This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Gender studies Start‑class This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Christianity Stub‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Judaism Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

• archive 1

I'm happy with clearing the talk page. I'm not happy with voting. Wiki doesn't work by votes but by consensus. (Although there is often a consensus to decide certain specific questions by voting.) Since Ilkali's first change prompted the whole controversy, that's the fair place to start. (I accepted it wasn't fair to have my version as the default, it's only fair that argument works the other way around.)

Also, we're not really going back to scratch by starting at that point, because anyone's free to propose, say, the text I wrote on Hinduism be returned. We just compare diffs in the article history, copy it here, discuss it, modify it and add it. I'd probably agree to that suggestion, but maybe I wouldn't, we'd need to discuss it.

Since basically I wrote everything since Ilkali arrived, you could almost rebuild the article to any point you wanted by recommending blocks of text you'd have a fair chance of me agreeing to.

Think about it, if you agree, please you reset the article to the diff prior to Ilkali's arrival (27 April I think). Then feel free to delete my comments here, they're proceedural, not really addressing the article. If you don't agree, I guess I'll be making a couple of random reverts every 24 hours or so as a reminder that only consensus brings stability to an article. Until Ilkali arrived the article was stable but awful. Since then, I think some good work has been done, but it's never had consensus. Time to lock in some of that good work by giving it the endorsement of consensus. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is unchanged ... we start from here. Abtract (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And neither is mine ... we start from here. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To make things a little easier, it is probably worth applying this tag. Let's play by the rules. No changes until we discuss them. Until everyone agrees, no changes. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until everyone agrees, no changes from your preferred version of the article? How is that different from before you were blocked? Ilkali (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave your comment Ilkali, because it shows you are insisting on addressing editors rather than the text of the article. Your behaviour at this page has been disruptive for two reasons, you make edits without seeking agreement first (there are dozens of diffs to prove this). And you address editors not sources and text (plenty of text proves this too). I will digress no further. Issues with editors should be on talk pages or other forums. I shall remove my own comments about you eventually, because you and I are irrelevant to the article.

I will restore the page to the point prior to Ilkali's arrival, and see where we go from there. Any text added since that point can be recovered and added here for discussion. Comments about other editors are not welcome.

Looking forward to suggestions for improvements to the article, it needs heaps. I'll not be adding anything myself for a couple of months, but I'll take an active interest in the meantime. Perhaps Ilkali would like to get the ball rolling. How do you think things could be improved? Alastair Haines (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I will leave your comment Ilkali, because it shows you are insisting on addressing editors rather than the text of the article". When editors are the problem, editors must be addressed. And did you seriously follow this sentence...

"Your behaviour at this page has been disruptive for two reasons" ...with this one?

I've already argued for replacing the lead text. Abtract also forwarded a candidate, which I endorse over yours. My issues with yours are, again: 1) It is not specific to God, despite the article being titled 'Gender of God'. 2) 'in a God' is either a violation of the MoS (capitalised common noun) or a clumsier, semantically equivalent version of 'in God'. 3) The metonymy in 'religions believe' is jarring.

You asserted that Abtract's version commits OR and POV violations but didn't ever substantiate this claim. I ask you now to do so. Ilkali (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All your points have been previously refuted by sources, Ilkali. Read the archive "Problems with the lead". As for Abtacts' proposal, the burden of proof is on the poster. No sources were offered for "most religions believe God is male" for example. I'm sure that's just wrong. No source, no text. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"All your points have been previously refuted by sources, Ilkali". Nope. In all cases you either attacked a position I didn't hold or cited a source that didn't support your claim. If you want to build consensus, you'll have to do more than just insist that you're right.

"As for Abtacts' proposal, the burden of proof is on the poster". The default assumption isn't that every contribution violates every policy. When you claim that some material contains original research or expresses a POV, you must either support that claim or be prepared for it to be ignored.

"No sources were offered for "most religions believe God is male" for example". That's a false quote. The actual text is "The gender of God has generally been considered to be male". The two do not mean the same thing.

Freezing the article in an early state isn't something that should be done lightly, and it should certainly last for as little time as possible. Since you are refusing to discuss the criticisms I raise, and thereby lengthening this process, I agree with Abtract that it should remain unfrozen. We can always change it back later if consensus swings your way. Ilkali (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also object to freezing, especially freezing back to a much earlier state. Overall the article looks much better than it used to. There are many uncontroversial improvements that have nothing to do with any dispute over the intro. Also, nobody owns this article. --Alynna (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we all agree about two things. We all want the article to go forward (not be freezed). We all agree that the article can be improved. Next step is agreeing on how it can be improved.

The main thing is, wherever we start, we only move forward with everyone's agreement (consensus), not by any individual or subgroup "owning" the step. In other words, it doesn't matter who ends up making an edit, because all have agreed and would be willing to make it anyway.

There are two fair options for where we start. Either A) minimial position -- the position prior to any dispute OR B) the maximal position -- text that includes everything currently under dispute. The former is simpler, since there is no consensus about what revision reflects the latter. It is also simpler to move forward, because slabs of consensus text can be added from the edit history, after being confirmed as having everyone's agreement here. (The updated Hinduism and Sikhism sections, for example.)

The only things potentially "freezing" this text would be: A) no one actually proposing this text (or any other text) OR B) attempts to add more than actually reflects consensus (which is attempting to "own" and bypass consensus, or, assuming better faith, just "clumsiness").

So, Alynna, can you actually propose anything specific, that already has consensus, to back your claim that consensus changes have been made. (I agree with you in general, but perhaps we're thinking of different parts of the article.)

And Ilkali, please stop returning disputed text to the article without consensus. Instead, propose parts of the revision you prefer for consensus here first. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some uncontroversial edits of my own (I did not say "consensus", because I just did them without getting your permission discussing it on the talk page. It would not be realistic for every change ever made to be discussed beforehand.) include:

• Adding the New American Bible to the list of translations of John 16:13
• Moving the "Branch Davidians and other" section under Christianity, after the one sentence not about Christianity was moved to Judaism.

There is no proof that everyone agrees on your favourite old version, so you can't claim it's a "consensus version". Going back there would be a HUGE step backwards. You appear to be the only person who has a major problem with the current incarnation of the article. Therefore, it is you who should suggest incremental changes, to the current version. --Alynna (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "current" version Alynna, whatever alternative is proposed as current is challenged by one person or another.

Looks like it is only Ilkali who would be delaying consensus on your two changes above, then, since I don't object to them. I don't think we need additional translations of John 16:13, but I'm happy to wait six months until a passing editor complains there are too many copies, and agree to trim them then.

Anyway, if Ilkali agrees to your changes above, we have consensus, and they become part of the new, "consensus" version. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Looks like it is only Ilkali who would be delaying consensus on your two changes above, then". Ilkali isn't the one insisting on freezing the article! I am fine with any of the edits up to the version three out of four editors prefer. We do not need to painstakingly confirm consensus for these kinds of changes. Ilkali (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The main thing is, wherever we start, we only move forward with everyone's agreement (consensus)". Consensus doesn't mean that everybody agrees - otherwise any single person could indefinitely lock any article in a state he preferred. Let me ask you: Under what circumstances would you allow the article to be changed in a way that you disagree with?

As for the content discussion, there are already specific issues raised above, such as my criticisms of your lead. If you don't want to discuss them, I question the point of this exercise. Ilkali (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to address editors rather than issues, Ilkali. Consensus does mean anyone can object to a change because they present a case against the change. It is, in fact, no different to what you have been enforcing since your arrival at the page by reverting anything you disapprove of. Only now, by invoking the "dispute mode", it ensures the discussion remains documented on the talk page, not a matter of editors using numbers to force an edit.

It is an important and fair part of the process, that ensures no one's imput is discounted, nor anyone "railroaded". Alastair Haines (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You continue to address editors rather than issues, Ilkali". What issues did you address in this post, Alastair? Did you address the issues I raised in my first comment in this section? The ones you still haven't addressed? Again, I question the point of this exercise.

Answer the question, Alastair. Under what circumstances would you allow the article to remain in the state that is currently preferred by three out of four involved editors, assuming you don't suddenly start preferring it? What would it take for you to stop edit warring? If the answer is 'nothing' then we have a problem that your purported attempts at consensus-building cannot ever solve. Ilkali (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Versions of this article:

1. 16 June — fullest text — disputed
2. 22 June — shorter text — disputed
3. 27 April — version prior to dispute

The edit history shows a number of editors reverting to the shorter text version. This has been done with little use of the talk page. When talk has been used, no attempt has been made to address objections or cite reliable sources.

The controversy tag on the page, and other standard Wiki policies make clear, that we are to seek consensus by:

• addressing issues of content raised by those who disagree with us; and
• to do this with reference to reliable sources.

While some may want to "fast-forward" to the "fullest text" so far as at 16 June, this is disputed, so has not been attempted. Others, however, have wanted to "rewind" some of that "fullest" text, while still "fast-forwarding" to 22 June, but have done so without addressing issues or seeking consensus. Warnings have been noted at User talk.

The first attempt to seek consensus by providing sourced text is being offered by me below. Perhaps it will be rejected, such is life. I look forward to others offering their own proposals for consensus, along with the sources that they are following.Alastair Haines (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"When talk has been used, no attempt has been made to address objections or cite reliable sources". Not true. People have explained what is wrong with your lead (see the three points I raised above) and they've explained why the article shouldn't be frozen. Your mention of reliable sources is a red herring, as most of the issues are 1) stylistic, 2) regarding the purview of the article, or 3) over the relevance of some material. What kind of reliable source would you like for something like 'Alastair's essay is not about the gender of God'?

To reiterate: You are the only one out of four involved editors who thinks the article should be frozen in an earlier state. It is not tenable. If this happened every time a single editor disagreed with the change, and continued without limit until that single editor were satisfied, Wikipedia would collapse. Accept that the majority are against you, argue for the superiority of your version, and restore it if you get consensus.

I ask again: Under what circumstances would you allow the article to remain in the state that is currently preferred by three out of four involved editors, assuming you don't suddenly start preferring it? What would it take for you to stop edit warring? Ilkali (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start moving forward. Here's a sourced proposal, seeking comment from other editors. Does anyone have any objection to the following text to replace the current text on Hinduism? The source noted is Michael Witzel, 'Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts', Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7 (2001): 1–118.

The oldest of the Hindu scriptures is the Rigveda (2nd millennium BC). The first word of the Rigveda is the name Agni, the god of fire, to whom many of the vedic hymns are addressed, along with Indra the warrior. Agni and Indra are both male divinities.

The Rigveda refers to a creator (Hiranyagarbha or Prajapati), distinct from Agni and Indra. This creator is identified with Brahma, first of the gods, in later scriptures. Hiranyagarbha and Prajapati are male divinities, as is Brahma (who has a female consort, Saraswati).

There are many other gods in the Rigveda.^[1] They are "not simple forces of nature" and possess "complex character and their own mythology".^[1] They include goddesses of water (Āpaḥ) and dawn (Uṣas), and the complementary pairing of Father Heaven and Mother Earth.^[1] However, they are all "subservient to the abstract, but active positive 'force of truth'" (Rta), "which pervades the universe and all actions of the gods and humans."^[1] This force is sometimes mediated or represented by moral gods (Āditya such as Varuṇa) or even Indra.^[1] The Āditya are male and Rta is personified as masculine in later scriptures (see also Dharma).

There are some Hindu sects, such as Shakta and Tantra, that have a well-developed philosophy of a mother goddess, and literature that harmonizes this to greater or lesser extents with vedic and other traditions. In these traditions, Shiva is often conceived of as the consort of Shakti, rather than vice versa.

In some Hindu philosophical traditions, Brahma is depersonalized (and demasculinized) as Brahman, the fundamental life force of the universe.

Alastair Haines (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text on Hinduism is not the problem, Alastair! The major disagreements are over the lead and your section on comparative religion, and you have consistently abstained from discussing either. Your case for indefinitely freezing the article is so full of holes now that even you must realise it was a bad idea. Do me a favor and stop edit-warring over it before I have to go to the trouble of reporting you. Ilkali (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hinduism is not the problem. Yes, the disagreements are over the lead and comparative religion (and gender). No, I have discussed those, it is you (and others) who assert, vote and edit without engaging with content. I have never suggested freezing the article, it is you (and others) who seek to freeze valid edits by reverting. I have never edit warred, only restored sourced or verifiable content that has been removed without consensus. You (and others) have edit warred, by reverting verifiable content without seeking consensus. I have now flagged the page for mediation cabal involvement. Alastair Haines (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"No, I have discussed those, it is you (and others) who assert, vote and edit without engaging with content". If you're talking about the discussions you and I had way back before you called me a troll and stormed out, then you obviously can't deny that I've engaged with content - else who were you talking to back then? And if you're talking about anything since then, then... where?

"I have never suggested freezing the article". Perhaps you are interpreting the term differently to how I intend it. You are insisting on keeping the article in an old state until some specified event occurs. That is what I call freezing.

"I have never edit warred, only restored sourced or verifiable content that has been removed without consensus". You have persistently reverted both the article and its talk page to states you prefer, and you were even blocked for doing so. Insisting that it doesn't count as edit warring because you're right and we're wrong isn't going to impress or convince anybody. Ilkali (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali, this is my last post to you, until a mediator is here to hold you accountable for your claims. It was your actions, more than your words, that was troll like when I warned you the first time. History has only demonstrated that others have joined you in what are clearly disruptive edits to this article. You (and others), are quite entitled to dispute the fullest version of this article (16 June), but not to insist on your own version (22 June), without discussing content. It is by forcing the dispute you make the version prior to your arrival (27 April) the point of departure, but that's only a freeze if you're unwilling to discuss matters of content with editors who have objections to the content of your opinions. And indeed, you have never reverted the artcile to anything except versions you prefer. On the other hand, I surrendered my own preference in favour of a genuinely neutral version — the one prior to our own disagreement. Those are the verifiable facts. I'll also document here your early 3rr violation, which I chose not to report, since you are so new to Wiki. Editing other's posts is also a no-no, except in special circumstances.

