Talk:Prayer/Archive 1

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hebrew Bible and Christianity 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Medical Effects of Prayer 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: Quite reasonable. JFW | T@lk 17:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of "effects of prayer" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Improvement Drive 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rosary?? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Editing or removal of Buddhism. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Catholics also do thisTjb891 02:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How common is phrase "In Jesus' Name"?? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Christain Picture 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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 </span> 15:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 </span> 15:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I stand corrected.  Ok. Carlo 22:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Prayer (and|on the) the internet 

message: 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:
:* Example 1 by 67.21.19.176 on May 17
:* Example 2 by SpicyNugget on May 24
:* Example 3 by 68.170.31.9 on May 25
:* Example 4 by SpicyNugget on May 25
:* Example 5 by 68.30.128.236 on May 25
:* Example 6 by 68.170.31.9 on May 26
:* Example 7 by SpicyNugget on June 8
:* Example 8 by 68.170.31.9 on June 9
:* Example 9 by SpicyNugget on June 9
:* Example 10 by SpicyNugget on June 9
:* Example 11 by 68.170.31.9 on June 11
:* Example 12 by 68.170.31.9 on June 13
:* Example 13 by SpicyNugget on June 13
:* Example 14 by 68.170.31.9 on June 15
:* Example 15 by SpicyNugget on June 16
:* Example 16 by 68.30.139.68 on June 17
:* Example 17 by 68.30.139.68 on June 17
:* Example 18 by 68.30.139.68 on June 17
:* Example 19 by 68.30.139.68 on June 17
:* Example 20 by 70.8.124.84 on June 17
:* Example 21 by 70.8.73.106 on June 18
:* Example 22 by 70.8.87.34 on June 19
:* Example 23 by 70.8.87.34 on June 19
:* Example 24 by 70.8.87.34 on June 19
:* Example 25 by 68.170.31.9 on June 21
:* Example 26 by 68.30.202.138 on June 22
:* Example 27 by 68.30.202.138 on June 22
:* Example 28 by 68.30.202.138 on June 22
:* Example 29 by 68.30.202.138 on June 22
:* Example 30 by 68.30.202.138 on June 22
:* Example 31 by 68.30.30.12 on June 22
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)
replies: text: They're on it.--Birdmessenger 12:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm counting an average of 3 insertions a day, is that correct? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems about right.--Birdmessenger 16:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for investigation for repeated spam links 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wikipedia is about consensus, and the current consensus is that the links are not appropriate. -- Jeff3000 03:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: The links are spam and should be deleted.Dogface 03:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam, CON, and V

message: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps you might say, "proactive?" MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 18:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Prayer and Not Prayer 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Philosophical paradoxes of prayer 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Western religion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Failed Good Article Nomination 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: The "er" can confuse some people.--Greasysteve13 03:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For me (non-rhotic British) - /pɹɛː/ Man vyi 14:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone add the word "Prayer" in the International Phonetic Alphabet? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Paradoxes section Encyclopedic? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please discuss major changes here first. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  general rewrite 

message: 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)
replies: text: Catholics ARE Christians. Carlo (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "To pray" as a verb in Spanish 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GA nomination again