Talk:Prayer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Removal: Matthew 21:22[edit]

Removed:

In Matthew 21:22, Jesus is reported as saying "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." It is not explained how conflicting requests of believers are resolved. [Whoever wrote this, please replace this bracketed comment with four consecutive ~. Thanks.]
All this says is that the editor doesn't understand a particular isolated verse about prayer. There are dozens of other passages about prayer, in the scriptures of all religions, that could easily appear to be inexplicable on the surface. Do we really want to list and categorize such passages, and then add commentaries to document how authorities from each religion explain each confusing passage from their scriptures? I'm not sure this sort of project would benefit the article. Wesley 13:18 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well, the passage was added to the section containing the Christian understanding of prayer, so Jesus's opinion, supporting "request-style prayer", seems to be relevant. The criticising sentence is probably too much (and evident), so I'm happy with leaving it out. (However, it would certainly be interesting and relevant to learn how Christian authorities resolve the problem). The claim that this quote is isolated does not seem well grounded: it appears in a paragraph which describes how Jesus punished a bush for not carrying fruit by praying for its destruction. AxelBoldt 18:19 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Ok, I'm happy to leave it in as it is now; the verse itself is relevant, and agree it doesn't seem to be taken out of context or anything of that sort. I'll keep my out for further commentary by Christian authorities... John Chrysostom just says that Jesus' goal was to increase his disciples' confidence in prayer, but doesn't directly address your question. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-73.htm#P6519_2001116. Wesley 16:44 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Prayer in public and school[edit]

How about public prayer or prayer in school? Any comments or ideas? I just completed the new article moment of silence (contributions would be appreciated). Usedbook 16:23 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Those controversies perhaps ought to be mentioned here, although from the big perspective they may be somewhat parochial, given that they're only controversies because of the constitution of the United States. An article about the political debates over religion in schools in France, for example, would necessarily cast the debate in quite different terms; and I am wholly ignorant of whether it's been controversial other than in the USA and France, or under what terms the debate might be cast in those places. Some notice of civil religion probably ought to be taken as well. -- IHCOYC 00:06 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
IHCOYC, those are good points. I don't know, but I would imagine that in many Muslim countries it's required or nearly so for everyone to face Mecca and at least assume the appropriate posture of prayer if one of the daily prayer times happens to fall during school hours. I could imagine this could be controversial in a country which is heavily Muslim but not entirely so. There are probably other places with an entirely different angle on the debate. Wesley
Hey, I am a new user. If you come to this page and wonder about its entirely new format, I have added Hinduism, the most representative of Eastern religion, into the mix. Also, I felt that inclusion of the Bible/Christian views on prayer as somehow separate from Christian prayer was unwarranted. Thus, taking the structure of the articlea and chronology of the religions' appearance into account, I rearranged the more general discussions to appear at the top and the religions to each be dealt with separately in order of their ages. I think, more so than even Judaism and Buddhism, Islam needs to be better represented, if only for its massive world population. It also has a very rigid and codified system of prayer, which would be interesting in contrast to the more widely differing sects within other religions. Also, in generalized statements about religion, I excised a statement or added other examples to balance what is sometimes unintentional bible-centralization. Example: "confession of sins" is a solely Christian concept, and while it may find analogies in other religions, it is certainly not one of the four primary forms of prayer when a world view is seen. I base this not only the number of other religions, but the number of adherents to different faiths. I also believe that the religion pages suffers from a similarly unbalanced viewpoint that unconsciously equates religion with Christianity. Understandably, the writer was not well-versed in other religions and thus, as in this prayer article, focused on what he/she knew. For this reason, we need to balance the equation with more contributors across the wikipaedic (dipthong!) board. --- Donaldsutherland
Hi Donald, welcome. Good attitude. I've invited you to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias project, message on your user talk page. I think you get it. Anyone else that understands what Donald means, you also may want to take a look at the project.Pedant 02:03, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible and Christianity[edit]

We may not have this article say that the Hebrew Bible is Christian, and is separate from Judaiam. There is no historical basis for this position. Historically it is a fact that the Hebrew Bible developed first, from within the Israelite community. The Israelites then became the rabbinic Jews, and only later did Christians develop their addition to the Bible, the New Testament. Your editing of this article rewrites history. Therefore, the article should discuss these aspects of prayer in the same way: As prayer appeared in the Hebrew Bible, then as it changed in the New Testament. JeMa 15:22, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
There is also the matter of prayer in the Septuagint as not found in the Hebrew language Bible based on the much later Masoretic texts; these prayers and versions of prayers were retained by the Church but rejected by the Jews, along with the other differences between those texts. Wesley 16:42, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The Masoretic texts have been traced fairly accurately that while dated only at 800a.d.at the earliest show no variation over vast geological areas between isolated Jewish communities letting it be surmised this isolation and correlation proves lack of changed at least since they were forced out of Israel in the 1st century.Tjb891 02:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier in Iraq[edit]

While whoever posted this seemed distraught, I removed this request for prayers regarding this person's famlly life as it isn't appropriate for this forum. [Whoever wrote this, please replace this bracketed comment with four consecutive ~. Thanks.]