• 01:13, 27 May 2008 Ilkali
• 01:08, 27 May 2008 Ilkali
• 17:34, 26 May 2008 Ilkali
• 03:06, 26 May 2008 Ilkali

I take it that you genuinely don't understand how Wiki works, hence, you are being disruptive, but this is mitigated by inexperience and by the encouragement of others. Your disparaging comments, however, have been consistent, starting with "guff" in your first post, and "Christians and Jews don't know what a common noun is", "Trinitarian language is an abuse of language", etc. in follow-ups. But your main problem is misunderstanding not only the linguistics, but the meaning of ad hominem, you genuinely feel attacks on a person can be valid arguments against what they say. You have been pointed to sources on this, but still refuse to accept it.

Although I try to give space for this to be about content, it is sadly true that it is, and always has been, about Ilkali's disruptive edits and personal attacks, both of which are verified, not by my opinion (or anyone else's), but by your own actions and words.

It takes time for volunteer mediators to arrive. You could save everyone a lot of time by thinking through how you could have done things better. I'd be thrilled to work with you if you could take responsibility and admit your mistakes.

As always, I expect you will have the last word, and it will involve an attack on me to distract from your own actions. Go ahead, I can't stop you. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Your disparaging comments, however, have been consistent, starting with "guff" in your first post, and "Christians and Jews don't know what a common noun is", "Trinitarian language is an abuse of language", etc. in follow-ups". Don't you think it's misleading to put quote marks around something that isn't a quotation? If you want to refer to something I've said, use the actual text, and provide at least the entire sentence.

"your main problem is misunderstanding not only the linguistics [...]". Cheap shots, Alastair. If you want to discuss the linguistics, I'm more than willing. I've spent enough time studying the subject (while earning my first-class degree) that I welcome opportunities to apply it in real life. But you're not. You won't ever go beyond cheap shots.

"but the meaning of ad hominem". In future, if you cite these things, can you provide the diffs so everyone can just read the counter-arguments I wrote at the time? It's tedious to have to explain twice why you're wrong when once would do.

"you genuinely feel attacks on a person can be valid arguments against what they say". Any evidence to support this?

I have no intention of "distract[ing] from [my] actions". On the contrary, I invite you to shine a spotlight on them. Give us the diffs that so conclusively prove your accusations, or stop making them and start talking about the article. I'm still waiting for at least one of: 1) you justifying the inclusion of your recently-removed sections on comparative religion and such, or 2) you defending your lead against the three criticisms raised above. Ilkali (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply note here that Ilkali again proves my point. He has just made a wholesale revision that includes removing sourced text, and he did so without any attempt to build consensus or support his edit with sources. It also includes permitting a lead that makes claims that are not supported by sources either in the lead itself, nor at any point in the whole article. It is not an accurate summary of the text, and is actually contrary to prior versions of the article.

Additionally, although he claims he is misquoted, the sense of his words is accurate in context as can be seen from the Archived Problems with the lead. In fact, I have chosen his least objectionable language. He also says, Do you seriously not recognise the distinction between adherents of a religion and the religion itself? (later using stronger language), an unfair criticism of the many sources that use metonomy, but expressed as a personal attack.

He also appeals to his own authority (for the first time, though); however, that doesn't change the fact that the Oxford dictionary and published journal articles have been cited that demonstrate his claims do not hold.

Specifically, God is capitalized when refering to the "One Supreme Being" (OED). It refers to a superhuman person whether capitalized or not (OED). Groups are spoken of as believing regularly in the literature (see archive for half a dozen examples, taken from pages of Google scholar hits in journal articles), according to a well-documented device of language (see links in archive).

As long as sourced content is being removed (three sentences of Gender have three sources, sourced text in God is also being removed), and reversions are being made to disputed revisions, Ilkali (or anyone else) is "freezing" the article and disrupting progress. There is consensus that such behaviour is unacceptable.

With my next edits, I'll be adding a few sources to the full version of the article. I'd wait for consensus, but there's no rule against providing sources for text. This seems like a creative way of addressing expressed concerns and moving things forward. Other editors are welcomed to add sources and sourced text despite the dispute, I will do my best to gently guard against others simply reverting to an old version they prefer, without having attempted gain consensus for their removal of sourced and verifiable content. Cheerio. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not addressing me directly doesn't mean you're not replying to me, Alastair.

"He has just made a wholesale revision that includes removing sourced text, and he did so without any attempt to build consensus or support his edit with sources". Every person other than you agrees that this is the version of the article that should be taken forward. There was even a talk page section about your essays, which I see you haven't replied to. Where did you gain consensus for including them in the first place? You didn't. You inserted them without discussion and ignored all claims that they were off-topic. Double standards, Alastair?

"the Oxford dictionary and published journal articles have been cited that demonstrate his claims do not hold". As I already said, I'm not interested in rehashing old refutations. Drop the cheap shots and let people read the archive and decide for themselves.

"Specifically, God is capitalized (OED). It refers to a superhuman person whether capitalized or not (OED)". This I will address, since it's directly relevant to the article. The MoS clearly states that common noun god (as in "many religions believe in a god") should not be capitalised. Even if the OED did support your position (it doesn't - go back to our earlier discussion for explanation of how you've misinterpreted it), it doesn't matter because the MoS is definitive here.

"Groups are spoken of as believing regularly in the literature". Irrelevant, since religions aren't groups. My claim is not that the metonymy in "religions believe" is somehow illegal or incomprehensible - just that it is clumsy, in the same way that "Judaism doesn't eat pork" is clumsy. Finding some uses of it in literature does not in any way support the claim that it is not poor style. Ilkali (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a short note reworking a neat quote regarding Hinduism as essentially theist. Since it's only one short sentence and Ilkali's already expressed his view that the Hinduism section's not a problem, and that we don't want to be freezing the article, I don't think this stretches consensus much.

The next section worth returning would be Sikhism, since, like Hinduism, prior text was quite misleading, and certainly contrary to the lead that others have said they prefer. I'll post it here for comment, and if there are no objections to the content of this Section, this will be even more progress on the article.

It would be really nice if some of the other editors here could provide some sourced material too. There are a lot of gaps—Shinto is not covered, and the Islam section is woeful.

The scripture of Sikhism is the Gurū Granth (GG). Printed as a heading for the Guru Granth, and for each of its major divisions, is the Mul Mantra, a short summary description of God, in Punjabi. Sikh tradition has it that this was originally composed by Nanak Dev (1469–1539), the founder of Sikhism.

Punjabi: ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥

ISO 15919: Ika ōaṅkāra sati nāmu karatā purakhu nirabha'u niravairu akāla mūrati ajūnī saibhaṃ gura prasādi.

English: One Universal Creator God, The Name Is Truth, Creative Being Personified, No Fear, No Hatred, Image Of The Timeless One, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent, By Guru's Grace.

The sixth word of the mantra, purakhu, is the Punjabi form of Sanskrit puruṣa (पुरुष), meaning man (personal and male). Verse 5 of a 16 verse hymn in the 10th mandala (or cycle) of the Sanskrit Rgveda (RV) called puruṣa sūkta, speaks of a primal man, Puruṣa, from whom Viraj (woman) was born, being himself then reborn of her.

• From him Viraj was born; again Purusa from Viraj was born. (RV 10:90:5)

The masculine gender sense of purakhu in the Mantra is found in a verse like the following.

• That house, in which the soulbride has married her Husband Lord—in that house, O my companions, sing the songs of rejoicing. (GG, p. 97.)
• You are the Husband Lord, and I am the soul-bride. (GG, p. 484.)

Irrespective of the native language meaning of the Mantra, the standard English translation neutralises the implied gender role. Nonetheless, the Guru Granth consistently refers to God as He, even in English. He is also almost uniformly refered to as Father.

• In attachment to Maya, they have forgotten the Father, the Cherisher of the World. (GG 4:9:42)
• You are our Self-sufficient Father.
  — O Father, I do not know—how can I know Your Way? (GG, p. 51.)
• You are the Universal Father of all, O my Lord and Master.

Some of these references are inclusive, where God is both Mother and Father.

• The One is my Brother, the One is my Friend. The One is my Mother and Father. The One is the Support of the mind; He has given us body and soul. May I never forget God from my mind; He holds all in the Power of His Hands. (GG 4:8:78)
• Relying on Your Mercy, Dear Lord, I have indulged in sensual pleasures. Like a foolish child, I have made mistakes. O Lord, You are my Father and Mother. (GG 4:26:96)

There is at least one reference to God as Mother, without reference to his fatherhood.

• O my wandering mind, you are like a camel - how will you meet the Lord, your Mother?, in 2

I notice that the referencing is inconsistant. Page numbers are sufficient for quoting the Guru Granth, since these are standardised. Additionally, I obtained these from the major, standard English translation, I'll provide more details, so others can research this even further. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done:

• Singh Sahib Sant Singh Khalsa, English Translation of Siri Guru Granth Sahib, 3rd edition, Tucson, Arizona: Hand Made Books, ND.

Alastair Haines (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Current version" referring to the version that Ilkali, Abtract, and I have been consistently referring to as the current version. "Old version" referring to the version that Alastair has been reverting to.

I propose this for the following reasons:

• The majority of text in the current version is not the subject of dispute.
• Relative to the old version, the current version contains significant changes that are not the subject of dispute.
• The only text in the current version that actually seems to be actively disputed is one sentence of the introduction.

--Alynna (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Freezing the entire article for so long is a bad idea in any case, but to do so over a single paragraph is bordering on insane. Ilkali (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptive clarification: To "move forward" from a version means starting any changes from that version, with no reverting to versions older than it. --Alynna (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proposal to endorse deletion of sourced material (Gender section and God section) in the fullest text version. And to endorse unsourced text in the lead in the shorter version. Both contra Wiki basic principles, so I have no choice but to oppose.

The proposal also bypasses any attempt to make a case

• seeking consensus
• addressing content
• on the basis of sources.

Abtract is absent. We cannot assume yay or nay what he would say to new proposals.

If there are no specific objections to Sikhism (as above), I shall return that tomorrow.

Again, I invite other editors to make verifiable contributions of content to this article, it needs more contributions. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a proposal to endorse deletion of sourced material (Gender section and God section) in the fullest text version. And to endorse unsourced text in the lead in the shorter version". The material you talk about isn't in the version you keep reverting to either, so that point seems a little hollow. And Alynna's proposal isn't about picking any particular version to remain permanently, it's just about ending the repeated reversion to an earlier version. If you can argue convincingly that your text should be included, and thereby gain consensus for that view, it can be easily inserted at any point. If you convince other editors that your lead is superior, it can replace the current one at a moment's notice.

"Abtract is absent. We cannot assume yay or nay what he would say to new proposals". We can take note of the opinions he has previously expressed, however. Ilkali (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning! User:Ilkali. You are removing sourced text without using the talk page to gain consensus. That is a basic Wiki policy. What peer reviewed experts on gender say about gender is relevant to gender of God, unless you can cite a source or make a good case. Similarly, an article that offers a comparison of the views of various religions, is addressed by sources that are well-known experts on comparative religion. Perhaps other views are needed, perhaps better sources can be found, but until these are offered, the opinions of these experts address the topic better than any of us. ... and, it's just the rules of those who provide the software we are using—sourced text cannot be removed without consensus. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You are removing sourced text without using the talk page to gain consensus. That is a basic Wiki policy". Even if your text were impeccably sourced (and I do not think it is - you have far more assertions than citations), that wouldn't automatically justify its inclusion. Otherwise what is to stop you inserting the same text in every article in the encyclopedia? Content must meet basic standards of relevance, regardless of any other aspect of its quality. The burden is on you, as the person introducing material, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Ilkali (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A practical example: Let's say I inserted some extremely well-sourced text describing how Batman kicked Superman's ass in The Dark Knight Returns. What would you do? Would you allow it to remain until you had convinced me that it was not sufficiently relevant, or would you remove it despite its good sourcing? Ilkali (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Warning! Removal of souced text.

Ilkali is asserting his own opinion over Rodney Stark, William Sims Bainbridge and Emile Durkheim, without even discussing this. Your Superman example is a straw man. You actions are disruptive and could be construed as "gaming the system", Ilkali. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Ilkali is asserting his own opinion over Rodney Stark, William Sims Bainbridge and Emile Durkheim". Deliberate misrepresentation. I'm not asserting that any of your material is inaccurate, just that it's inappropriate for the article.

"...without even discussing this". What's this, Alastair? It's a talk page section I created when I removed your essays (where another editor expressed support for such), which you never responded to. I already linked you there once ([1]), but again you ignored it. I'm not the one unwilling to discuss the matter.

"Your Superman example is a straw man". Support this assertion. What's the fundamental difference between the two?

"You actions are disruptive and could be construed as "gaming the system", Ilkali". Only by you, Alastair. Ilkali (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You admit you are "not asserting that any of your [read the] material is inaccurate." Yet you insist on reverting it! You assert Durkheim, Stark and Bainbridge "irrelevant" and "inappropriate"! On what basis? Yet you insist on reverting the text!

Superman is irrelevant to the gender of gods. Theory of Religion discussing the meaning of god in different cultures is clearly more relevant, if not essential to the topic Gender of God. The burden of proof is on you to establish consensus to remove sourced text.

Claiming policy against constructive edits is called gaming the system, quoting rules against their intention. You do this in words. You do it with edits. And you do it in personal attacks on me. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You admit you are "not asserting that any of your [read the] material is inaccurate." Yet you insist on reverting it!". Its accuracy, like that of the hypothetical Batman piece, is irrelevant. I revert it because I believe that each part of it is either insufficiently relevant or excessively detailed.

"Superman is irrelevant to the gender of gods". And, on making this judgement, you would remove the text and demand that he who added it must justify its inclusion? Your words: "You are removing sourced text without using the talk page to gain consensus. That is a basic Wiki policy". But you admit you would do exactly the same in the example I cited. The only difference between the two is which side you agree with, and you can't presuppose that you're right when arguing about cases like this.

"Claiming policy against constructive edits is called gaming the system". For me to be gaming the system, I would have to believe that my actions were not constructive. You're supposed to be assuming good faith, Alastair. Ilkali (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time Ilkali has violated 3RR. This time I am reporting him.

