Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spirituality/Archive 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crimson Circle article
Hi folks! I've been working on the article found here User talk:Geir Solerød/Crimson Circle. To day I published it under the title Crimson Circle (Shaumbra). Within one hour it was deleted. As you can imagine I become very upset, after all I did put a lot of effort into making the article. Please give me your opinions.

I also wander what experience you've gained on matters like this on Wikipedia. Is there an attitude against articles with spiritual matters? Geir 16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The article in your userspace is based on primary sources. Primary sources should be used cautiously and sparingly. We should try to make sure the claims and facts in an article are verifiable using reliable secondary sources. No assertion of notability is why the article was deleted. Since the organization has a heavy web presence, you might also want to check out the web notability guidelines. If you have any other questions, please ask. Cheers! Vassyana 18:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'm not a member of this project (what do I have to do in order to become one?), actually I'm very new to Wikipedia editing, but I've submitted a draft for the Otherkin page. It can be found via the Otherkin discussion. The topic of Otherkin is very important to me, that's why I just don't want to see the respective article as short and uninformative as it currently is. Kahoku 11:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contributing to to the richness of wikipedia! My best feelings for you and your page. I'm partisipating on some other articles (Norwegian, english), and I'm trying to understand some of the same dynamics of how wikipedia works at it's current state. My conclusion, at this moment, is that we humans as a collective is supressing a lot of energy/information, and thus limiting ourselves and others in the possibilities to express ourselves. I'd love to read a fully fleshed out article about Otherkin, yet, the current article was informativ to me. :) :) You can join this project by putting your name here  and watch the page. Se also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal Geir 09:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! This article, of course, doesn't cover everything you could possibly know about Otherkin. Wikipedia articles shouldn't go too much into detail, I was told. The links I added to the bottom of the draft should help you at finding more information (I like Otherkin Alliance best, but, to be honest, I'm biased, being an admin there). The major problems I'm facing are firstly the lack of "reliable" sources, and secondly the question if this article should exist here at all. But it's been there for at least 2 years now, not giving any kind of information, that's why I thought it would be better to either delete it or improve it. :) Kahoku 10:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are important here, and in this case, secondary sources will help you a lot. Wikipedia articles can go into detail, but it depends on the subject. I looked at your Otherkin Alliance page, and I understand why someone wants to limit your page. We're not used to the kind of material you present. So I'll advice you to make a short informative page with a few good links. Love Geir 12:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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