Appropriate, though I hope that the person finds the comfort he or she seeks. I feel bad for the peron, though such a request could not be left on the Article. LucaviX

Oldest Liturgy[edit]

The article says the Roman Catholic Mass is the oldest liturgy. What are the dates of its origin, and how do they compare with the Divine Liturgy of St. James? Our Mass (liturgy) article doesn't cover the older history of the Mass or its origins. Wesley 16:42, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Jewish Services that have what could be called a liturgy outdate you guys by about 1000 years or so, and claiming that the Roman Catholic Liturgy is unchanged n 2000 years is inaccurate, for example the many Eastern Orthox churches all have different liturgies and they are just as old as the Roman Catholic Church.Tjb891 02:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The currently most-common Roman Catholic Mass is very new, less than a century old.Dogface

Medical Effects of Prayer[edit]

Why does the study "Positive therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer in a coronary care unit population" (http://home.wxs.nl/~faase009/D960916-prayer.html ) appear to be missing? Is it for some reason discredited, was it simply unknown to the authors, or is it somehow considered trivial? I intend to add a reference to the study if no objections are posted. 18.242.6.95 16:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • There are also many studies of prayer that suggest that remote intercessory prayer is ineffective and practically useless in enhancing the health of another person. I consider this entire entry POV without a section on the medical effects of prayer. Adraeus 20:51, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This sentence, "one such study (Byrd, 1988), with a double-blind design, showed with a p-value of 0.0001 that intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian god had a positive effect on a coronary care unit population," is all well and good, but what does the p-value mean? I've taken a look at the page for p-value and still have no better idea how to interpret this. Did it mean that it was very effective, marginally effective, or so barely effective that it was almost indistinguashable from not praying? — KayEss | talk 08:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P values are an indication of statistical significance. The smaller the better, but p<0.05 is considered significant in most studies. I will take it out of the article, because it just confuses and sounds like Byrd found something really shocking (quod non). JFW | T@lk 23:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information in highly controversial articles.

Please don't assume I mean offense. My reason for addition of this tag is the article consistently references an undefined "God," which can be construed as POV by those who are unfamiliar with the application of "God" in objective contexts. For those of monotheistic religions who are watching and editing this article, understand that there are more gods than your "God" and the process of prayer should be attributed to most gods of most religions, not just one. I understand that using the phrase "a god or gods" wherever there is a mention of "God" might become tiresome to read but perhaps that means there is a problem with the way the article is written. I suggest rewording the text to eliminate the many instances of "God" and replace where needed with "a god or gods" to make this article more-NPOV. Only use "God" and "Allah" in the appropriate subsections. Adraeus 05:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Islamic Prayer

I object to the statement "Some of the early Christians whom Mohammed observed, and from whom he adapted elements of his religion, prayed in the posture for which Muslims are now famous."

First of all, where is the fact proving this statement? Secondly, Islam is religion given to us from God, Allah, yehwe, whatever you want to call him (see Ahmed Deedat's books for more info). Therefore, it is only logical that Christians have the Old Testament as part of their Bible as Christianity can be seen as a continuation or correction of Judaism. Feel free to look at it in any way.

Similarly, Islam is from the same God that gave us Judaism and Christianity. Why shouldn't there be similar aspects in the other religions?

After all, if one looks closely at the 3 religions, one will find that all three religions forbid alcohol, promiscuity and others.

I move the editor strike that sentence.

--Marafa 08:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to argue with posters before me about specific things. I however feel the over all article is too far into the direction it disusses. So it feels slightly confusing to read through as the slant while there is inconsistant it would be far better with no slant. I don't know how to adress this but I thought atleast giving my two cents worth would be good. Maybe people need to edit parts which they dont have vested interest in either direction. I know I have vested interest in certain things and it can be hard to stay level in my writting (thats why this is a good place if I go too far in a direction someone can can catch me.--Shimonnyman 04:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

User:Baphomet. has decided that Category:Superstition should be added to this page. The term "superstition" is heavily loaded, and applied to this page is probably POV. I oppose its use, and was wondering how other users felt about this. JFW | T@lk 11:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article is propoganda, it totally lack critique. Any resonable version of this article would atleast admit that a large number of people regard this as category:superstition. I have seen christians in the mid west claim that whilst other people prayers are superstition, as christain prayers theirs are not superstition. --Baphomet. 11:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains elaborate material that according to some (but by no means all) scientific studies, prayer does in fact have a beneficial effect. I think this is adequate to warrant its exclusion from your category. As for critique, I think the many studies that cite a lack of efficacy are enough critique. Please be advised that the three-revert rule is in operation. JFW | T@lk 11:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no scientific evidence that prayer works. They only people to claim that have been a few US religious nutters, who wanted it to work, it has never been reproduced by independent researchers. As a doctor you should be ashamed of yourself pedling such rubbish.--Baphomet. 11:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also be advised that the 3RR rule also applies to you and that you introduction of it here when it is inappropriate is nothing more or less than an attempt at bullying. Never communicate with me again.--Baphomet. 11:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are not used to enforce NPOV. I do not see how my profession should be of relevance here; in fact, in my profession it is accepted that labeling people's behaviour such-and-such is generally detrimental. The doctors ("US religious nutters") still managed to get their research published in reputable peer-reviewed publications, suggesting that your label is somewhat short-sighted.