• 00:10, 27 June 2008
• 07:54, 27 June 2008
• 01:15, 27 June 2008

Perhaps another user could do this for me, I am away at work for the next little while. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to reread the policy page, Alastair. If reverting three times in 24h constituted a violation, you'd be at least as guilty as I - you've reverted four times, although one of those was to a different version of the article. Ilkali (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that I didn't even violate 3RR the first time you're talking about. You're counting the following edits: [2] (not a reversion or a removal), [3] (first removal), [4] (first reversion), [5] (second reversion). That's half as many reversions as I'd need to violate the policy. Ilkali (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most neutral way to order religions is chronologically, clearly several depend on others. Islam depends on Christianity, and probably even more on Judaism. Sikhism is somewhat older than Mormonism, and Buddhism/Shinto may be added between Judaism and Christianity. Babylonian religions should precede Judaism. It's no big deal, just now, but if we follow what the books say, there will come a time where we will need to follow their order. Any comments? What do other people's sources say? Alastair Haines (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's sensible to adopt a neutral system of ordering as you suggest, but I would advocate leaving it until the article is more stable. There's no reason not to discuss it in the meantime though, so: In what sense is chronological ordering more neutral than, say, alphabetical? The former seems to have much more potential for controversy. Ilkali (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological order for the religions has been stable for more than a year. Alphabetical listing would certainly be more neutral, however you are the first to propose it. Most texts consider religions chronologically, which is not only easier for a reader to follow, it allows conceptual development to be traced and hypotheses offered regarding cause and effect.

A strength of Alynna's reordering is that religions explicitly derived from Christianity are placed together. They are so closely related conceptually, that it may be appropriate. However, it raises issues of what should be done regarding Jehovah's Witnesses, who are far more numerous and older than Branch Davidians for example. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Most texts consider religions chronologically, which is not only easier for a reader to follow, it allows conceptual development to be traced and hypotheses offered regarding cause and effect". I have some doubts. While a chronological ordering might be easier to follow for someone reading each section in turn, start-to-finish, I'm not sure that's how people are most likely to approach the article. And at a glance, it doesn't seem like we currently offer any cause-and-effect hypotheses.

My concern is that, with almost any ordering other than alphabetical, there's always room for suspecting ulterior motives in picking that scheme. Followers of old religions might prefer ascending chronological order, and argue that the parallels between positioning in the article and positioning in history make the progression clearer. Followers of large religions might prefer a descending size-based order, and argue that it makes more sense for the bigger religions to be listed first, since they're the ones people will be more interested in. And so on, and so on.

On that ground, I think my preference would be for something alphabetical. But it's not something I feel strongly about, and if a chronological ordering is more prevalent in the literature (and I'm happy to accept your word for that) then it's probably just about neutral enough for our purposes.

The matter of Jehovah's Witnesses could be tricky. My undiscriminating atheist eyes say they are unequivocally Christian, but I recognise that this classification is controversial in some quarters. I don't think we can put them anywhere in the hierarchy without asserting some POV or another. In the absence of any better options, I think I would favor classifying them based on self-identification. Would I be correct in thinking that they typically consider themselves Christians? Ilkali (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Jehovah's Witnesses article it appears they consider themselves Christians. I'd go with filing them under Christianity, for that reason. Not sure what order to put them in relative to Mormonism. The ordering of sub-sections should probably follow the same rule as the ordering of main sections.

I can't find anything definitive on what Jehovah's Witnesses believe about the gender of God - can anyone else? --Alynna (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Alynna. We can't place JWs under Christianity, since there are two POVs. JWs say they are, the Popes for more than a thousand years says they aren't. Wiki has the NPOV—JWs, since they don't believe in a Trinity, fall into a different logical class. Perhaps the way of ordering the religions should be neither chronological, nor alphabetical, but under the classifications of comparative religion—monotheistic, henotheistic, trinitarian, polytheistic, animist. Probably in the reverse order, since the literature proposes something of a historical development in that direction. Interestingly, the very classification raised in the mediation discussion provides a natural way of distinguishing between notable branches of a broadly defined Christianity—Catholics (and Protestants) are distinctly trinitarian, Mormons are henotheistic and JWs are monotheistic. Views of the gender of the HS are clearly different—Catholic and Protestants (maybe most Orthodox except the Syrians) have a tradition of a male HS, Mormons admit the possibility of a female HS, JWs deny a distinct HS altogether. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually -- it's easier than that. JW's don't believe they are the same Christians as mainstream Christians. That is, they are ONLY Christians if Christians are not Christians. Christians themselves agree. JWs believe in a partnership of a lesser god (Jesus) with a higher supreme God (Jehovah). By Christian definition, belief in multiple deities is polytheistic. Both Christianity ahd Jehovah's Witnesses regard themselves as two mutually exclusive religions. Neither side would be satisfied being labelled together.Tim (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comparative religion section should be shortened and possibly moved, but not deleted. Can we EDIT this page instead of running over everyone?

PS to Lisa -- thanks for the catch on the Messianic thing. I hadn't read that far.Tim (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section in question is so far unsupported by anyone other than the person who recently added it, so, pending conclusion of mediation, it should be kept out of the article. That's how Wikipedia works. When introduction of content is disputed, said content is held in reserve until the matter is properly discussed and consensus reached. Can either of you say you wouldn't cite this protocol for content you didn't like, added by someone else?

I'd be happy to review a (radically) shortened version of the section, but I can't promise that my opinion will change. I still think that Alastair's view of the article's scope is incompatible both with the title and with the opinions of other editors. It might not be useful to try and edit this content until the scoping issue has been fully discussed. Ilkali (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"he section in question is so far unsupported by anyone other than the person who recently added it, so, pending conclusion of mediation, it should be kept out of the article. That's how Wikipedia works."

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Per WP:CONSENSUS "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and the logic may outweigh the logic of the majority". There is an ongoing dispute with no consensus met. Your reverts are precisely as unhelpful as his. Stop trying to garner support and please, instead, attempt to resolve this through reasonable discussion. -Rushyo (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question seems to be one of the Gender of God. The first thing that I noticed was that a definition of "gender" was being deleted along with the comparative religion section. Whenever edits eliminate a good deal of work by a known editor, the elimination is suspect.

"God" is a big concept. It's not limited to just a few religions, and religions do tend to follow certain archetypcal patterns. A comparative religion section is therefore in order. The work of Jung, and in particular Erich Neumann certainly plays a part here. The gender of God has historic, anthropological, and even archeological and psychological ramifications. To limit it to the patriarchal overlay of a few relatively recent religions fails to incorporate the substrata of the mother-goddess religions that lie underneath. Many of the patriarchal overlays in the Old Testament have matriarchal underpinnings from previous tellings of those same stories in earlier cultures.

Alastair has done a good deal of work on this subject separately, and I've found his work to be both thorough and credible by Wikipedia standards. Rather than an antagonistic deletion, Wikipedia thrives better on a cooperative editing process. That is, instead of working against each other to destroy, working together to create is much more productive.Tim (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tim about having a comparative section (size being arguable). But a definition of gender is really out of place in this article. A wikilink to the article gender should suffice. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The first thing that I noticed was that a definition of "gender" was being deleted along with the comparative religion section". For my part, that was unintentional. I intended only to remove the comparative religion section.

""God" is a big concept. It's not limited to just a few religions, and religions do tend to follow certain archetypcal patterns. A comparative religion section is therefore in order". All I can say is that it depends on the content. As long as every point is tightly bound to the gender of God, I don't have a problem with it. Ilkali (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lisa!

I'd like to add that anything out of scope in one article (including gender) would be in scope for other articles. I'd suggest MOVING another editor's hard work to the best section (or best article) by a simple search and insertion -- with a quick link regarding the general subject matter.

This would be best for Wikipedia, because good work would go to the best location.

This would be good for the initial editor, since the best location for his hard work would be found.

This would be good for those who would otherwise delete the article -- because it would save time, arguments, arbitration, and flat out wiki-warring.

After looking at the deleted section I think that a lot of it could be moved, and the rest shortened. But the work itself is good work.Tim (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask all parties to discuss this in the Mediation Cabal case. This is simply to avoid two sets of consensus being reached, followed by lots of mud-slinging. :) -Rushyo (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wise words Rushyo. The mediation issue does need to be resolved, and comments relevant to that should be posted there. However, it could also be argued that all progress on the article should not be impeded by having to go through that process. My request for the mediation was specifically directed at the way I perceived only two editors to be behaving, and the request that personal attacks be stopped and removed.

I for one will be giving the mediation issue first priority, since I requested your assistance in the first place, and want to respect the time you've invested in this already. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Gender section, extended treatment of the details is indeed already available at both Gender and at Patriarchy. What I've included here is a bare minimum summary of material at those articles, which have been widely sourced and also effectively stable for more than a year since I expanded and sourced them.

Cynthia Eller's Why an invented past won't give women a future is a classic recentish source that explains why "the search for matriarchy" might be misguided even were it verifiable (which current consensus says it isn't). However, reconstruction of the trajectory of the history of spiritual thought is potentially more fruitful. Patriarchal cultures with feminine dominated spirituality are not uncommon. Some would argue that Roman Catholicism approaches this in some cults of the Madonna officiated by celibate male priests.

Just where, or even if, such material should be included is not yet clear. I'm just outlining where a bibliography for adding such text may start, or what it will need to include.

Also, I'm noting that the Gender section is already compressed to three sentences, they are very general. Further detail probably needs to fall under each POV covered in the article, since their diversity is precisely the topic of the article. For example, in what sense is Shekhinah feminine, what does this imply about the gender of HaShem? That question doesn't make sense in a Qur'anic formulation. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Comparative Religions, I have said several times it is draft text. But it's obviously impossible to discuss and edit it if it is continually removed without such discussion. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- the thing cannot be edited while it is invisible.Tim (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content on Messianic Judaism was recently moved from the Judaism section to the Christianity section. According to the Messianic Judaism article, however, most Messianic Jews identify as Jewish. Should they not then be classified that way in this article? --Alynna (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think giving it its own section would be the least offensive approach. Trying to make a decision one way or the other is poking a hungry bear. -Rushyo (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Messianic" is synonymous with "Christian" by Messianic Jews, without some things they consider to be "Gentile" (like Christmas). In any case, although their idea of the Trinity is not orthodox by Christian standards, they do fall under the loose category of "Christian" by Wikipedia standards. Their synagogues are sponsored by Christian denominations and are frequently held in Christian churches. They are not sponsored by mainstream Jewish movements and do not share buildings with mainstream Jewish synagogues. Giving them a third section is not necessary.Tim (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good question. I'll stay neutral. Rushyo is absolutely spot on, categorising MJ as Jewish is "poking a hungry bear". As Tim notes, categorizing them as Christian is fine by most Christians, but implies a loss of Jewishness MJ, in their very name, themselves insist upon.

This is a good question for us to consider, since it also bears on how we deal with JWs and Mormons. It is also not just a Judaeo-Christian issue, but would be relevant to Sufism and mysticism within several traditions—Judaism (Kabbalah, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam no less than Christianity. Kabbalah especially is absolutely relevant to this article.

The wonderful thing about doing this from a world-wide perspective is that sectarian disputes within any particular tradition can be handled the same way across the whole article. A measure of objectivity is immediately available for us.

The issues here are neither hopelessly complex, but nor are they unambiguously simple. Thankfully there are mountains of books addressing the topics quite neutrally. Many such resources are also available online.

It's absolutely wonderful to see so many interested people gathering at the page. Thank you to all who are giving time to addressing the fascinating questions raised by this article. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm staying out of this one. But seriously, guys, can we move this over to the mediation page? It's there for a reason and it's easier to follow the conversation. L'Aquatique[review] 02:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you L'Aquatique! The MJ thing really is a can of worms. But (imo) it has nothing to do with my appeal for mediation, so I'd prefer it not to clutter that discussion, if that's OK with you. It would also allow you to steer clear of it as, I think wisely, you say you desire. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair enough to me. Carry on, then... L'Aquatique[review] 03:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks L'Aquatique, I also appreciate the inclusion of WikiProject Judaism for this page. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is understood by words for god varies across cultures and has sometimes changed dramatically at various times. Buddhism challenged various ideas in Hinduism, the montheism of Judaism challenged its polytheistic neighbours, and in european history, the Roman Empire officially adopted Christianity under Constantine I, later becoming its centre, but being challenged itself during the Reformation.

A simple view of the history of religion as an evolutionary process was proposed in the 19th century— from animism to polytheism to monotheism, with some believing theism, atheism or agnosticism to be the most advanced approach. Such views are no longer widely current either in the study of religion,^[2] nor in philosophy. Analytic philosophy widely considers speculative metaphysics to be outside the reach of epistemology and scientific scrutiny.^[3] Comparative religion notes distinctive idiosyncracies across major religions that are better explained by close historical scrutiny,^[4] rather than appeal to a simplistic theory.^[5]

Nonetheless, animist religions are common among preliterate societies, many of which still exist in the 21st century. Typically, natural forces and shaman spiritual guides feature in these religions, rather than fully fledged personal divinities with established personalities. It is in polytheism that such deities are found, Hinduism being the largest current polytheistic religion. Animist religions often, but not always, attribute gender to spirits considered to permeate the world and its events. Polytheistics religions, however, almost always attribute gender to their gods, though a few notable divinities are associated with various forms of epicene characteristics—gods that manifest alternatingly as male and female, gods with one male and one female "face", and gods whose most distinctive characteristic is their unknown gender.^[6]

In the philosophies of several polytheistic traditions, a primal, "high" God is postulated as source of the lesser gods (and demi-gods) of the pantheon. In some religions, like Buddhism, such philosophising goes further, considering ultimate reality to transcend pantheons of gods, without proposing a high God in their place. Buddhism considers anihilation or nirvana to be ultimate reality, and the desire for existence to be the wrong-headed heart of human misery.^[7] European nihilism since the 19th century may owe a debt to western thinkers discovering Buddhist ideas from that time of increased trade with the East.

Nonetheless, a hegemonic western conception of metaphysics, influenced strongly by Judaism and Christianity is identifiable in European literature from Greek and Roman authors through to the present, such that English language betrays an inherent bias towards monotheistic thought. Where animist languages may not even have words for personal deities, but rather a nuanced vocabulary of spiritualism, and polytheistic cultures have lexis suited to articulating relationships between deities in a pantheon, some modern English speakers only recognize alternatives such as God, gods or no God, being unfamiliar with Buddhism and animism.

