Talk:Sacredness

message: Anyone see the Yahweh thing? I think this is a little biased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.164.25 (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: relevance criteria

message: ...which are embodied in sacred group symbols, or using team work to help get out of trouble.
I cannot make sense of the latter part of this sentence, though I perhaps get the gist of it. To me, it doesn't scan with the rest of the sentence. It almost looks like an accidental cut-paste from somewhere else. It may be just me, so I didn't want to edit the text, but request another to look at it for review.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.111.166 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Who wrote that? Don't forget to sign your name! Ok, "purity" can be part of holiness. But there's a problem with those criteria. How can you judge that the absence of sexual images renders a shrine "pure?" Consider the statue of Artemis at Ephesus, or Angkor Wat. How do you measure "2%" of clergy being involved in sexual abuse cases? What about ritual prostitution? Why is violence necessarily "impure?" What about human sacrifice, self-mutilation, gods of war, etc.? As for healing ability, that should be a new article. And what is an example of universally accepted disciplined practice?   Wyote 23:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: request for some rewording to make meaning clearer

message: I'm moved many of the comments here from the holiness page; the sacred (comparative religion) is the better title for this article, as discussed by myself and others below. Wyote 05:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and history merged both this talk page and the sacred article. Graham87 09:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: moved talk from holiness page

message: This article should cover a lot more - both in existing sections and particularly on other religions and denominations (e.g. Orthodox Christianity, modern Jewish groups, Islam, Hinduism, etc) as well as general anthropological theories of the development and significance of holiness in religion. Anyone know anything relevant? --81.107.215.192 11:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: coverage

message: I reverted the addition of an external link to "Holiness Debate" that an anonIP had been adding to various spiritual/religous articles.  The bears no direct relationship to the article; and by the contributions history, this appears to be a case of external link spam.  However, if this is a legitimate addition, please comment and revert back.  — ERcheck (talk) @ 03:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External link/link spam

message: "Etymology and concept" is an extremely confusing section. On the one hand it gives the etymology of the word, then it goes on about psychology and the idea of "individuation", which is not the same as "holiness" (except that "holy" is derived from a word which used to mean "whole"). That the idea of individuation and wholeness is not the same as holiness is borne out by the fact that we do not use "whole" and "holy" interchangeably. The concept of holiness persists in modern times quite independently of anything psychologists may theorise. As an example, there is no psychological principle that determines that an individuated person cannot be wholly evil. The individuation idea is so inappropriate to the section in which it appears, both textually and conceptually, that I have little doubt that it was copied directly from some psychology source. I have therefore removed the whole section, since it has no function other than the Jungian individuation psychology bit, and moved the etymology to the introductory section. It may be appropriate to address the psychological equivalent of holiness in a separate section (e.g. "Holiness as a psychological construct"), but not as "etymology and concept". --Seejyb 22:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Etymology and concept" section removed. Etymology moved to introduction. 

message: * References to "holy" as a derivation of "holly" on Google start with the Wikipedia itself, followed by sites advocating that much of Christianity is unoriginal and drawn from paganism.
* References to "holy" as a derivation of "health" appear in neutral sources such as the Online Etymology Dictionary.
Is there a etymological source which derives "holy" from "holly" that can be cited here? patsw 15:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy from Holly? 

message: The sacred page and the sanctity page both refer to this page and are stubs.  In fact, the three terms are synonyms—see wikt:sacred and wikt:sanctity.  It seems silly to have three pages (viz this, Sacred, and Sanctity) when they all tend to the same subject, and only this has any worthwhile content.—Red Baron 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: I will do more research before posting this, but for now, here's this--I hope to get some helpful input before I post it: 
Durkheim developed the contrast of "the sacred" and "the profane" in his studies of religion, where he emphasized the social importance of the sacred, in contrast to other scholars (such as William James) who approached religious experience primarily from an individualistic standpoint. Then the concept of "the holy" was analyzed by Rudolph Otto as "a fascinating and tremendous mystery," providing scholars a new way to study religion. This was taken up by Mircea Eliade, who used Otto's concept but Durkheim's terminology, and through him it became the central concept in the study of comparative religion in the US. 
With that in mind, perhaps a distinct page for "sacred" would be appropriate, or renaming this page, since the term "holiness" is not used by any scholars that I know of. Wyote 08:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm confident that either a page needs to be created for "sacred," or this page needs to be renamed. The quesion is, which? Wyote 07:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance of "the sacred" in "comparative religion" and "religious studies" 

message: What is wrong with you people?
Sacred is not ONLY referred to religion. What I mean by this is where are the definitions of sacred without the words religion, or god in them? This is pathetic the whole article makes use of religion as a defining point of sacred which is ONLY partly true, meaning there should be two definitions of sacred, one based in religion and one without. For example, people can have sacred things, doesn't mean it's relevant to religion or religious anything, except for the fact that it's close to heart for the person calling it sacred.
This article is the worst kind of preaching I've seen on wikipedia yet. Stop stuffing religion in every hole you can find! kandrey89 16:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacred and Religion = NOT 