I warned you about the 3RR for your protection - violating it means you get blocked for 24h from editing Wikipedia, something you surely should wish to avoid. JFW | T@lk 11:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baphomet., perhaps your objections could be better served in an article summarizing the skeptic's response to prayer as it is formalized in various world religions. A link to such an article would perhaps be appropriate here at the end of the article, but what you're suggesting now is a bit short on objectivity, I think.
There are skeptics enough to express doubts about the tenets of every religious practice or system, but this fact alone does not justify applying "category"-based pejoratives to each article that deals with faith issues. We are under no obligation to mimic the rhetoric of partisans on either side of a debate when categorizing a given phenomenon, and I believe it is POV to do so. Or do you hold that an article on, say, the scientific method should be categorized under "Genocide" ... because scientists developed, after all, an atomic bomb? BrandonYusufToropov 13:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be happier if it was qualified under folklore? I think within this article should be included scientific views on prayer, it's psychological effects. Without that this is just a PR piece, it is a significant world view that prayer is a self dellusional. It has also been suggested that practice does have advantages but not releated to religions view of the pratice. Not covering these reduces this article to propaganda.--Baphomet. 20:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Including information on the psychological effects of prayer, and the effects on the praying person's stress and physical and/or mental health may be noteworthy. However no scientific evidence that prayer works, via divine intervention, has ever been produced. Statistical arguments for such things are infamous because they can so easily be manipulated and skewed (not regarding prayer alone mind you, but regarding the effectiveness of our prison system and other matters). Unless it can be scientifically demonstrated that prayer is the direct cause of a recovery it shouldn't be suggested that prayer works. I'll say to you something similar to what I say to my pagan friends who try to get me to believe in magic "Show me a man's severed head being reattached without any human intervention due to prayer, and I'll believe it. Repeat the process before others, and it becomes science" (To them I say "I'll believe in magic when you conjure a fireball and light a campfire with it"). Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing belief in prayer, and I'm not saying that it doesn't have it's benefits. As a Psychiatrist I'm actually rather certain that prayer can have benefits on the overall health to a person (rather it's prayer to the Abrahamic God, pagan gods, or some unknown and undefined power). To be honest I have never known prayer to cure an illness that one wouldn't either recover from naturally or that wasn't being treated by worldly means. LucaviX 20:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer as a social construct to set aside quality time?--WholemealBaphomet 00:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, prayer as a therapeutic practice. Prayer often helps people cope with things such as unexpected tragedy, loss of work, and other problems. There are types of prayer which most psychiatrist would consider psychologically unhealthy as well (such as begging a divinity for something) but most forms of prayer seem rather benign and beneficial. LucaviX 00:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps quality time was the wrong wording. Prayer time being a period for contemplation, the modern rituals of prayer, could provide time for contemplation, and that a society which maintains the contemplative periods does find benefits, explained through purely rational means?--WholemealBaphomet 00:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a psychiatrist I'm more concerned with how prayer can help others cope with difficulties, relieve physical and psychological tension and stress, and aid overall health in various other ways. I'm not saying it does so by giving people time to reflect, I believe a large part of it is a sense of relief in one's burden by putting one's trust in a higher power. In other instances it may increase a person's moral, particularly if that person believes that the god or gods they pray to will help them. I've seen firsthand the physical benefits of prayer when a relative was able to relax after putting his condition "in God's hands" (his words). I've also seen how it inspires people to know that they're being prayed for, if for no other reason to know that others care. I'm an avid secularist (and semantically implicit atheist) myself, but I think the benefits of prayer can be very real, even if entirely worldly and secular.

I've personally taken part (mostly as an observer) in various noninvasive experiments regarding spirituality and mental health at Vanderbilt Hospital, not simply regarding prayer mind you but regarding many things (including meditation). As for the psychological benefits, I've noticed that people who pray are typically happier and more content with their lives, suffering from less anxiety and proving less likely to have suicidal tendencies. This holds true for most of my clients as well, and not only the monotheistic ones. I have a coworker and a few neopagan clients from local self styled hellenistic sects that pray to various Graeco-Roman gods and seem to have the same overall health benefits associated with prayer (reduced stress, an increased ability to cope with tragedy, ect).

I've also noticed that atheist and secularist who find (responsible) alternative therapies to prayer seem to be in better overall mental and physical health than those who do not (playing certain games and painting often seems to help). One particular example was a self proclaimed atheist (I think he was 14 years old at the time) who was the subject of a study at [1]Vanderbilt Children's Hospital. He recovered extremely quickly from a near fatal disease caused by untreated ecoli poison, and he seemed to be in higher spirits better physical and psychological health due in large part to his immersement in a Super NES videogame called EVO. Before he was given access to this game he was suffering from complications similar to acid reflux due to extreme stress, but once he started playing the game for four hours at a time he suddenly became rather relaxed and the reduced stress made it easier to treat him and reduced other complications, and his moral increased so much that he wanted to get out and go for walks (a large improvement over not wanting to leave his bed). In fact most patients who played this game seemed to relax more, be in higher spirits, and be in better overall mental health. --LucaviX 01:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the intro to Superstition: "A superstition is a provably wrong belief..." I don't know where prayer has been falsified, especially given that prayer, as an activity (not a hypothesis), is outside the realm of falsifiability (just as one cannot falsify an orange or jogging). Furthermore, prayer may be undertaken as an attempt to produce any of myriad benefits, as LucaviX discussed. In any event, prayer cannot be intrinsically linked to a falsified hypothesis, and, as such, is ill suited to the superstition cat. HKT talk 05:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Superstition page has (presumably) since been edited. Reading the first four paragraphs, it seems to apply very closely to the subject of prayer, particularly the view of prayer as "affect[ing] the very fabric of reality itself". This is clearly a superstitious belief, under the definition "The superstitious individual erroneously believes that the future, or the outcome of certain events can be caused or influenced by certain specified behaviors, despite the lack of a causal relationship in reality". I'd go so far as to say that not acknowledging the superstitious nature of prayer makes Wikipedia inconsistent.
Now, I don't wish to insult anyone's religious beliefs. If they make the individual feel better about some aspect of reality, that's great. Religious theories are only maintained out of usefulness (the evolutionary advantage to abandoning religious thought would otherwise have long since eliminated them), so I have no grounds to suggest that people should stop thinking this way. However, I think it's fair to acknowledge that some religious beliefs are superstitious and, as such, are only of use to the person holding the belief and do not have any external effect on reality. Rob Knight 15:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A view of prayer as "affect[ing] the very fabric of reality itself" (I assume that you're quoting from the article here; I didn't bother to check) doesn't reflect on anything inherent about prayer, which is an activity not per-se bound to any belief about its effects. Additionally, you are assuming a-priori that any spiritual-causal potency of prayer is universally held to be provably non-existent. P.S. Isn't it a bit inconsistant to claim that you "don't wish to insult anyone's religious beliefs," while treating those beliefs as nothing but childish fantasies and the offshoots of evolutionary adaptions? You ought to at least substantiate your assertions before adopting such an arrogant tone. HKT talk 21:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with HKT here. The term "superstition", as I suggested above, is too heavily loaded. You may try "metaphysics". At least this does not sound disparaging. JFW | T@lk 23:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Title of "effects of prayer" section[edit]

I changed the title from "Statistical proof for prayer" to "Experimental evaluation of prayer", since it isn't really a topic subject to "proof". Ataru 03:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite reasonable. JFW | T@lk 17:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement Drive[edit]

Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rosary??[edit]

Should prayer beads and the rosary get a mention here? they do have a main article of their own but to skip them completely seems to be overlooking a prayer ritual practiced by many hundreds of people from multiple faiths Lostsocks 07:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC) lostsocks[reply]

does anyone no the novena that you do during lent on good friday between 12:00 and 3:00 please e-mail it to me cmullins15@cox.net

I'm Baptist and I would consider and entry on prayer incomplete without at least a mention of the rosary. I don't use it, but have no problem at all with it's use being noted. Dannycarlton 18:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing or removal of Buddhism.[edit]

I don't believe Buddhism is a very clear fit for prayer as, contrary to what was written, it doesn't acknowledge a God, nor does it claim Buddha is a higher deity - rather Buddhism is focused on meditation, an attempt to abandon self and desires, not to comunicate or make requests as in prayer. At least I think the buddhist section needs some very thorough modification by someone who has a deep knowledge on the subject.