When considering the literature of the world's religions and metaphysical philosophies, the diversity of the underlying conceptions of the spiritual realm is foundational to appreciating any points of comparison. Comparison of views of the gender of spiritual entities is no exception. Each religion or philosophy needs to be understood in its historical, social, linguistic and philosophical context. Thus, matters of gender do apply to animism, but not in the foundational way they do in polytheism and monotheism. Additionally, since animism is largely associated with preliterate societies, we are dependent on the ethnographies of cultural anthropologists rather than documented scriptures.^[8] Shinto is a notable exception.

Notes

Comments

As I look at this, I'm reminded of how much is left out. It's still woefully biased towards western and modern views, yet leaves out New Age spirituality. Sufism, Kabbalah and other mysticisms aren't mentioned, it really is very general. Thanks, Tim, for placing it back here so we can build on it.

I think what we're looking for is a framework, an organizing principle for the article. I really think animism would have interesting things to tell us. It would be nice if the article could tell a story, rather than simply being a "phone book" list of terse discriptions of various groups.

In fact, researching eastern religions would probably teach us a lot, 'cause they're more inclined to conflate religion with philosophy, attributing writings to wisdom rather than to the more presumptuous divine inspiration of western scriptures. The divine is "meditated upon" in the East, "revealed" in the West. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the problem of impersonality vs. personality. Ultimately, the origin of all life is the womb. In the womb there is darkness and water. The water is broken or divided, there is light, and the universe is born (as in Genesis 1). The earliest images children have of people, however, are neither male nor female (or rather both male and female). And the shape of this image is a circle. The immediate universal parent is the mother, but recognition of the father's role comes later in individual and historical human consciousness. First, the mother. Then only later the father acting on the mother.

The first religions, then were matriarchal and only later patriarchal. In most religions the separation of the world parents has the father representing the sky and the mother the earth below. But there are exceptions to this, in which the father is below and the mother above (I think Neumann said Egypt was this way).

So then we have these categories:

1. Female only (the most ancient and basic)
2. Male only (later western overlays)
3. Both male and female (certain kabbalistic aspects as a monotheistic example / and of course sexual pantheons in polytheistic systems)
4. NEITHER male nor female (eastern religions)

I think that the breakdown should be categorized according to genders instead of according to religions -- but that's a total rewrite!Tim (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim. You appear to know more about this than I do, which wouldn't be hard. If the Rgveda is anything to go by, the East also has a primal masculine creator. But the Vedas are not strictly East, rather they are possibly the source of some of the West.

Then there's the evidence for fertility cults based on feminine spirits, which is far more ancient than writing—tens of thousands of years of artifacts, rather than thousands of years of writing. I seem to recall even a Neanderthal artifact.

And the best evidence of all is the testimony of contemporary pre-literate cultures and their spiritual beliefs.

I think your idea of classifying by views of gender first, before classification according to religion is ideal for the article. It's a gender studies article more than a religious studies article, in a way. We just need to seek out the sources that make this classification for us.

If there is a God, and there's only one of Her. The religions that don't worship Her are constructed in the image of their host societies, so at least 90% of this article would be indirect sociological history, and indeed that is the tradition of the 19th century, with substantial quality revision in the last 30 years or so. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair -- I don't know if I know more, I think I just know a few different things. BTW, an interesting "writer" observation. According to Jung, humans have a collective psychological makeup that makes us different from other animals; an instinct. We do and see things in common ways. In a broader sense, there are instincts we have in common with other animals, as well, like caring for our young, etc. But just looking at what is common to humanity gives us (according to Jung) a handle on the "image of God." To Jung, the collective psyche IS the image of God. Individuals build their lives off of that image, and only poke their indivudual consciousness outside of that image in a limited way -- what Jung called "individuation." While that's way beyond the scope of the article, I wanted to point out a curious observation screenwriters have noticed: female audiences can empathize with both male and female characters on the screen, but in general male audiences can only fully empathize with male characters. They can sympathize with a female character, but they have trouble empathizing. There are exceptions, like Ripley in Alien, who BTW was originally scripted as a male character and only changed at the last minute to a female without rewriting the character's actions or dialogue. For some reason, males COULD empathize with Ripley. If there is some kind of distinctive male pattern in the collective psyche of our current cultures, then the deity we envision WOULD tend to be male.Tim (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've not read much on this specifically, but Sarah Michelle Gellar in Buffy and Jennifer Garner in Alias and many other modern examples of sexy young women playing roles typical of masculine heroes have great attraction to young men. I know this has been documented informally at a large seminary here in Sydney. Lectures on the Church Fathers in the morning, history of liturgy in the afternoon, time in the library, community meal and then retire to watch shows like those above in the men's singles quarters. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, nor up on the ratings demographics, but I suspect some of these shows are actually supposed to appeal to young women with broader interests than traditional feminine gender roles. Retrospectively, perhaps it's not really surprising that men will watch Angelina Jolie or Jessica Alba, whether they conform to traditional gender roles or not. ;)

My own suspicion is Sarah, Jennifer, Angelina and Jessica are skilled professionals, high priestesses of the cults of Inana, Kali, Artemis and many others that probably reflect a sexual fantacy shared in the male collective consciousness. But by collective consciousness, I neither claim formal equivalence with Jung's views, nor preclude the possibility of magnetic resonance imaging of the brain actually localising regions in "straight" men, that activate under the appropriate kind of stimulus.

If one leaves aside for a moment the political side of things—the noble crusade for equality of outcome in representation of women in coal mining, oil rig drilling, construction work and other high-risk low-pay occupations—gender is a fascinating topic, inadequately understood, and deeply significant.

Behind goddess worship, how often may we read male sexual fantacy? So what if Shangri Lankans structure their pantheon under a mother fertility goddess, if this is, once more, simply a social structure that encourages women to be sexually available to men under pain of taboo? It's interesting watching self-corrections between branches of feminism on this. All that glitters is not gold. Cheryl Exum argues something like this regarding the Song of Songs. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remind you again that Wikipedia isn't a forum, Alastair. Ilkali (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since at no point in pages of text have you actually addressed anything close to the subject matter of this article, nor ever provided a source, again I'll remind you your presence here needs to demonstrate a willingness to do both.

You are currently in the middle of disciplinary action for obstruction and incivility.

I'm in no rush, but apologies remain outstanding.

Engage with the subject, cite sources or be silent. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You are currently in the middle of disciplinary action for obstruction and incivility". Where? I really hope that's not what you think the mediation is supposed to be. And FYI: Anyone, regardless of Alastair Haines' opinion of them, is entitled to cite and enforce policies like WP:TALK. Ilkali (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali, correcting your approach to editing is not merely what I think is the issue, it is specified in my rationale for the mediation I called for.

You are incorrect about "enforcement", very rarely indeed does enforcement happen at Wiki, that's the whole point!

It is precisely your misunderstanding of this that I've had to appeal to the processes to address.

It's a slow process that seeks to avoid enforcing anything. That's the concept of consensus. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought two citations which demonstrate that Judaism does not view God as gendered. Alastair_Haines added a quote from a liberal rabbi named Paula Reimers which went on about how God should be perceived as female, and used that in support of a change to the article stating that Judaism views God as masculine. But there was nothing in the quote from Reimers which said that. The citation did not back up the claim. I considered deleting the citation because of this, but in order to forestall a dispute, I moved it into the section on Judaism, and placed it after another controversial statement by Rabbi Rebecca Alpert.

Alastair_Haines also used a form of the Tetragrammaton when referring to Judaism's view of God. This is not the way God is referred to by Jews, and was inappropriate as used. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I first added text that said Judaism views HaShem as non-feminine. Lisa removed this, despite it accurately representing a reliable source, and being consistent with the other sources cited.

Please tell us what "reliable source" said that Judaism views God as "non-feminine". The quote that was given didn't say anything of the sort. It didn't mention Judaism, and it certainly didn't mention anything about how Judaism views God. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reimers is a Jewish rabbi who made a very strong case that the Hebrew Bible deliberately presents Yahweh as masculine, mainly to avoid the consequences of feminine associations with a Creator. In Reimers' view the idea of a birthing Creator would have then been inevitable and led to pantheism rather than genuine worship of a Creator separate from creation. Reimers talks about gender role, not about grammatical gender nor biological sex, in other words the topic of this article, and she is a reliable source of one Jewish POV in interpreting their own primary source.

The characterization of Reimers' case as "very strong" is your personal POV. And you're entitled to it, of course. It isn't objectively the case. On the contrary, her contention is highly controversial, and does not reflect Judaism's view of God. In fact, how the Hebrew Bible presents God isn't relevant at all to how Judaism views God. Judaism is not based solely on the written text of the Hebrew Bible. No one disputes the fact that God is depicted with masculine imagery in the Hebrew Bible. This does not change the fact that Judaism views God as gender-less. The Hebrew Bible also describes God as getting angry, having hands, arms, and other body parts. But Judaism does not view God as having a body. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with Lisa removing the tetragrammaton, though that is how the Tanakh refers to God. Instead I have restored HaShem again, which is how many Jews refer to God.

Jews refer to God as Hashem in certain contexts. An encyclopedia is not one of them. And again, you are mistaking Judaism for "Biblism". Perhaps this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of what Judaism is. Do you believe that Judaism sees God as having a body? Because that's how God is described, at times, in the Hebrew Bible. "With a strong hand and outstretched arm, God brought you out of Egypt". But God does not have a body according to Judaism. In fact, this is one of the 13 most basic principles in Judaism (see Jewish principles of faith). -LisaLiel (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that controversial material shouldn't be in the lead, which is why we probably shouldn't be making claims about particular religions until the rest of the article is written.

Unquestionably Christians, Sikhs, Jews and everyone believes their God does not have male sex, but that is not the topic of this article. The topic is Gender of God, not Sex of God. It's a much more interesting subject.

If you want to differentiate between sex and gender when it comes to God, you're going to have to make that case. In point of fact, Hebrew didn't even have a word for "gender" (as distinct from "sex") until about 10 years ago, when the word migdar was coined by the Hebrew Language Academy in Israel. You are reading modern analysis back into a time when it was not relevant. God is not seen in Judaism as having either sex or gender. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your interaction Lisa, we agree about more than we disagree about. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that matters in this case. I probably agree with most people about more than I disagree about, but in this case, you are making false statements about Judaism, despite reliable sources that contradict you, and claiming that a source that doesn't even mention the subject we're talking about supports your changes. That doesn't seem like a responsible way to edit. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new quotes added seem to be minor (although notable viewpoints). They look fine in the Jewish section, but not the lead. If they really are minor, then finding sources that show the majority view should be easy, no?

It seems a bit undue weighty to have 2 quotes from female rabbis (which are in small minority) and no mainstream uncontrovertial male rabbis, especially if they are going to explain controvertial points.Yobmod (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two words -- Avinu, Malkenu. Just try reversing those words in Shul!Tim (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? That we commonly use masculine imagery for God? Stipulated. It doesn't change the fact that we use those terms because we have no neutral terms. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that we use masculine terms when faced with a choice. This does not mean that God is "male" (one Sephira notwithstanding). It simple means that we tend to approach "him" in a certain way. The "gender of God" question is literal in mythologies and allegorical in modern Western religions. Israel is NOT God's "husband" in the Tanakh, but is sometimes God's "wife." Does this mean that God is male? Of course not. It's simply a direction of OUR approach to "him." It shouldn't be hard to say something like, "Judaism does not see God as actually being male or female. In strict terms, God has no gender. However, for (give your non neutral pronoun limitations) reasons we approach God as "him" in certain prayers, etc. etc." And the elo-im connoting God in a masculine way and Y-W- in a feminine way are possible too. It's a simple sourced paragraph, rather than pages and pages of argument. OF COURSE GOD ISN'T REALLY MALE. I don't think anyone has been arguing that.Tim (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of Islam. The header should give accurate information. I.e., that God is not seen as having gender in Judaism. If you want to add information about imagery, do so in the Judaism section of the article. Not in the header. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is more important to Judaism than the question of God and gender:

"(JTA) n Israeli rabbis have declared giraffe’s milk kosher. A team of rabbis and Bar-Ilan University scientists have deemed giraffe’s milk fit to join the kosher menu, Yediot Achronot reported. Giraffes chew their cud and have cloven hooves, which qualifies them as kosher under biblical law. But attempts to breed them for meat were abandoned long ago, because no one knew for sure where on the animal’s long neck the butcher’s knife should land according to Jewish law. But, according to the experts cited by Yediot, giraffe’s milk is kosher for consumption because technically it is a kosher animal."

I'm inserting this here in the discussion just to point out how unimportant this question is TO Judaism. It's a theoretical perspective of US in relation to God and not GOD in relation to us. Ultimately God is what he is and we relate to him in certain ways. But the theoretical implications are not perceived as important. They exist, yes. Are they important in an archetypal way? Maybe. Are the PERCEIVED as important? Not really. So, then, why all the argument? Let's give a few quotes showing a range of perspectives with a caveat that gender assumptions are pre-conscious at best. They may be underlying, but they are not a conscious focus for the religion.Tim (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, interesting. I think you might be saying that God's gender is not really part of the teaching of Judaism. It's just not a question that comes from inside the religion. If we ask the question from outside the religion looking for a reliable source, we could end up finding nothing, or distorting the religion to fit our question.

It would be nice if there were more editors willing to discussing issues vitally relevant to the article like these. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't quotes from Rabbis show that this is an important point within the religion? If it's not important, are they not wasting their time and making a mockery of their devotion to god? Yobmod (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from Rabbis show that this appears. The prayer books are about "our Father" and "our King" -- not our Mother or our Queen. The Hebrew Bible contains metaphors of our being God's children or God's wife. God is never depicted as OUR wife. And yet there is also the metaphor of God hovering over his children like a mother hen. In traditional Jewish allegory the Song of Songs is allegorically translated to be about God and Israel (to replace the man and the woman lovers in the literal text). God IS approached as if he is male -- but also known not to be. This is a limitation of us instead of a limitation of him. "He" is not limited to "masculinity" so much that we are limited to approaching him in some singular way at any given time. But this is not an emphasis in Judaism. It's not formally codified in theology any more than other things are -- because Judaism doesn't focus on the theoretical. While Christianity is replete with systematic theologies, Judaism is not. You can describe a tendency in the wording or prayers or allegories but not find formal theologians in Judaism saying "thou shalt look on God with such and such gender in thine allegories."Tim (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article from Yediot Achronot was unfortunately poorly researched. In fact, giraffe has always been considered kosher, and there's never been an issue of where on its neck it should be slaughtered. On the contrary, a blind person could slaughter a giraffe in the kosher manner, since the permissible area is vastly larger than that of other animals. Giraffe is not generally eaten because it's expensive and because giraffes are often protected.