message: I found this after pinging off the definition of holiness in the Newadvent.org site. There they depend on Aquinas who divides holiness from sanctity. I am not "holy" enough to comment on his words nor literate enough to add to your article but thought I would toss that out as something you may want to add to your article.  68.101.35.19 02:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Thomas Aquinas 

message: The "Holiness" hatnote needs changing but I don't know how to do it. "Holiness" does not redirect here. Nurg (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holiness hatnote needs changing 

message: Holly (genus: Ilex aquifolium) is an evergreen shrub whose name derives from the Old English holen, from the same root as the Old High German hulis. According to the Oxford English Dictionary it appears to be cognate with the Welsh, celyn, the Cornish, celin, and the Irish, cuillean. Holly thus has a different etymological genealogy to the word Holy which it appears to resemble.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.10.218 (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Holly

message: This section requires expansion. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone needs to add information to this section, or it will be removed. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Holiness in Orthodoxy

message: I was wondering why some of the topics listed under "See Also" are there. I can't see a real connection between holy/sacred and 
Joseph Campbell, Neopaganism, New Age, Polytheistic reconstructionism, Theosophy, or Traditionalist School. I find "See Also" can be very useful in exploring a topic...unless there is no strong connections between the topics. Any objections to deleting these links?Jumpinbean (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also List 

message: There is not a single perspective on what is the sacred. Therefore, it is useful to highlight from which worldview the definition of the sacred stems.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine (talk • contribs) 09:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of religious viewpoint 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Holy (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 19:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Corpus sanctum. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 25#Corpus sanctum until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Corpus sanctum" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: There are nearly a dozen start or stub class articles that all orbit the concept of Sacred and/or Profane. Most are severely short on references, or references are absent. I've started a merge process of folding the existing texts and references into what seems like the core concept. The goal of this stage is to get one article with sufficient verifiable material to cover the concepts involved. If individual articles need to be spun off from this core article later I think they will be significantly improved and certainly better sourced by the process. Darker Dreams (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: there's a huge collection of Christian rite and theology. Dharmic religions are still underrepresented, as are any sort of shamanistic religions (shinto, korean shamanism, native religions for the Americas, Africa, or Australia). While I found the one reference for Confucianism, something with more depth is really needed Help outlining the sacred aspects of these religions and practices is really a requirement to balance the article. Darker Dreams (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no move discussions or consensus for any of these large merges. Per Wikipedia policies, it is desirable not to have lengthy articles but to have separate articles for what are very distinct concepts. You need to start a move discussion for each of the articles you intend to merge and a resultant consensus with input from the Wikipedia community should determine the outcome. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed a lot of merging attempts surrounding multiple terms (e.g. Sanctification, Desecration, Consecration, Profanum, Deconsecration, Hierophany, Sacrilege, any others???). The merging is not helpful and is enormous. Technically all of the other terms trying to be merged are distinct and not reducible to just one term or one article (e.g. sacred)) and the uses of each vary by religious tradition. Mergign does not solve the complex issues and actually muddles the terms and concepts as if they are used consistently throughout the world. They are not. Even the terms "religion" and "secular" are not understood in the same way and in most places and times, these concepts have not existed (many do not have equivalent terms for religion or secular or sacred today either). Most of these terms are Western from Roman and Greek heritage (not even the Jews or Christians or Muslims had such concepts or even the Japanese - for instance see "The Invention of Religion in Japan", Jason Ānanda Josephson-Storm, University of Chicago Press, 2012) so why cram so much clutter into one article? If anything more sources would clear up each term in their respective articles.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergers and improvement 

message: * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330605786_Sacred
* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346045277_The_Sacred
* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353494751_Sacredprofane
* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352844387_The_Sacred_Asian_Gate_Tradition_in_Europe_Symbolic_Crossings_from_the_Mundane_to_the_Sacred
* https://revistas.uma.es/index.php/Raphisa/article/download/4335/4040/
* https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/ethnobotany/Mind_and_Spirit/shamans.shtml
Darker Dreams (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  bookmarking links for review / potential use 

message: These topics WP:OVERLAP, are WP:REDUNDANT, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. Hallow is a low-priority stub article after 7 years and any discussion of the subject benefits from context in the Sacredness article. The opening line of that article is "To hallow is "to make holy or sacred, to sanctify or consecrate, to venerate." Holy redirects back to the sacredness article. Either Sanctification or Consecration could also be valid merge destinations, but it doesn't seem to be going as a stand-alone. Darker Dreams (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment since nobody on "Jeopardy" seems to know what this is, perhaps we should leave it. Manannan67 (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Hallow