There are however prayer traditions within Buddhism and many schools of Buddhism, whilst not recognising a creator deity do have a concept of a higher power. For example in the Order of Buddhist Contemplatives (see Jiyu_Kennett ) we recognise the Cosmic Buddha as a representation of the Uncreated. Lostsocks 17:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How common is phrase "In Jesus' Name"??[edit]

Other than the article suggests, ending each prayer with the phrase "In Jesus' Name" doesn't strike me as something that all, or even most, Christians do. Rather it seems to be mostly something done in certain sections of American Protestantism. Maybe somebody could rephrase that part of the article. -- 145.254.129.18 16:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholics also do thisTjb891 02:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a common practice, except in parts of the USA, and that only recently, as far as I can tell. I was raised Roman Catholic, and it was not a common practice at all while I was growing up.Dogface 15:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradoxes?[edit]

Has anyone else noticed that the so-called paradoxes are in fact not paradoxes but questions? LearningKnight 05:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the questions point to paradoxes? Lostsocks 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christain Picture[edit]

Just to point out their are no pictures of Christians or Jews Praying in the article but pictures of many other religions praying.Tjb891 02:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of items without explination[edit]

Whoever keeps removing items without bother to offer an explanation, please show some courtesy and at least a semblance of tolerance. Dannycarlton 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The type of external links allowed is Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:External links) I will be removing the link once again. -- 19:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The link violated no policy. Your refusal to sign your comment, however, does violate policy. I'll post the link here to see if any others agree with your double standard. Pray for America! Dannycarlton 19:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the link seems to conform to every policy except perhaps that the above member seems to be associated with the page itself, a policy widely ignored across the entire site. I see nothing wrong with the link and find it odd that anyone would. In fact I think people from other nations should be inspired to collect the same data for their own country. I'll add the link back in. JohnEdwards 20:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me which one of the accepted uses does your link fit under. In fact, your link does not provide any additional information regarding the act of prayer. And regarding signing, you can easily check the history, to see who edited the page, and I missed one tilde. -- Jeff3000 20:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reproduce the content here, and comments in blue regarding the associated link. It doesn't fit any of them:

What should be linked to[edit]

  1. Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one. not applicable
  2. Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. not applicable
  3. An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible. not applicable
  4. On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.) not applicable
  5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article. not applicable
  6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews. not applicable

Also to note that JohnEdwards was just created and this the only contribution is to put back the link. -- Jeff3000 20:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John and Danny: I agree that this link is not appropriate. It does not add anything to the article. Your use of multiple accounts to defend the inclusion of the link is dubious. Should you wish to include the link, please offer a serious argument on why it should be included, addressing our external links policy as reproduced above. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://dannycarlton.net/ says it all really. Danny has been adding the pages he's worked on to WP. Sorry Danny, that blanket approach won't wash (mixed metaphors?)... If your pages are relevant let someone else add them. Rich Farmbrough 20:55 6 June 2006 (UTC).

Apparently I, as well as many others, misunderstood the severity of the policies. I see few external links on any articles that are able to fit your extreme definition. Why, for instance, did you not also remove Bahá'í prayers, Sacred Space, Live Prayer Network and Prayer Software? None of them fit your personal policy, yet you have not removed them. The site I linked to provides a prayer list for people to use when praying for America. Bahá'í prayers and Sacred Space provide specific prayers (the wording or a list seems a difference without distinction). Live Prayer Network and Prayer Software offer other features for those wanting to pray, still the same idea. I could easily remove hundreds if not thousands of links using the guidelines you want applied only to this one link. My link does fit #5 and #6.Dannycarlton 21:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bahai isrelevant, unless you can find a better site. I've removed LPN and Prayer Software. Sacred space looks doubtful to me, perhaps someone else can review it. Rich Farmbrough 23:04 6 June 2006 (UTC).
Now you're just being hateful. There was no call to remove the other links. The point is that prayer takes many forms, and to exclude forms you don't recognize shows only that you need to open your mind a bit. Written prayers are important to some people (whether they be Bahai or Christian or whatever) so the links to site with written prayers is important. Lists are also important to some people. Above someone asks about the Rosary, and as a Baptist (not a Roman Catholic) I'm shocked that it's not mentioned--and that someone would think it shouldn't be. Obviously there's some odd bias in editing this entry, and you need to step back, lose the intolerance, and accept that prayer may mean something you persoanlly aren't familiar with. Please put back the links (all of them) and stop being so obtuse. Dannycarlton 00:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny, can you explain why so many editors think you are not being helpful here? If you think the Rosary should be mentioned, then be bold and edit the article accordingly. But stop pushing your external link. I totally agree with Rich Farmbrough that the removed links are similarly unnecessary and do not broaden the scope of the article in any form. JFW | T@lk 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except the Bahai link is no more valid than any of the others, yet it remains. Why would I waste time including info on the Rosary when any anti-Catholic bigot can remove it as easily as you anti-American bigots have not only removed my link, but others, to pretend to justify your intolerance. You tolerate what you want and remove the rest. The Bahai link is a perfect example. It has absolutely no more validity than any of the other links removed, yet it remains because you are Bahai, and the others know you'll raise a stink if it's removed. Face it, rather than allow a link that may seem to be pro-American (when it simply is about America and who to pray for) you pretend that written prayers are irrelevant to prayer, unless it's a Bahai written prayer. You've shredded neutrality. You've set the standard that acknowledgement of forms of prayer you don't approve of are not allowed. You censor, and pontificate about "doing the right thing". A crowd of bigots are still as ignorant. Plurality rarely justified closed-mindedness. Dannycarlton 01:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out that the Rosary IS mentioned, and a mention is plenty, since it links to an article.
I think part of the problem is the article itself, which is really not a very good one, although I'm not sure how to improve it. It's a huge subject, and almost impossible to include everything that should be in a even a single encyclopedia article. Carlo 02:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DNFTT. JFW | T@lk 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny, the problem that I have with your page as a link is that it's just a list of names that can be gotten in any number of places, with a directive to pray for these people. I don't see that it adds much in the way of information to the CONCEPT of prayer. Carlo 02:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer (and|on the) the internet[edit]