There is a Jewish view on God, and it is that God does not have gender. I've brought sources to that effect, while no one has brought any counter-sources. This should be a dead issue. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one source we have says the Tanakh presents God with non-feminine gender. Two sources do not address gender but sex. Yes, Lisa, it is a dead issue. Unless you can find a source that says the Tanakh does not present God with masculine gender. That shouldn't be hard if it's as popular a view as you suggest. The fact is there are several views, Judaism is broader than the Tanakh. All notable POVs, like a masculine and a non-feminine God can be included.

By all means include your POV even without sourcing it. I suspect it can be sourced, so I'll add the cite request tag. But you are not free to remove sourced statements. I will add additional sources regarding God's gender in the Tanakh. Many say masculine, some say non-feminine, as regards the Tanakh, though, few would say the Lord of Hosts is non-masculine. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your contention that gender is not the same thing as sex where discussions of God is concerned is tendentious, and lacking in any support. I've raised this half a dozen times, and you've ignored it the same number of times.

I've also raised any number of times that "The Tanakh says" and "Judaism says" are not the same thing. Jews are not Karaites. If you want to bring up what it says in the Tanakh as evidence for what Judaism says, that's original research and synthesis on your part. In any case, it's out of line for Wikipedia.

I haven't read through all of the arguments that have gone on in this article, but I'm starting to understand why there's an RfC about you. You keep saying the same thing over and over and ignore all responses to it.

I have stipulated that God is presented in the Tanakh with masculine imagery. This does not change the fact that Judaism views God as not having gender/sex. Those two terms are used interchangably, because they were used interchangably by everyone up to about 30 years ago. The fact that they have been separated by some people since then does not require Jewish sources to adopt such a separation.

I am giving you fair warning, Alastair. I have pointed out three things to you:

1. Judaism's view is not determined by the imagery used in Tanakh
2. Judaism does not recognize a difference between gender and sex
3. I do not, and have not, denied that the Tanakh uses masculine imagery for God

If you once more post as though I have not said these things, I will add that as an issue on your RfC. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism don't seperate gender and sex? So they don't recognise the existance of trangendered people? I think every psychologist in the world sees a difference. Do you just mean "historically"? Or has the church ignored all the research on Gender roles and identity in the last century? (It's an honest question - i'm sure some religions probably have).Yobmod (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Judaism does not separate them, and no, Judaism has never recognized the existence of trans people. Orthodox Judaism does not to this day. Try and have some historical perspective here. Judaism doesn't follow social trends. As recently as 13 years ago, even the gay community was ostracizing trans people. You can't read today's worldview back into traditional Judaism.

And what does "the church" have to do with Judaism? -LisaLiel (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that Judaism has NEVER applied gender to sex in dealing with God. Judaism routinely deals with God in masculine gendered language, and only occasionally in feminine, but only Kabbalists would say God had any male sex -- and even they are being metaphoric.Tim (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've again started talking about gender, then ended up with sex. They are not the same: the first is a social construct, the second a biological fact. God could have no sex, but easily be regarded as one gender. So far the cites ssem to say emphatically that God has no sex, but do not speak to gender. If modern rabbis don't know the difference, we could treat the cites as saying both no sex nor gender, but it seems to only be historically that there was no divisin of meaning, not nowadaysYobmod (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can say, if you want, that "modern rabbis don't know the difference." But that's POV. It's more accurate to say that modern rabbis don't accept the claim that there's a difference. Even where there is a rabbinic view that accepts post-op trans people as their new sex, it is because their anatomical sex has changed.

Just because it's in vogue to say there's a difference between the two these days doesn't mean it's a fact. And it doesn't mean that Judaism has to accept it.

Don't get me wrong. I do think there's a difference. "Sex is what's between your legs; gender is what's between your ears". I get it. But even if it's an opinion I agree with, it's still just an opinion. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if gender and sex are the same to modern rabbis, then the sources seem fine to state "God has no gender". Btw, gender isn't just in vogue - it's the mainsteam psyciatric medical view. If gender and sex were the same then "gender identity disorder" wouldn't exist, and there would be no such thing an "gender non-conforming children".

And i didn't say that "modern rabbis don't know the difference" - the sentence started with "if", making it subjunctive, with an entirely different meaning. Quoting out of context isn't very nice :-(. Yobmod (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. Maybe I should have said, "One can say, if you want, that 'modern rabbis don't know the difference.' But that's POV." I wasn't claiming that you were asserting this. My point remains, though. Just because modern psychology says there's a difference doesn't mean that there is -- factually -- a difference. It certainly doesn't mean that there's a difference that needs to be recognized by Judaism.

And it's irrelevant in any case. There's not a single traditional Jewish source that differentiates between gender and sex. There wasn't even a Hebrew word for "gender" until about 10 years ago when the Hebrew Language Academy in Israel coined one. No word for it means the concept doesn't exist.

And Yobmod, I don't get what you mean about "if gender and sex were the same then there'd be no GID." That doesn't make any sense. It only means that there'd be people who are unhappy with their gender/sex. If you want to acknowledge that a person who feels his or her gender to be different than his or her sex is experiencing something real, rather than simply having psychological issues, that's fine. And once again, I will state for the record that I agree. GID is real. But the fact that I think so and the fact that you think so and the fact that a lot of shrinks think so... none of that makes it objective fact that Judaism has to recognize. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In ancient polytheism the deities had a literal sex. But even then some ambiguity could exist, and in fact the uroborotic state was BOTH genders! In the creation myths a single uroborotic state was separated to form creation. In some Hindu myths the deities could be male or female, as the metaphor needed. For all of human history, "god" and "parents" necessarily had either plural gender or hermaphroditic gender or metaphoric gender -- except for the most ancient which may have simply had female gender. The reason? Simple: where do babies come from? We know on the most simple level, from the mother. On a more developed level, from the father as well. On the patriarchal level, from the father through the mother. That's basically what we've had an opportunity to document from established sources here... were it not for the edit wars, accusations, recriminations, etc. etc... We are fighting a holy war over here! I'd very much like to propose that we use all of the wonderful energy and time we have toward documenting this fabulous subject that says something about the image(s) in which we find ourselves to be made. I feel like we're kids in the park: "my (gender of) god can beat up your (gender of) god." Or, maybe on a more elemental level we're all shouting "Yo Mama!"Tim (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, "No word for it means the concept doesn't exist". There's something to be said about that (pro and con). I think a word definitely helps, but even words have slippery definitions, and concepts can be carried by connotations. I don't necessarily have a single word for "that special look" one person can give another, but they'll both have the concept. And when my cat trips me up every morning, waits for me to stumble, and then pointedly rushes to the food cabinet with his "special look" he definitely has a concept in mind!Tim (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to comment here that it is really nice to see on topic discussion. The distinction between gender and sex has only been made in the last 50 years, and some references to it are strongly ideological (See Money quote "doctrinal basis" at Gender#Biology of Gender). So, although I disagree with Lisa on this point, she reflects intelligent educated readers who will have reservations about the neologism "gender as gender role", and about its ideological assumptions. Hence, John Money, who invented the term "gender role" is an essential source for the article.

Whatever people may think of the article title, it is not Sex of God. I think it somewhat unlikely such an article will ever be written. The view that the One Supreme Being has physical sexual characteristics is so marginal as to be WP:UNDUE. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Alastair, to that I would differ! I can think of at least one major religion that belives the Supreme Being had sex with a woman. But that's another topic...Tim (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touché! Nice one Tim! ;) Yes, I see your point. Strangely enough, it has already been discussed at this article under Gender of the Holy Spirit. The Gnostics wrote on this very point. It all goes to show how important sources are to contributing to this article. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor just removed the "awkward expression" tag from the first sentence. I've restored it. We can discuss the matter here.

• The gender of God has generally been considered to be masculine.

The obvious problem is that we don't have a source that says this. Does this include prehistoric times? Was God a concept at those times? (The Bible says it was.) In what way does it account for the majority of religions which are animist, even to this day? And so on, and so on ...

There are a maybe half a dozen major religions that believe in a God, and thousands that have more variation. It just so happens that the Abrahamic religions, although representing a minority of the world population, are by far the best known in the English speaking world.

The expression of the sentence is also awkward. People do not consider the abstraction gender-of-God to be masculine. A more direct expression would be

• God is generally described with masculine gender.

More accurately still,

• God is frequently described in terms of masculine gender roles.

However, we are still assuming the term God is meaningful, which it isn't in the vast majority of religions, just in some of the largest ones.

Perhaps the article needs to go back to its original title God and gender. I don't think so, but there are pros as well as cons. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The expression of the sentence is also awkward. People do not consider the abstraction gender-of-God to be masculine". Yes, that was my concern. Ideally we would get the whole expression 'gender of God' into the lead, as that's how intros are generally supposed to work, but I can't see any good wording that will allow that.

"However, we are still assuming the term God is meaningful, which it isn't in the vast majority of religions". This isn't something that can be discussed until we've agreed on the article's scope. Ilkali (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The third option here seems best. It's unfortunate that the article title cannot be used in the first sentence, but it is not a requirment, AFAIK?

The discusion of whether God is meaningful is immaterial to the lead. Everyone knows what it means. Societies without a concept of God can be ignored when talking about his/her gender. We don't worry about whether Quantum machanics was meaningful to cave-men in it's article.Yobmod (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When last I read the MoS, the title (normally a single word) is to be the first in the sentence, if phrasing things that way is not awkward. List articles don't start with the word "List", though the MoS recommends titles of lists should start with that word. You're right, Yobmod, it's no big deal, the current sentence doesn't start with the words, it's common sense to be flexible if it makes things easier for a reader. It's nice to be agreeing with Ilkali here too.

Yobmod, you and I also agree about the relative merits of the three sentences if consideration is restricted to what are known as henotheistic religions (one main God, fuzzy about potentially other Gods).

And we agree discussion of the meaning of the terms shouldn't lie in the lead. It does need to happen, just not up front.

The problem is, as I noted, very few religions actually only have one God. Judaism, Islam and Sikhism jump to mind, but I find it hard to extend beyond those three. Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians could be included, but Mormonism would be excluded (Mormonism allows of multiple gods/Gods). Trinitarian Christianity would be a boundary case, God doesn't quite have gender in a Trinitarian framework, the persons of the Trinity have gender. Because the persons of the Trinity are perceived as united in action, hence role, just maybe Trinitarian Christianity could speak of God's gender.

If you think carefully about the Athanasian Creed, you will see why "Three Persons but one God" wouldn't really fit an article restricted to the Gender of God in the sense of God a non-Christian western reader assumes.

But Hinduism, Shinto, Wicca, Greek, Roman, Egyptian and other views are clearly excluded, yet these are full of supernatural beings, many gendered, some not.

The other problem is that the religions that best fit a presumption of a single God agree that they do not address the same God. God is "in the eye of the beholder" if you like. René Descartes even proposed a hypothetical Deceitful Demon rather than beneficent Creator, not seriously of course, just a "thought experiment".[6][7] That God is not the God religions worship, even if all religions did worship the same conception.

Perhaps we should simply delete all the religions and look at the various proposals of western philosophy, though even then, Plato and the Stoics often refer to "the gods" (oi theoi in Greek) rather than God as Thomas Aquinas and British Empiricism did.

I don't know what the answer is, just that the subject of the article shouldn't be determined by what we assume about words, the words need to be chosen to clarify the subject (just like where bold goes in the first sentence).

What do you think about taking a philosophical, rather than a religious approach, Yobmod? Alastair Haines (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It's nice to be agreeing with Ilkali here too". Can we also agree that the content of the lead depends heavily on the scope of the article, and that we haven't reached a conclusion on that yet? Ilkali (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the "awkward expression" tag - could we not invent new tags and put them in by hand? If it's really necessary to have a superscript "awkward expression", there should be a template for it. But the reader of an article doesn't need to be told that something is awkward.

On topic, I agree that this wording is indeed awkward. Something like "God is often considered to have masculine gender" could work. --Alynna (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think every sentence in the introduction needs to be sourced, as the introduction is roughly a summary of the article. Sources should be provided in the body of the article, with more detail. --Alynna (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors argue that leads should not contain sources at all, since if all they do is summarise an article based on reliable sources, the sources will be in the article anyway. I'm inclined to agree with that, though it's a guideline with exceptions. But I agree with you, this article is not an exception. It shouldn't say things in the lead that aren't sourced in the article.

One problem with the current lead is it both says things the article doesn't say, and doesn't say things that are already sourced.

Another is that it is trying to express a POV, rather than adopting the NPOV. Since people don't agree whether there is a God or not, and even when they do agree there is a God they don't agree about who he is or what he's like, or even if there's only one of him, we can't assume those things in the lead. This article is not about answering a question, but about presenting a range of quite different answers.

The fact that English language usage of God is normally a proper name for the Christian God also needs careful treatment.

