone in this past week, to two different editors) will not encourage other editors' genuine attempts to try to work with you. You have shown yourself to be sarcastic, patronizing, and insulting, quick to assume (and that one's linked to ABF, not AGF, in case you're ignoring my links) ill of others.  You cite policy to people who have been here considerably longer than you and you do with phrasing that makes it appear you are using policy as a weapon, not reminding others or citing policy as rationale for your position. You must know you aren't instructing anyone here except the ill-mannered IP. And here, you're showing a 'tit-for-tat" approach. I say "don't be patronizing" and you don't address that assertion at all; you toss it right back like "Oh yeah! Then what are YOU" like a childish argument at grammar school. I'm not name calling, whatever you may think; I'm trying to help you here, but you seem resistant to any and all guidance and advice or feedback. You may feel this is not a popularity contest, and indeed it is not, but one must at least be civil to a minimal degree, and one must work with others. I advise you to examine how your own words appear to others. You may not realize how nasty and snotty you sound; you know your inner thoughts but all we see are the bare words. I think you could be an outstanding contributor to Wikipedia; but I think you need to adjust how you deal with other editors first. One puppy's opinion. And now I suggest if you have anything else bitchy to say to me you bring it to my talk; this is becoming article talk page misuse. KillerChihuahua ?!? 11:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In one paragraph you say you are "not name calling" and proceed to call me: "sarcastic, patronizing, insulting", "childish", 'not civil', "nasty", "snotty", "bitchy" and many other suggestions. You're out of control.  Allisgod (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Pardon me. I meant, of course, that your edits read as sarcastic, patronizing, insulting, and not civil. I certainly never said your edits were childish, I merely compared your response to a childish argument, because you don't address concerns, you merely toss them back at the person (in this instance, me) who voices a concern. I assure you I am not only not "out of control" I am merely trying to educate you on how to behave to other editors on Wikipedia. I reiterate that I am only trying to help you. You may follow my guidance or not, of course, but I think if you don't learn to moderate your attitude towards others then you will not have a long, happy tenure here. One puppy's opinion. And finally, if you ignore my advice to continue this elsewhere rather than here, I will not be responding to your posts at all here. This is about your lack of civility, not about the God article, and should not be continued here. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. Killer Chihuahua 12:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I reread this thread and acknowledge ignoring your guidance at first. The problem is your guidance often includes overbearing language, you are too quick to throw around Wikipedia policies and you make definitive declarations like an autocrat.  Now if I'm reading you correctly you're making a threat?  I acknowledge I have made mistakes on this thread.  But I stand by my statement that you are at this point still out of control (or perhaps trying to completely control would be more accurate) and require guidance yourself in civility. Allisgod (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Replying on editor's talk page. Killer Chihuahua 19:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)