Is this worth a section? The Church of England, for example, has a prayer feed http://daily.commonworship.com/daily.cgi. Rich Farmbrough 09:19 7 June 2006 (UTC).

I think that the article could use a good number of external links to that and other sites that would sort of cover the idea without an actual written section. Carlo 15:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are already too many spam links in the External Links section. I think an article section is a good idea. Then any interested readers can just Google for online prayer sites instead of being herded to one or another by the links. MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB  15:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that there are too many spam links? There are a total of 4 links for a huge subject of major interest to every religion on earth. And I really don't see how any of the four can reasonably called spam. Carlo 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I may have spoken too soon. Someone is always adding spam links to the section, and I hadn't checked what the current list looks like. A separate section may be useful for curbing the spam problem, though. MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB  15:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They should be removed, and I have done that. 3RR doesn't really apply, because the reverts are not in a single day. -- Jeff3000 12:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am apparently in the minority here: I think this article, more than most, should have extensive external links. I see nothing wrong with pages that have actual texts of actual prayers - Baha'i, Christian, Hindu, whatever. Such things are informational and necessary for anyone actually seeking information on prayer, and I don't think they are on Wikisource. The article as it stands is really not much help as an informational article. Carlo 14:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See List of prayers for the Wikisource of prayer text. It's listed in the See Also section of this article. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 14:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. Ok. Carlo 22:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the consensus on the two external links to lists of prayers (one Catholic, one Baha'i)? MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 15:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO it is redundant with the List of prayers, with the (huge) added drawback that it must necessarily be either a highly biased and limited list of links or else must either be expanded beyond all reason (undesirable). Both existing links should be removed. External links should be about prayer as a topic, such as a psychological study on the effects of prayer, rather than propagating listcruft and resources available (better organized) elsewhere. One puppy's opinion, but the prayer sites currently linked are not germaine to this article. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since Carlo is the only one here who defended keeping them in, and he has since recognized that List of Prayers already covers it, I will go ahead and remove them, with an Edit Summary directing here. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 13:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spicynugget's repeated edits[edit]

There are two problems here:

  1. We're approaching a 3RR violation situation here with Spicynugget's repeated inclusion of the following two links:
  • Live Prayer Network - The largest prayer system on the net, in minutes add live prayer to your site
  • Prayer Software - Get prayer, prayer for others and have it sent to any mobile device
Those look like spam to me. They are commercial links, not informative, and they are only related to Christianity. I don't think they belong in an encyclopedia article.
  1. Furthermore, I don't think the two external links to lists of prayers are necessary. Under See Also, there is already a wikilink to List of prayers for all different religions. I removed the external prayer list links and made that point in my Edit Summary, but Spicynugget put them back without any explanation, aside from a vague "please respect the links" on my talk page.

What do you all think? MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those links look like spam to me, since they advertise more than they inform, and I think they ought to be deleted and stay deleted. See also the guidelines at Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_normally_avoid. List of prayers is the obvious place to put a list of prayers. Wesley 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They dont look like spam to me. If we delete these links we need to delete all the external links.68.30.30.12 18:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insert them again and I will block this IP as well. You are using Sprint not AOL, no need to limit block length. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, we need to include another link as well: www.liveprayer.com Live Prayer 68.30.30.12 18:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP THE SPAM!!! MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 18:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC) (see below)[reply]

Request for investigation for repeated spam links[edit]

I have put in a request for investigation for the repeated edits made by SpicyNugget using additionally '8 different IP addresses to mask his spamming, adding the following two commerical links:

  • Live Prayer Network - The largest prayer system on the net, in minutes add live prayer to your site
  • Prayer Software - Get prayer, prayer for others and have it sent to any mobile device

I've documented 31 individual instances of this vandal:

I hope that the administrators are able to take action to prevent further disruption of this article. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're on it.--Birdmessenger 12:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm counting an average of 3 insertions a day, is that correct? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems about right.--Birdmessenger 16:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well that isn't enough for semi-protect under general rule-of-thumb, sorry. Its clear this person is only interested in promoting their sites and not in improving Wikipedia, though. Pity. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, admins, for semi-protecting the article! MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 19:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam, CON, and V[edit]

I respectfully disagree and think that those links are NOT spam, but rather relevant to the article. The fact that Spicynugget does not delete other links proves Spicynugget is not a bot or interested in self promotion.70.8.49.228 03:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about consensus, and the current consensus is that the links are not appropriate. -- Jeff3000 03:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely accurate. WP:V and other policies trump consensus. However, spam is not desirable and consensus is that these links are spam. Get over it, SpicyNugget. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleting other links doesn't vindicate SpicyNugget of self promotion. The links are not helpful, and shouldn't be there. Wesley 17:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The links are spam and should be deleted.Dogface 03:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer and Not Prayer[edit]

My edit is supposed to express that prayer is a "worded" way to communicate. But there are non-worded ways to communicate as well. For example, to sit in quiet silence awaiting communication. That would not be considered "praying". I'm not sure that "worded" is the right way to express it, but right now the article is not making that clear in the intro paragraph. Someone have a suggestion? Wjhonson 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might say, "proactive?" MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 18:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that made me think and you're right. I've changed it to say "an active effort" in contract to passive efforts. Wjhonson 18:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical paradoxes of prayer[edit]

Hope I can help here! there is a section here called "Philosophical paradoxes of prayer". I've read about this. Its abou prayer to the jewish/muslim/christian omnipotent and omniscient god. These paradoxes do not apply - they do not even exist - when we consider gods who are not both omnipotent and omniscient. This article even says that. "There are a number of philosophical paradoxes involving prayer to an omnipotent God, namely:" However, someone seems to have misudnerstood this section, and rewritten it to apply to just any plain old supernatural deity. But these paradoxes do not exist in such cases. Only in the omnipotent and omniscient case. So I am fixing. Hope this works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.155.129.48 (talk • contribs) .