We can add the POV tag in a week or so to see if we can get some help via wider discussion of this point over the next few months. Unless we can find a way of generalising the reference in the meantime that is. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that the English language usage of God is normally a proper name for the Jewish God. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the Christians here would be okay granting Jews precedence in the ID.Tim (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect no longer Tim. Verified. I am Christian, and consider it important to acknowledge, not grant, that the Jewish God must have precedence. There is no Christianity without him, but that's a long story, not for this page. There's another one for that, beginning with "Sh", but let's let sleeping dogs lie. Alastair Haines (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's no Christianity with Him, but that's also neither here nor there. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, we should keep things focused on the human and historical. Although each religion will feel that God will not CLAIM the other religions, I'm sure we can acknowledge that other religions DO claim God. Jews do not claim the Christian God, but certainly Christians claim the Jewish one. Although only God himself can claim one, the other, neither, or both, God doesn't appear to be an editor... and we'd strongly suspect any screen name that claimed that he was! ;-) In any case, I think Christians would be okay with "the Jewish God" or "the God of Israel." Jews would not be okay with "the God of Jesus." So, between the two, NPOV for those two religions is okay with the expression "the God of Israel."Tim (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)" "[reply]

I think God of Israel is probably our best bet (despite the fact that no one here would argue that His "realm", if you will, consists only of Israel, which seems to be implied by the title) because that way everyone knows immediately what we're talking about and we can stay away from divisive terms like the Christian God or the Jewish God. L'Aquatique[review] 17:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Besides, "Christian God" or "Jewish God" isn't about "God" as the subject, but the theological perspective of the group. "God of Israel" has a more neutral conotation, because it seems centered on the Deity originating in human consciousness in a historical setting (i.e. ancient Israel) rather than the developed perspectives of modern groups.Tim (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than try to summarize the pieces of each religion, I've put in a proposed intro that summarizes the subject and states that individual religions are dealt below. There are limited options to "gender of God"; 1) either literal or allegorical, and 2) either polytheistic or monotheistic. The rest can just go below just fine, and doesn't need all the citation up top.

In other words -- the intro is "what the heck do you mean by 'gender of God'?" instead of "what are all the examples in a bunch of different religions?"

Those are already dealt with individually.Tim (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-)Tim (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Tim, that looks excellent! Love, love, love it! L'Aquatique[review] 21:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim, it addresses all my concerns too.

Given that some religions view the language of their scriptures as inspired by the God they describe, and certainly express his "covenanting" towards them, it may be worth expressing that gendered language expresses not simply the way people relate to gods, but also the way gods relate to them.

Examples:

"I am the soul-bride" Guru Granth (several places)—gendered language believer towards God.

"For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is the LORD of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth." Isaiah 54:5 (NASB)—attributed to God in verse 6, so God towards believer.

"For I betrothed you to one husband." 2 Corinthians 11:2—reciprocal God and believer, mediated by apostle.

But that's just a quibble, I think the lead now describes the intention of whoever started this article, and says it clearly. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to leave discussion of individual religions to the dedicated sections and to use the lead to discuss what it means for God to have gender. I do think there are scoping issues here, though. Given that this title is "Gender of God", I would argue all deities other than God are outside the scope of the article, and are only relevant in how they inform the discussion of God's gender. Ilkali (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali, even polytheists have an individual god that is their deity. I've spoken to pagans who recognize the existence of other deities in their system, but basically focus their worship on one. A polytheist would speak of "Gender of God" in reference to his personal deity, and would just as likely capitalize "god" as anyone else. So, while your idea is good in theory, in practice it doesn't necessarily work out the way someone from a monotheistic background might expect.Tim (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we using the term God to denote any entity ever referred to with that term, or are we using it as in the God article? If the former, would it not make sense to relabel the article, since there are other (likely more dominant) interpretations of the term and people might be misled by the title?

Either way, for an entity to be within the scope of the article, it has to be God (whatever we decide that might mean). If it is God, we've no need to refer to it as anything else. So, for example, why "The gender of God can be either a literal or allegorical way that a deity is viewed" rather than "The gender of God can be either a literal or allegorical way that God is viewed". Ilkali (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali, thanks for your note. Since there are different religions here, each person's "God" is another person's "deity." The subjective tends toward "God" and the objective toward "deity" -- which is why I put "God" in the subject of the sentence and "a deity" in the predicate. It seemed to be the only way to be NPOV since there is no single definition of "God" for everyone.Tim (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate, because this is important: What are you taking 'God' to mean in the title 'Gender of God'? Ilkali (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "either a literal or allegorical" vs "an either literal or allegorical": I find your version jarring. Normally, with an "either X or Y" construct, it is expected that either X or Y could stand in place of the entire disjunction, but that's not the case with yours. Since "can be allegorical way that a deity is viewed" is ungrammatical, I find myself tracking to the end of the sentence looking for something that can be the start of a valid noun phrase.

Ilkali (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your editorial sensibilities here. "An either" sometimes mushes in the head like "A neither". I appreciate that "either a" kind of jars you. Please understand that "an either" jars me as well. Accordingly, I try to word things as if one reader is reading it out loud to a third person who is listening. Unambiguous, even audibly, can save a nanospark of brain time... Since the clause is intact, there's no need to run to the end to think the indefinite article is about anything but the words it is jammed up against. There's no comma to confuse things. Now, this morning I ate something... it was either a donut or some cereal. But it wasn't an either donut or some cereal...Tim (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Accordingly, I try to word things as if one reader is reading it out loud to a third person who is listening. Unambiguous, even audibly, can save a nanospark of brain time...". I don't think we can reasonably place much importance on those few nanosparks, since the content in question will be read rather than heard in almost all instances.

"Since the clause is intact, there's no need to run to the end to think the indefinite article is about anything but the words it is jammed up against". Would it not be grammatical to say "either a literal or allegorical way that a deity is viewed or a [something else]"? When readers encounter the either, they know there's at least one or coming and that at least one of those ors will delimit the disjuncts. But having found an or, there's no way of knowing (without reading further) whether it's the right one. And since your version is linguistically marked (because an article is modifying something outside its own scope - namely, the entire disjunction), some readers (myself included) will find themselves chasing a second or where none can be found. This, I think, would be responsible for a greater loss of "nanosparks". The solution is to avoid marked expressions.

"Now, this morning I ate something... it was either a donut or some cereal. But it wasn't an either donut or some cereal...". I'm not sure how you think this example is relevant. I have said nothing that implies I would prefer the latter version. I am arguing for wordings that are uncontroversially grammatical, which that is not. Ilkali (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That third party who is listening is quite often inside a person's head. When I really concentrate or enjoy something I'm reading, I "hear" the words. Don't you? And yes, we should account for all readers and listeners (even if they reside in the same person).
• Ilkali, you write

"Would it not be grammatical to say "either a literal or allegorical way that a deity is viewed or a [something else]"?"

• No, it would not be. You would need a comma after "either," and a second one after "viewed" to separate it from the most immediate "or" by creating a separate clause.
• I used the donut and cereal example to show that your own requirements do not help.Tim (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"That third party who is listening is quite often inside a person's head. When I really concentrate or enjoy something I'm reading, I "hear" the words. Don't you?". Whether you speak the words in your head or not, you most certainly don't rely on 'listening' to that simulation to be able to understand what is being communicated. Neither does anybody. When you hear the sentence he has to pause, is there any chance of you mistaking it for he has two paws?

"No, it would not be. You would need a comma after "either," and a second one after "viewed" to separate it from the most immediate "or" by creating a separate clause". 1) You would not be creating a separate clause but rather a separate noun phrase. 2) The presence of a comma, while possibly motivated by grammar, is not a part of it. Grammar does not enclose orthography. 3) I do not think any style guide would recommend putting a comma after 'either'. 4) Even if a comma were necessary before the or, that's of little relevance since a reader wouldn't see said comma any earlier than he saw the or - he'd still have to scan the sentence to reach it.

The donut and cereal example is an accidental misrepresentation and best and a strawman at worst. Again: I have said nothing that implies I would prefer the ungrammatical version. Please ensure you have understood my position before you attempt to parody it. If you wish clarification, I am happy to provide it. Ilkali (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali, can't we rest the previous arguments before creating a new one? For gosh sakes, I think yours doesn't read as well, but let's have a bit of perspective! We are wasting Wikipedia time in a pointless argument over two different readings that do not change the intrinsic meaning of the sentence. If this is what was going on with the Alastair situation... I think I'd get a little defensive after a while as well. If you really think that arguing is more important than substance -- then by all means change the wording. I think readers will be able to figure out what the heck you are trying to say.Tim (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is disingenuous. If you consider the matter so unimportant, why did you argue it up to this point? And why didn't you chastise me for arguing it at the beginning? What crime have I committed since then? Am I guilty of wanting to take this to its conclusion, or of not being persuaded by your arguments? Ilkali (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back with the motives again. I argued it up to this point because I'm a blithering idiot... to a point.Tim (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] This is semantics. A few grammar changes aside, can we all agree that the new intro is good and we will keep it? L'Aquatique[review] 17:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I bowed out the other day. I'm fine leaving it alone.Tim (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LTTP. I already changed it to a third phrasing, and by the fact that no one objected, it seems to have been acceptable. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The either/or disagreement is over, I think. But I still think we need to resolve the question of scope that was left open on the mediation page. Ilkali (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I still think we need to resolve the question of scope that was left open on the mediation page" (quoted from Ilkali, above)

Do you mean limiting the scope to a specific religious "God" or to the concept of Gender as applied to Deity in general? I think trying to limit it to a certain concept of "God" -- even one argued in a separate page -- drags THIS article into that contention. Rather than limiting the scope of the page, it actually breaks it. My vote is the concept of a "deity" in general with "gender" (whether semantic, actual, etc.). I think the current intro allows that and leaves us out of trying to figure out who "God" is, or even who's "God" we think is good enough to... er... examine...Tim (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no real reason why we should limit the scope. It's not like this is a paper encyclopedia where space is at a premium. Examining as many religions/religious outlooks as possible allows us to provide a variety of different examples which allows readetrs to draw their own informed conclusions. As long as they're sourced, of course. L'Aquatique[review] 18:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you mean limiting the scope to a specific religious "God" or to the concept of Gender as applied to Deity in general?". Please see the mediation page. To repeat the question I posted above: In your mind, what is the meaning of the term God in the title Gender of God? Is it the same as that used in God? Do you agree with Wikipedia having separate God and deity articles? Ilkali (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali -- we are NOT defining "God", nor is "God" even the immediate subject. This is about "Gender" as applied to the concept of Deity. As such, it involves culture, linguistics, and theological/mythological structure. Limiting it to a specific culture, for a particular Western Deity really doesn't address how and why we would, as humans, think or speak of a divine being in gender loaded terms and imagery. This is not about "God" per se, as much as it is about people. Such an article would require separate articles for each kind of deity or pantheon. Why not just put it here, with some reference to comparative religion (sourced, of course). Anything else would be the equivalent of doing far more than Wikipedia is set up for: pinning the proverbial tail on someone's sacred bull, and leaving the rest clamoring to pull down their own deity's jeans on a hundred different pages.Tim (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"we are NOT defining "God", nor is "God" even the immediate subject. This is about "Gender" as applied to the concept of Deity". Then there is a mismatch between its subject and its title. The article is called Gender of God. You cannot use a title like that and then not make any decision on what 'God' means. Ilkali (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali -- I must confess... you have me almost completely at a loss. We have the different deities in subsections. The only thing that is needed is a comparative religion section and then the page can be populated with any kind of religion that has any notability at all. Again... you have my jaw hanging loose (I just caught myself and shut it).Tim (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much simpler I can make this. 1) The article is called Gender of God. 2) An article title is not just an arbitrary string of words; the meaning of the title should reflect the subject of the article. 3) The title implies that God is the subject of the article. 4) You say that God is not the subject of the article. 5) This is a mismatch between title and subject.

If you want to discuss what 'Gender of God' means and what it implies about the subject of the article, kindly answer my above questions. Ilkali (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali -- I'm going to have to defer to my own "WP:DWT" (don't wast time). But I think I know who has the patience to keep up with you, and I would suggest you talk to him here.

Tim (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm wasting time, it's in trying to explain something important to someone who seems hell-bent on ignoring everything I write. If you are not willing to engage me in this, I hope you will not object if I make appropriate changes later. Ilkali (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the changes you make have any resemblance to your points, it would be in a completely new article, which I have welcomed you to create. And once you have that article, we can negotiate which title to use for which one. But what you are describing bears no resemblance to what this particular article is about (hence your "changes"). In any event, I am not Alastair, and neither am I Joshua -- and so I cannot stick around arguing in circles while the sun plummets from the sky over here. So, I bid you a good Shabbat, and ask that you make it such a peaceful one for yourself that we can have peace here. Again, if you want to make a completely different article, go ahead. And if you want to take over this title afterwards, we can all reach a consensus. But consensus is NOT about arguing, RfCs, Cabals, or people who have WAY too much time. Please, go right ahead and make an article that bears no resemblance to this one. But please, do it on a different page. Good Shabbos.Tim (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Unindent] I believe, and I hope I'm not putting words in others' mouths here, that what Tim is trying to say is that he favors a more liberal interpretation of the term God: basically that if someone worships a deity as their primary deity, that is their God and hence falls under the scope of the article. In other words, we are not just talking about the God of Israel, but all potential Gods, be they Hindu, Folk, or Abrahamic in origin. Does that make sense? L'Aquatique[review] 20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not argue for restricting to any particular God deity; if an entity is God then its gender is germane to an article called Gender of God. What I am saying is that Wikipedia distinguishes between the terms God and deity, as seen in there being a separate article for each. The title Gender of God means something different to Gender of deities, and I don't think that difference is being respected. Ilkali (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So... what's the difference? I can't come up with one myself. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the difference is the God article is about the God of Israel, and deity is about the concept of gods in general. In any case, I'm going on a much needed break now so I will see you guys on 14 July. Toodles, and have a great shabbat Lisa. L'Aquatique[review] 21:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ilkali's first point. "I would not argue for restricting to any particular God." The God article, likewise, is not about the God of Israel. In fact, I'm not sure where L'Aquatique gets that idea from.

While I disagree with Ilkali that there's any sharp distinction between God and deities in the context of the title of the article, and I'd prefer no change, it's certainly no big deal. Were a move to Gender of gods proposed, I'd not support it, but I'd not oppose it either. Gender of God seems a nice, simple, direct title for a subject more subtle than meets the eye. It has the distinct advantage of utilising the most common English word for deity.

Whichever title is chosen, it will either seem to favour monotheism (God), or seem to favour polytheism (gods or deities). As Tim mentioned above, many polytheists are actually devotees of specific members of pantheons (Hare Krishna is a popular example of this). Hence, choosing the singular respectful form is more inclusive than choosing plural forms, which are more foreign to monotheism than the singular is to polytheism. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, God is the principal or sole deity in religions and other belief systems that worship one deity. A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings. These are different things. We need to decide which one this is about. --Alynna (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the way I see the words:

1. God: a person's sole or principal deity.
2. a god: a deity.
3. the Deity: normally same as "God"
4. the deity: reference to a particular god in a pantheon.
5. a deity: a god.
6. Deity: seen in a qualitative sense.