I think you're spot on in what you're saying. Thanks for catching this. Wesley 16:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superstition[edit]

Cyde has just added the Superstition category to this page, noting that A Superstition is the irrational belief that future events are influenced by specific behaviors, without having a causal relationship." -- and recent journal articles have found no efficacy. There's a couple problems with this. First not all prayer is to made to influence future events; I would actually state that the majority of prayer is done in praise of God and communication with God. Thus the premise fails for all prayers. Secondly prayer does affect the person saying it; there are many studies that show people who pray become more happy, etc (they are not praying for a specific event, but instead the act of prayer itself changes the mood of the person saying it). Thirdly there is a leap from stating that since the journal articles have found no efficacy that prayer is superstition. Unless the journal articles themselves state that it is superstition, you are performing original work, and making your own interpretation of the result. Thus I feel the superstition category should be removed. -- Jeff3000 19:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(i) At times, a prayer can be interpreted as a request to infulence future events. For example, praying to be cured, or doing well in an exam.
(ii) The majority view (ie, view of the majority of the scientific community) is that prayer does not have theraphutic or a wish fulfilling effect.( [[2]] , [[3]] and many more).
(iii) There are many people who suggest that prayer is a superstition. So, I don't think it's OR. (Sources may be [[4]], [[5]], etc)
So, I agree with adding the cat to the article. Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack

I don't think we should take the presence of article X in category Y to be a statement that X is a kind of Y. I think what is meant here is that prayer sometimes is a form of superstition, or that some superstitions have to do with prayer, or that people interested in reading about superstitions might be interested in reading about prayer.

It's understandable that some folks will be offended by that categorization: people who pray do not want prayer to be called superstitious. However, I think we're better off if we make it clear that categorization doesn't mean X is a kind of Y ... it means that X has to do with Y. --FOo 06:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Western religion[edit]

That subheading should definitley be changed, probably to monotheistic religions. Especially erroneous is the assertion is that Judaism is a Western religion. It is no more a Western religion than Islam.--Esprit15d 20:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there "western" and "eastern" seem pointless and (in this case) inaccurate titles Lostsocks 07:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that the statement: "In contrast with Western religion, Eastern religion for the most part discards worship and places devotional emphasis on the practice of meditation alongside scriptural study." is entirely incorrect. Lostsocks 07:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Good Article Nomination[edit]

I failed this article mainly because of the presence of several lists, but also because there are no references in the top half of the article. Some P. Erson 20:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

I have reverted again, and the text includes:

"Prayers emanate through physical postures but also through unseen expressions of the heart and spirit."

This is quite POV, not only in its language with words such as "emanate", but there is no source for it. It should be written in an encyclopedic style. -- Jeff3000 16:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't this article mentioned here?[edit]

I haven't read the exact article yet, but I reda a report about this article in a collage textbook book, hence, James M. Henslin's "Essentials of Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach." Looking at this Wikipedia entry, it seems as if it should be mentioned in the "Experimental Evaluation of Prayer" section: Does Prayer Influence the Success of in Vitro Fertilization–Embryo Transfer?

To quote the three MDs, "There have been no studies, to our knowledge, on the application of intercessory prayer {IP] to the treatment of infertility. Therefore, we carried out a prospective, randomized, double-blind study in which the efficacy of IP was assessed in patients undergoing treatment for in Vitro Fertilization-Embryo transfer {IVF-ET] who were unaware of the study. We chose the setting of IVF-ET in order to control for as many variables as possible and designed the study to be masked to patients, providers and investigators. In planning and conducting this trial in as rigorous a fashion as possible, we set out with the expectation that we would show no benefit of IP. None of the authors are employed by religious organizations, and we were not asked by any religious groups to conduct this trial, nor did we seek religious advice at any time." ... "CONCLUSION: A statistically significant difference was observed for the effect of IP on the outcome of IVF-ET, though the data should be interpreted as preliminary."

In other words, they thought that it would disprove the effectiveness of prayer, but it ended up that the women who were prayed for had just about double the chance of bearing a child than those who were not prayed for. --208.127.64.127 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I was just researching this article, and it came up that people highly accused this article of being a fraud, especially when one author ended up to be only an editor (thus losing his reputation and gaining the 2004 Scientist's Pigasus Award), another, for something involving identity theft, was put in jail, and two of the three (I'm not sure if it was the first two or not) ended up having already written articles supporting 'intercessory prayer.' Apparently, all this lead to complains for further research into this matter, which, after this extended research was done, was replied to in the "Journal of Reproductive Medicine's" Letters to the Editor section on July 5'th 2006.
Unfortunately, I can't find this reply.
Could someone please research this more so I can find the end result?
See Also: [Article explaining what I just explained] --208.127.64.161 00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add the word "Prayer" in the International Phonetic Alphabet?[edit]

The "er" can confuse some people.--Greasysteve13 03:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For me (non-rhotic British) - /pɹɛː/ Man vyi 14:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradoxes section Encyclopedic?[edit]