Alastair knows enough Greek to appreciate this -- the nuance of John 1:1 in Greek is "and the Word was with the Deity, and Deity was the Word." In my opinion, that would be the most accurate translation of that passage.

However, it is not translated that way because we normally don't address our God in a neutral, antiseptic way, such as "Deity." So, in this case the most accurate translation is entirely inappropriate outside of a footnote.

That's where we are here. If English were simply DENOTATION, then "Gender of Deity" would probably be the most scientific title. But English also has USAGE. "Gender of God," while less "accurate" in a scientific sense, is certainly more appropriate in a generic usage resource like Wikipedia.

My vote, therefore, is to keep it the same.Tim (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both Alynna and Tim. Alynna first, God is a term of "personal reference", a name if you like, it can be used in prayers. Just precisely if this is meaningful, i.e. who, if anything, it refers to varies with speaker. It is a "confessional term" in many, but not all uses. As Alynna notes, the usage, if not other semantic associations, differs to that of deity.

Regarding my agreement with Tim, it extends even to interpretation of the Greek of John 1:1. A small (maybe growing) group of scholars are learning of and accepting research into Greek syntactic usage that reads John 1:1 this way (e.g. Daniel B. Wallace). Without going into details, the syntax may have provided a nice level of ambiguity, permitting understandings like "the Word was divine" or "the Word was a deity" or "the Word was God himself", without being too specific. As such, it can't quite be used as a proof-text for either of the two main competing views in the history of Christological debate.

Unfortunately, the subtleties of this go far beyond the scope of this article, but they do make the point Tim is recommending to us, gods have been controversial since the dawn of history, and generic words of personal reference—el, theos, deus, guð and so on—have been commonly utilized in discussion, in both primary and secondary sources. In fact, they are the more common terms, and English is no exception.

This article is about literature of faith in a God, gods or the Gods, not about experimental results performed on divinities and their social relationships. At least that's what the creators set it up as, and it has a vast literature to draw on. I think they were right, and I think Alynna's retitling of the article was also right.

I don't vote, but like Tim, I do "line up behind" the sources that offer the perspective he has presented. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References and notes is a standard heading for a single section per MoS. This is wise, since clear objective criteria to distinguish one from the other are not provided. That is also wise, since it allows appropriate flexibility to individual articles. If we are to separate references and notes at this article, the most simple objective criterion is that references are footnotes to edition and page of a verbatim quote, all other footnotes are "notes". However, that's only the most simple and objective approach, others are possible and permissible.

As it stands, though, we have an arbitrary distinction being made, in that a subjective judgement is being made by a single editor. It's simple to sort this out, the editor can specify the criteria, so they are subject to scrutiny, consensus and can be refined and followed by future editors.

Since what is being class as notes atm are references provided by myself, I will restore them to being references unless an objective system of classification is developed. I'm in no particular hurry, this doesn't seem like a big deal. Since someone else thinks it's important though, I'm happy to give them time to offer us some options. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the two things tagged as notes are not references provided by you. I added the first one, and it's not a reference at all. The second one grew out of your reference for calling the NRSV a "gender-neutral translation", but it is now a note, as it contains explanatory text as well as a quote used by that text. --Alynna (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "This makes it clear that God has masculine gender role, rather than male biological sex; as indicated by the pronoun He in the official English translation of Ille in the Latin original." has this as a source. However, that source says nothing about the gender role of God in Catholicism; it merely asserts that ille is masculine in Latin. Unless there's some source stating that God has a masculine gender role in Catholicism, we shouldn't be asserting that (especially when it's counter to the quote about God being neither man nor woman). Mairi (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe in God the [Parent] Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus/Joanna his/her only begotten child..." I think that it's clear that the Roman Catholic church does not believe that God has literal genitalia. At the same time, however, the terminology used for God is predominantly (though perhaps not exhaustively) masculine. No one wants to malign or misrepresent the Roman Catholic church, but we should be careful of not wording things in ways that people will commonly know is wrong.Tim (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I read this, the CCC ¶ 239 is the source that is being discussed in the text of the article. CCC ¶ 239 is the reference. If you follow the link, you will see an extended discussion of fatherhood at CCC ¶ 239. CCC ¶ 239 makes quite clear that God has the masculine role of fatherhood in the Bible (in now Pope Benedict's opinion, anyway). As it turns out, both the English and Latin of the short quote suggest this anyway.

I admit a lot of information and presumed knowledge is compressed in a short space. I'm quite happy to expand on Christian and Catholic commentary on the gender of God in the Bible. I can see how that would make things easier for a reader. I would have thought this article has plenty of Christian material already though.

One simple change would help though, I'll change "First Person of the Trinity" to "God the Father", which is the language of the CCC, the article to that point, and the most normal reference to him anyway.

Is it really contentious that Father incorporates reference to a masculine gender role? Alastair Haines (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, none of that says anything about God's gender role, and certainly not because of it's choice of pronouns. One could argue that, because of the images of motherhood (also mentioned in the CCC) God has feminine gender role. Or one could argue that God, transcending the human distinctions between sexes, can take any role as necessary. But my point is, nothing there uses the terminology "gender role", and inserting it makes our own assumptions. I think it'd be preferably to use the quote from the Catechism, and then have discussion of traditional depictions and terminology used for God in Catholicism (which are predominantly masculine). Barring, of course, some source about God having a gender role.

Ideally, the Christian section should be split out into Gender of God in Christianity, as it already dominates this article, and there's plenty more that could and should be included. But that's a different matter. Mairi (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be quite happy for "gender role" to be changed to "gender". In fact, that's precisely the way I had it originally. More people know the difference between gender and sex than know the difference between gender role and gender identity for example. The extra word was used to clarify different issues a previous editor raised.

I also agree that it's great to have liturgy and minority views under Christianity, because they do form a basis for a new article on Christian views of God's gender and extend beyond "summary style" at this one.

Proportions are way out since the new material was added, but that's not your fault for adding it Mairi, it's the fault of the rest of us for not building up Islam and other notable religions.

The important thing is, the CCC is clearly describing God in masculine terms, not male terms. Biblical language for God is masculine, not male according to the quote. It does not say:

• "He or she is neither man nor woman. He or she is divine." Inclusive.
• "It is neither man nor woman. It is divine." Impersonal neutral.
• "God is neither man nor woman. God is divine." Circumlocution.
• "beyond the distinctions between the sexes—neither man nor woman, but divine." Streamline.

It says:

• "He is neither man nor woman. He is God." Redundant masculine pronoun used twice—masculine role, not male sex.

I'm happy to add more explanation and sources to the article if this still not clear. God's Fatherhood is central to Jesus' preaching and to Christianity. It should be discussed proportionately. Really, Jesus' own masculinity should be discussed. Can the Messiah be female? Can a daughter of David inherit his throne?

As mentioned, this is all in a context of ¶ 239 exploring issues, but insisting that God is to be understood by Catholics as Father.

Again I mention, is the literal patriarchalism of official Catholicism at all contentious? I wouldn't have thought so. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text has been added to the Christian section that provides the reader with sourced information regarding recent views within the broad Christian tradition that are objectively distinguishable as recent—by publication date—and unorthodox—by contrast with the existing description of traditional (and still majority) Christian views.

This is an excellent thing! There's absolutely no reason for Wiki to exclude reliably sourced alternative views, especially when these are honestly presented for what they are.

It must be a slip on the part of an editor who removed a subheading summarising the existing text's own admission it reflected minority views, suggesting in the edit note this was an "arbitrary distinction". Obviously, the objective criteria of date, numerical representation and orthodoxy are only three ways in which the distinction is demonstrable. This is unlike, for example, the genuinely arbitrary distinction between notes and refs current in the present article.

Down with arbitrary distinctions. Amen. Hoorah for helpful objective ones. Nice to have consensus on that point at least. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with Alynna here. 'Alternative' has undesirable connotations, and I don't see why this material needs to be put under a sub-header. Ilkali (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, we're all agreed that artificial distinctions are out. I'll fix notes/refs accordingly. Subhead stays until it can be demonstrated from sources that the views in the subsection reflect Christian mainstream, as per my comments above that have not been addressed or refuted. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Subhead stays until it can be demonstrated from sources that the views in the subsection reflect Christian mainstream". I'll remind you for the umpteenth time that you do not own the article. You do not have any more influence than anybody else in deciding what stays and what goes.

Aside from that: The text itself clearly attributes the 'alternative' views to subsets of Christians. A header is not needed to convey the fact that this may not be mainstream thought. Ilkali (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we doing this again, Ilkali? Of course the subheader is appropriate. You cannot include something into "Christianity" that Christians do not include within their own self-definition, without some kind of specific demarcation. More in the next section.Tim (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Are we doing this again, Ilkali?". I'm not sure what you mean. Have we discussed this before?

"You cannot include something into "Christianity" that Christians do not include within their own self-definition". The text does not claim that the views are held by all Christians. In fact, it claims the opposite: "Recently, a few Protestant denominations", "The New Century Hymnal, the hymnal of the United Church of Christ (UCC), uses inclusive language", "The Metropolitan Community Church encourages inclusive language", etc. Each view is clearly attributed to a subset of Christians. How could anybody be misled by that? Ilkali (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we did this before -- on two other subjects. As for the demarcation, it makes it easy to find the exceptions so they don't get lost, or confused, with the norm.Tim (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, we did this before -- on two other subjects". Discussion, you mean? Yes, we did. I'm sorry you find it so arduous, but I think it's necessary.

"As for the demarcation, it makes it easy to find the exceptions". The problem is that there isn't a clear division. For example, the paragraph directly above the sub-header says: "A few recent theologians, while retaining masculine reference to Father and Son, have explored feminine alternatives for the Holy Spirit". Is this not a minority view? Why is it excluded from the 'alternative views' section?

There are relatively few religious beliefs held by everyone who identifies as a Christian. Precisely how rare does a belief need to be before it can be classified as an alternative view? Will everyone agree on what is and isn't 'alternative'? Ilkali (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali -- not discussion -- just edit warring. If you've noticed, I've tried to come into this as more of an outsider. I haven't changed content so much as just tried to clarify the wording or organization of the content that is already there. The POV is "clear English." But more importantly, it should be non-threatening, and at least shouldn't warrant an automatic "undo" as if it were POV. In any case, I agree with your example of a section being left out, and I made the re-organization you suggested and offered a subsection title that might be a little more clear than "alternatiive." I further agree that these are not necessarily alternative views so much as inclusive prioritization. The traditional male-gender references are not taken as literal sex, but inclusive language is not seen as necessary because non-literal-gender is assumed. The inclusive language, however, is a new priority, driven my modern cultural concerns more than theology (since ultimately the theology of both is the same).Tim (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously accusing me of edit-warring because I reverted one of your edits? Once? That nobody had reverted previously? Seriously? Ilkali (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali, we haven't started off right and I'm not sure how we'll be able to do better. Is a single revert an edit war by definition? No. Edit-skirmishing, perhaps? In any case, the value added for work on this page is astonishingly low compared to the overhead involved. It shouldn't BE this hard to keep a page easy to read.Tim (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In any case, the value added for work on this page is astonishingly low compared to the overhead involved". Am I expected to apologise for disagreeing with you? Ilkali (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Alastair. I don't have expectations. But "disagreement" isn't a problem on Wikipedia. "Disagreableness" is. You can get a lot of positive things done with disagreement, and everyone learns. But I don't see learning here, and precious little done. I could be wrong, but I don't think I've actually changed any content on the page today. I just put the major religions up top so they wouldn't get crowded out by a bunch of little groups (and even if you put them in "Christianity" they would crowd out Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism unduely). But look at how much clutter on the talk page has been created by a simple declutter job! It's the same thing that happened when I tried to clean up the intro. We got into a pointless argument that led me to just do your awkward suggestion and let someone else who speaks untangled English clean up later. If you just like to disagree with people, please find a forum somewhere. If you want to improve Wikipedia, start dealing with real issues.Tim (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open on Tim's proposal for dividing the article into major and minor religions. I don't think we need to do that, but I can also see advantages. Most readers will want the major religions, so I see major advantages in that.

I note that Ilkali reverted Tim's proposal without discussion. He claimed Tim's edit was POV and OR. What research did you do Ilkali, to establish that major and minor religions are not recognized in scholarship? What particular POV do you think he is expressing if you also think it is OR? You must have something other than your own opinion to revert without first seeking if other editors have more knowledge of sources than yourself, surely?