The "paradoxes" section does not seem to be encyclopedic in content or style. Rather, just a list of questions that seem to be asked in a first person style. Unless this is dramatically improved in content and presentation, I'm leaning towards deletion. Thoughts? Soonercary 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... wouldn't it make more sense to "lean" toward changing how they are presented? Deletion seems inappropriate to me since they add an interesting slant to the article and demonstrate views on prayer other than the devotional Lostsocks 01:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you went right ahead and deleted them anyway. I have restored these, which your cautionary tags. I think the paradoxes form an important part of this article, I'm happy to discuss the specific problems you have with them and how we may go about re-writing them. I think deletion is a slightly alarmist reaction to what was essentially a qualm about presentation Lostsocks 04:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not cited, and seem like original research to me; I'll comment them out until sources are provided. -- Jeff3000 06:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely NOR, and should be deleted from the article body in 1 week unless sources are advanced. A lot of this informaton is readily available - when I wrote the "scientific evaluation" section there was no mention of Galton, and the references to the medical literature were chatty and incomplete. JFW | T@lk 21:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paradoxes did cite sources, including the bible, demonstrating how these ideas had been discussed by thinkers. Ummm, other than tentatively suggesting you get your eyes checked I don't know what to say, The sources were there quite clearly. Lostsocks 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've double checked, and the section cross references with several other articles and refers to known and accepted ideas. I will be re-instating the paradoxes section in 7 days time unless you are able to demonstrate that these sources are invalid Lostsocks 14:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The verses from the Bible need to be interpreted and that is why secondary sources that give an interpretation are needed. As it was the work was original research. -- Jeff3000 15:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point, but this wasn't an obscure passage needing interpretation, but a very direct and clear sentence. Namely the verse referenced specifically says that god already knows what you want before you ask, and this is cross referenced with an article on this well-known sermon. Also referenced is the Aristolian view of god. I can see the claims that the paradoxes have been discussed throughout Abrahamic history needed to be cited, but I think at present wholesale removal of the section is robbing the article of useful infomation. We have tags to request the citing of sources Lostsocks 01:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While tags can be used, anyone can remove anything that is uncited per WP:ATT. As to regard the specific verse that you refer to above, that verse is not a paradox to me; it's very much like a teacher knowing the attitudes of their students in their class. Now that doesn't mean that some people see paradoxes, and that's why things need sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 02:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a shame to lose such an insightful part of the article, but I shall defer to your better judgement on the matter. 86.151.142.12 18:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (Lostsocks)[reply]

Citation Needed[edit]

What would you cite to prove that some of the scientific studies posted seem to misunderstand the concept of prayer? I think this is a bit of problem of perspective here. Anyway, here's a bit from C.S. Lewis that seemed somewhat appropriate:

Prayer Is A Request by C. S. Lewis

Even if all the things that people prayed for happened -- which they do not -- this would not prove what Christians mean by the efficacy of prayer. For prayer is request. The essence of request, as distinct from compulsion, is that it may or may not be granted. And if an infinitely wise Being listens to the requests of finite and foolish creatures, of course He will sometimes grant and sometimes refuse them. Invariable "success" in prayer would not prove the Christian doctrine at all.

It would prove something more like magic -- a power in certain human beings to control, or compel, the course of nature.

He actually said something once that was specifically about testing prayer in this way, but I'm nto sure which book that was in and it can be nice to have a link. [6] Here's that quote. I think it's pretty on topic, though. Though many believe prayer is good and effective just on it's own, a more petitionary opinion on prayer can easily lead to a scenario where a contacted entity would refuse to grant prayers 'read off a sheet' for the purpose of being tested (the Bible, especially, has multiple injunctions against testing God).

general rewrite[edit]

I have studied prayer for a long time now and I would like to rewrite the base of this article, particularly the opening. Most of the content will remain I just want to change the way the article is written, I know what I'm talking about in this area and this change will be mild at best, i know this is somewhat of a major change but I'm' confident they will be satisfactory. Randy6767 21:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss major changes here first. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to see proposals. Sometimes this article can seem a bit all over the place. Lostsocks 22:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"To pray" as a verb in Spanish[edit]

It is mentioned in the text that the Spanish translation of "to pray" is "rezar". That certainly is the case among Catholics, but among Spanish-speaking Christians, the verb "orar" is used instead.

None of which strikes me as particularly relevant to English wikipedia... 68.117.102.237 01:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Catholics ARE Christians. Carlo (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

I bear not to question why this article does not contain a critism section. The general tone of the article implies that prayer actually works, but I think that we should also include the scientific POV as well. I personally am not too knowledgable of the matter, but I highly suggest that someone who is, write a critism section offering the scientific POV. That's all. — Ian Lee (Talk) 19:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not read it well enough then. There is a long paragraph on the scientific evaluation (which is as close to proof as you can get it). Some studies have suggested a benefit, while others have shown none. I'm sorry it is not called "criticism", which is an unnecessary hyperbole where "evaluation" does nicely.
Please do me a favour: NEVER use a {{POV}} tag to start a discussion. It utterly defaces the article, and annoys the numerous contributors who have previously worked on the article in good faith. JFW | T@lk 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Ian Lee. --IsaacEllis 19:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been helpful if you were not WP:TOJO. JFW | T@lk 19:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not, and I do not know IanLee. So please accept the majority view. --IsaacEllis 19:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to do with IsaacEllis!!! But anyways, I read the evaluation and it seems as though it's quite 1 to 1 (if not more for prayer) whilst the rest of the article is quite pro-prayer, so again, I'd like to say it reads quite POV. — Ian Lee (Talk) 19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IanLee, please ignore IsaacEllis. He is a reincarnation of a long-term abuser of Wikipedia who is under a community ban.
If the wording appears biased, then go ahead and make the necessary changes. But the article doesn't need a new "criticism" section. And spare us the tag. JFW | T@lk 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree now that the article does not need a critism section, but I'm saying that the general tone of the article is biased, pardoning only the evaluation section which is neutral. I'll try tweaking the article to make it more NPOV, but I'm just saying that I am not experienced enough to do so without changing the whole article's meaning if you understand that. The POV tag is because there is a dispute about the bias-ness of the article. This is more important than if it "doesn't look good" or "may hurt the feelings of other users", because above all this is encyclopedia. — Ian Lee (Talk) 20:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are the first person in many months who thinks the article is POV. That does not suddenly make it utterly and completely biased. A real encyclopedia doesn't have POV tags either.
I really do not understand your concerns that your editing will change the meaning. Isn't that exactly what you are trying to achieve?
Unfortunately, I have seen too many instances where editors have left POV tags and then didn't make the slightest effort to actually make any improvements. JFW | T@lk 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept the majority view or argue your case rather than make allegations against anyone who disagrees with you. --IsaacEllis 21:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't run on 2-1 majority decisions - we work to form a consensus. Time and further debate may bear your point out, and it may not. Until then there is no need to continue to beat another editor over the head with "please accept the majority view". Remember that time is not the issue - let's continue to discuss, work out problems, work on the article, and get more perspectives on the matter. --Bachrach44 01:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just guessing you'll not like my revision, so let's talk about it. — Ian Lee (Talk) 21:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of it is fine. Why did you remove referenced content from the "experimental" section? And why did you reintroduce a speculative paragraph that had been placed in comment tags for many months? JFW | T@lk 22:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked over the article and I don't see the evidence that it "supports the view that prayer works" - I see it discussing prayer in a general sense. Can you point out exactly what your pointing to? I want to try to understand your point. --Bachrach44 01:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Bachrach44, I'm just saying that the general tone of the article seems to support that prayer works, while there is hardly anything said about the scientific stance that isn't assaulted over (before my revisions of course). To JFW, I removed from the experimental section to make it 1 to 1, and I reintrduced the "speculative" paragrapgh to provide a scientific standpoint. — Ian Lee (Talk) 02:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, what exactly is "1 to 1"? And why are you being so unbelievably vague about what exactly is wrong with the article? "The general tone seems to support..." is really not sufficient to make such a fuss over it. Nowhere does the article literally claim that prayer works. Rather, it describes how particular religious groups pray because they DO believe that prayer works (and it is legitimate to phrase it this way). In the "experimental evaluation" paragraph, all that actually happens is citing studies that have been performed.

What the article needs more desperately that further cleanups by myself or by you is the scrupulous addition of sources. At the moment, the "experimental evaluation" paragraph cites its data, but that cannot be said about any of the other sections. Jeff3000 has correctly labeled the paragraph on philosophical contradictions "original research", and I have now removed it from the article completely (as this has been unchanged for several months). JFW | T@lk 05:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that it describes how particular groups pray because they believe in it, but it (before my revisions) hardly mentions that it's what they believe, thus making it as uncontrovercial and truthful as text from another article such as Computer. And I also agree that this is getting into a big fuss. I just wanted to do my revisions (and I did them), and it seems that we're both happy with them (and no others have objected), so can we please stop all this so we can both get to our own editting please?
Thanks for teaching me not to start with a POV tag, and I honestly didn't know what a community ban or Tojo was before this so I've gained alot, but I'm tired of this biccer, so I'm willing to stop if you are. Thanks again. — Ian Lee (Talk) 01:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree bickering should be abolished. I think we can quickly agree on the following points, and proceed accordingly:

  • The article should present clearly how people pray and why. This needs primary sources. I will provide sources for my area of interest (Judaism) if that is deemed helpful.
  • The article should discuss neutrally what has been said about the act of prayer by external observers, e.g. systematic/philosophical approaches, statistical findings (how many people pray daily?)
  • The experimental paragraph needs to state the findings of the studies without criticising their methodology (unless there is criticism by others of their methodology).

This is an important subject and quite hard to write a good encyclopedia article about. What we need foremost is to agree on sources. At the moment, most of the article is a source-free zone.

I have no idea why you reinstated the paragraph I deleted. Jeff3000 removed this with comment tags many moons ago, and nobody was particularly bothered by this. Upon reading it, I felt immediately that it was an essay by someone and that unless that someone could come back to provide sources it was never going to stand. I wish you luck in finding those sources. Can we agree on a time limit? JFW | T@lk 12:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment:

  • The article should present clearly how people pray and why, but should not assume or sugest that prayer does or does not affect extrenal phenomena...

Otherwise, I agree as long as we keep this neutral. If not sooner (I have midterms to study for), I think that Augest 3rd is fair as it's just a little over two weeks. — Ian Lee (Talk) 22:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't have a problem with having an Experimental Evaluation of Prayer section, but would suggest care not to state conclusions that extend beyond what theses studies can actually support. For example, Galton concluded prayer is inefficacious after comparing a highly-prayed-for population to a general one, Royal Navy sailors, to a general one. But if one takes the same approach with, say, medical care and selects a highly cared-for group like intensive care patients and compares it with a general population, would anyone really think it legitimate to assume that if medical care "works", the highly-cared-for intensive-care group ought to live longer than the general one? (See confounding). If people claim their methods enable them to reach reliable conclusions about whether prayer "works" or not we should report their claims, but strongly suggest not endorsing these claims as fact or stating an editorial view about whether religious claims can or cannot be validly subjected to scientific testing. Note that one has to be very careful with these things, particularly ones definition of "success". If "success" means lots of power, money, or sex, for example, sports and entertainment figures, business executives, and politicians may well be more successful than scientists. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination again[edit]

I took a quick look at the reason why this article failed the GA nomination last year, and I fixed one of the problems, the other ones having been fixed prior to my involvement. So, what do you guys think? Should we go at it again? Blanchardb 22:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite obviously written by people who do not believe in prayer and thus presumably do not pray. Prayer is presented as a kind of quaint delusion being observed by someone in a white coat with a clipboard. Why the atheistic bias? --212.41.66.85 17:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Christian and I don't see too much of an Atheistic bias in this article here. It does describe to Christians what it is that Buddhists regard as prayer and vice versa. In that respect, it is quite helpful, and I do believe this is what Wikipedia, and all encyclopedias, are all about. --Blanchardb 17:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prayer/Archive_1&oldid=1137095578"