Fire away, we're always keen to hear from sources others have to offer, and reasoned cases made from those sources. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I note that Ilkali reverted Tim's proposal without discussion". I gave the reason in the edit summary. The appropriate step forward is then for Teclontz to argue his case on the talk page, not for his friend Alastair to ignore WP:BRD and revert the reversion. Ilkali (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ilkali is a user who is still demonstrating misuse of BRD and other Wikipedia policies and is being watched and warned by me. Reverting an edit 15 minutes after it was made is not BRD, if it is a habit, it is uncivil. Unless you make a case against Tim's suggestion, there is no burden of proof on him at all. I repeat my point above. Make your case, give us your sources. We are listening. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali, the edits I made were both in good faith, and in line with mainstream thought. There are a few major world religions and the rest are smaller religious groups. The demarcation became necessary when Branch Davidians were subheaded WITHIN Christianity!!! I have no idea who did that, but when it happened I took a closer look at the organization. It would be outside of the scope of the article to pick and choose and have Messianic Judaism a subset of Christianity (which some groups of it is), without having an entire theological-historical clad diagram showing the two main branches of Christianity (Eastern Orthodox and Western), then the subsections of Western (Roman Catholic and Protestant), then the subsections of Protestantism (Mainline and Evangelical), then the subheading of Messianic Judaism as a small branch among a host of others within Evangelicalism (and that's only the Messianics who are theologically Christian -- while a good many have a "Compound Unity" Godhead that violates the Nicene Creed). It would be cumbersome, argumentative, etc. Even worse, we'd have Christian Messianics (those within Nicene self definitions, such as David Stern), and non-Christian Messianics. And that's just the Messianics. What about Mormons? Ask any Mormon, and they're Christians, but ask them if they are Nicene, and they'll say they aren't. And ask Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox, and they'll INSIST Mormons are not Christians. Since the Council of Nicea IS the historical self-definition of Christianity, with only the filioque clause separating the East and the West, and since there is NO OTHER self definition accepted by this group of two billion people, then non-Nicenes (Branch Davidians, Mormons, and some "Compound Unity" Messianics) cannot be included as a subset of a group that specifically rejects them, with a self definition the smaller groups ALSO specifically reject. Since it is completely beyond the scope of the article to make theological distinctions (especially one that would bifurcate the Messianics into Christian and non-Christian groups), then the only recourse is to simply have major world religions and smaller groups. It's unambiguous, it's standard (there's only a handful of world religions), it leaves out considerations of theology that are beyond the scope of the article, it avoids subsuming non-Christian groups with a Christian category, and -- it's just CLEANER on the screen. The smaller groups were cluttering out the larger groups, like Islam. The re-org solves the problem and leaves the theological arguments to pages set up for them. Besides, it was a harmless re-org edit. The only bias on my part was cleanness and clarity -- oh, and a penchant for avoiding arguments that we do not seem to have in common.Tim (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental assumption that you are making is that Nicene doctrine is the defining characteristic for being Christian. That is POV and is only accepted by those who believe in the Nicene Creed. Of course, having made that assumption we would have to throw out every disciple of Jesus prior to 325. The Nicene Creed was not the major teaching of Jesus. You might want to research the definition of a disciple of Jesus as described by Jesus. More importantly, you might just want to refer to a dictionary for a definition of a Christian.

Your objective is for Wikipedia to stand as a judge over who is Christian and who is not based upon the definition of a group, a majority possibly, and that is POV. Also, we can do well to describe the beliefs or doctrines of churches, but we cannot begin to define the beliefs of individuals. When a doctrine, by its own believers, is incomprehensible it is not surprising that very few can explain it. I reject your premise entirely --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My premise is that religious groups define themselves, and that Wikipedia does not define them -- PERIOD. Wikipedia does not define Messianic Judaism as Judaism because the larger group (Judaism) does not accept that definition regardless of what the smaller group says. The same is true for Mormons respective to Christianity. The larger group (Christianity) does not accept the smaller group (Mormons) as a subset. It's simply a case of the larger group's self definition determining whether a smaller group is a subset. That's all. That's not POV. That's just clarity. I personally do not care whether the Nicene Creed is CORRECT. That has no bearing. Neither do I care if the rejection of Jesus by Judaism is CORRECT. It does not matter. It's simply a case of sets and subsets, giving priority to the larger group's self definition. You can't do it any other way. Jehovah's Witnesses define themselves as "Christians" -- but they define Nicene Christians as non-Christians! Worse, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Messianics (whether Nicene or not) reject each other! If smaller groups defined the larger groups, they end up throwing out those larger groups and each other, and the result is chaos on Wikipedia. So, you reject my premise. I invite you to create a sandbox and try to figure out a logical way to do the impossible.Tim (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least you are humorous. Would a non-Christians consider all of these subgroups as part of Christianity? We need to be careful we are not getting caught up in group definitions of others. Christians are a lousy lot for trying to get along because they all are focused on being the most real Christians. Muslims do little better. Should we as Christians say who is a real Muslim, Shia or Sunni and write articles accordingly. The world doesn't dice them up into their respective positions; they are all Muslims. The world happens to do the same thing with Christianity regardless of the way individual churches seek to divide themselves. Are we writing an encyclopedia on behalf of Christian churches or one for the world? Further, we have church articles where we get to explain to their heart's content about what other groups are not as good as they are or who is best. As for this article, we should ignore the pettiness of subgroup definitions and stick with major definitions.

As an aside, you will never find the LDS Church say that such and such church is not Christian. I am not sure what rejection you are talking about or how it applies to this topic. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Christians are a difficult lot sometimes. As for Islam, I believe their standard is a belief that Allah is the only God and Mohammad is his principle prophet. That would include both Sunnis and Shiites. Judaism is actually tougher, since the majority of religious Jews (Reform and Conservative) are often rejected by the Orthodox. But what makes it even weirder is that in Jewishese (my own term for the way Jews use terms differently from everyone else), the word "religious" MEANS Orthodox! So, a fervently passionate about God Reform Jew might say with full emphasis "I'm NOT religious!" Oh well. Evangelicals don't like that word either. "I'm not RELIGIOUS; I'm CHRISTIAN!" one might be heard to say. But I agree that this is an encyclopedia for Jews, Christians, Muslims, full blooded heathens and atheists all around. There is no perfect definition for a religion -- nor can there be this side of whatever pearly gates someone has staked a claim to. There's just "bigger" and "smaller." And, thankfully, the bigger only disclaim the smaller -- they don't SEND them to that perfection we're all in no hurry to get to.Tim (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain why Branch Davidians is the heading title? Exactly how many followers is in this group? Also, do you think it might be just a little bit silly to have the 4th largest Christian church, the LDS Church, as a subset of Branch Davidians? This reeks of highly POV. I am moving both to Christian. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Branch Davidians isn't the heading title. "Smaller Religious Groups" is. As for LDS being the 4th largest Christian church -- tell that to two billion Christians and see if they wouldn't be a tad puzzled by that statement. Or, at least talk to the first three and the last six of your assumed top ten! It doesn't mean that they are "wrong." It's just that they are different. Well, even LDS would agree with that. After all, if a missionary were at your door and you said, "I'm already Catholic" they'd be very happy to try to convert you. As a general rule of thumb, if you're trying to convert someone, you're probably something different. Nu?Tim (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always value Tim's comments, but I also value Storm Rider going into bat for Mormonism as both a major religion and Christian. I do think we need to settle this based on sources. We need objective criteria. Numbers are certainly part of that for major/minor. Official statements of doctrine and alleigance are important also.

Additionally, we can't have our cake and eat it too. Add Mormonism to Christianity and we need to add Messianic to Judaism. I'd like to see Storm try that and get away with it. ;)

Let's work together on this. Find methodology and sources to settle the issue, not just opinions. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the fourth largest Christian denomination in the United States.^[1]. Another would be for Jehovah's Witnesses and LDS as branches of Christianity. Do we need more?

If you are looking for what individual churches think about other churches we each could find a plethora of them; however, that is beyond the scope of this article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storm, I have no doubt that you will find a number of sources that say Mormonism is Christianity. There are plenty to say that they aren't. Both sets, however, are based on different criteria. Different criteria cannot rationally be used in conflict with each other in a single encyclopedia without creating internal contradictions. My suggestion is simply to let the set be self-defined, and subsets are either within or outside of that definition. Mormonism is within "Christianity" only to the same extent Messianic Judaism is within "Judaism." In both cases the smaller set will claim to be the true heirs to the name of the larger set. In both cases the larger set would reject the smaller set as a subset. If you go with the claim of the smaller set, then you have to determine WHICH of competing and mutually exclusive smaller sets to choose from: Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Moonies, etc. Each claims to be the heir to Christianity to the exclusion of the others. It's not feasable, and NOT NPOV to go with the smaller sets, because then you have to choose which of the smaller sets invalidates all other smaller sets as well as the larger set. To say that Mormonism is not "Christianity" as it has been historically self defined, is not to say that Mormonism is wrong. Mormonism, in fact, could be the ultimate truth -- BUT IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT TRUTH from "Christianity." That is, if Mormonism has the ultimate truth, then Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, and Christians, do not have it. This is not a value judgment by any means. It's simply a fair use of words in their historical contexts.Tim (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly disagree. Independent, third party, objective sources claim JW's, LDS, Messianic Jews, etc. are all part of Christianity. The only definitions one can use to segregate the real Christians from the false ones are SUBJECTIVE. There is no objectivity to those definitions because they based on a specific set of doctrines, i.e. a specific church's doctrine.

I support using a definition based upon the dictionary:

• 1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
• 2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
• 3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
• 4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
• 5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
• 6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.
• 7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
• 8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.

To support your definition is to accept the definitions of some groups and deny the rest. That is not acceptable on Wikipedia. We are not arguing about who is right, where truth lies; in fact, we could not care less. If you can show me any secular definitions of Christianity where JW's, Mormons, etc. are not part of Christianity, please do so. If you cannot, then desist and list all Christian groups under Christianity.

On a separate note, has anyone considered the value of fringe ideas? Why on earth is are the Branch Davidians of value. Did they ever have more than a few hundred converts. Also, the reference given for Messianic Jews was for a small group, but it is hardly representative of the entire group or is it? I advise that fringe should stay fringe and there is not need to mention every minuscule group that exists.

Well, I think we're making progress. Dictionary definitions are an excellent reliable source on which to base distinctions. There are important draw-backs, though. In English, we say the Sun rises and sets, but we understand the scientific deficiencies of such statements. Clearly, calling Spain a Christian country, or Indonesia an Islamic one, is common usage, but not necessarily encyclopedic usage. In fact, self-definition is key to encyclopedic treatment in the specifically national usage of religious terms. Actually, that's key to excluding Messianic Judaism from Judaism (not that I'm saying we need to be bound to agreeing with that).

I'd propose another factor we need to consider is that when writing about views that are held by parties other than the writer (i.e. the NPOV), those views are expressed as authentically to the originators of those views as possible. That will involve noting distinctions the holders of those views make themselves. One obvious necessity is to avoid making POV "lumpings together". This is also typical of the scientific method anyway. Note distinctions, blur them at the risk of contaminating your data.

There needs to be a limit to this, of course, eventually some views are so minority, or so divergent from the parent view that they are best off simply being excluded.

Anyway, Sikhism doesn't answer to English dictionaries for its doctrines and distinctions, nor do Judaism or Christianity. Our current challenge is connecting a reader who has only dictionary English with the mainstream view of each major faith, and with significant minority traditions within those faiths or in addition to them.

I'm sure we would err, in science, in good faith, in policy and in common sense if we were to ignore either English usage or the religious sources themselves—this is an English language article about religious sources (unless there's some scientific data on God's gender we should be using as a source).

Can anyone think of an analogous classification system in an area other than religion, say politics or psychology or something, how is that normally handled? Alastair Haines (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I note Storm left out one of the dictionary definitions.

9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.

In Indonesian, kristen and katolik are two different religions.

I also note that, before the Reformation, catholic meant "true Christian", and it still does in Roman Catholicism.

I'm not advocating splitting Protestant and Catholic in the article, but nor do I condemn the suggestion. I'm just noting that even the dictionary source doesn't resolve the issue for us on its own. In fact, by specifying Protestant groups as one usage, it actually broadens the areas we need to be considering. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Compact Oxford Dictionary simply has: 1) adjective, relating to or believing in Christianity or its teachings; 2) noun, a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity. But aren't we supposed to do better than a dictionary?

My only point is that this is a group of people, like Judaism or Islam or Buddhism who say what they believe and what they do not believe -- and who is one of them and who is not one of them. I admit that it can get a bit problematic at times. A person born of a Muslim father, a Jewish mother, and who grew up to believe in Jesus could end up being claimed by all three religions because of their specific religious laws. Such complications are rare, however. And though the hypothetical individual is theoretically claimed as a member of all three, he would be not be considered by all three as a practicing member.

Do Christians define who is a Jew? No. Do Jews define who is a Muslim? No. Does Wikipedia define who is a Christian? Emphatically, no. We report. We do not define. We disseminate information. We do not create it. Christianity is a group that is aware of itself. It tells us who is a member, just as Judaism tells us who is a member, and Islam tells us who is a member.

Basically, what you are trying to say is this -- "only non-members can define who is a member of each group." That is as unencyclopedic as it gets. It may survive a dictionary, but not an encyclopedia. If you want to do dictionary work, go ahead. But if you want to do an encyclopedia, then let self defining groups -- especially ones famous for self definitions, do so. Anything else creates the chaos we are experiencing here. Can you imagine THIS amount of confusion actually being created by the article itself? God help us!Tim (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I am saying is that groups can only identify themselves, how they identify other groups is irrelevant. What you are doing is tacitly agreeing to be POV. There is a huge distinction being made between how a group self-identifies and what groups believe about other groups. I have provided objective references on many groups that are identified as Christian. You have not provided any objective references that have contradicted this position. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storm, your dictionary definition is broad enough to include Islam! They believe that Jesus is the Messiah and that he will come again. And at least they are monotheists! Strictly speaking, they are closer to Christianity than Mormonism is. You are creating a false distinction, too: "No, what I am saying is that groups can only identify themselves, how they identify other groups is irrelevant". That doesn't work, because when a person claims that Mormons are Christians, they are defining Christianity in a way that Christianity has unambiguously (and sometimes lethally) rejected for 1600 years. You can't do that. You can't destroy a 1600 year old definition held by 2 billion people in favor of something less than 2 centuries old held by a few million. And if you were to create a clad diagram of world religions, Mormonism isn't even in the same category. Christianity belongs to a larger set of monotheistic religions. Mormonism doesn't. It's not even a subset of the superset that includes Christianity. You can pull sources out of a hundred different places, but none of them will have any weight compared to the Nicene Creed as the explicit self-definition of "Christianity". Christians aren't trying to impose a definition on Mormons. They are simply stating what is and isn't them. Do you really need a link to the Nicene Creed? I'm astonished that you are saying I haven't provided objective evidence. It's the only objective evidence that qualifies.Tim (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I have supplied a two references above that identify both LDS and JW's as part of Christianity. You have provided your opinion and some analogies to fit with your opinion, but you have offered no references from objective sources. If you don't have one, that's okay, but please do not continue banging your drum that it is the correct definition when all that has been offered is your opinion.

The chart below clearly identifies restorationism as part of Christianity. Both JW's and LDS are clearly part of restorationist movement.

Storm, it's not me banging the drum, it's yourself. The Nicene Creed IS the objective evidence, and if you look at the definition for "restorationist" in the Wiki article you clipped it from, you'll see that restorationists believe that no branches of Christianity actually represent Christianity. Restorationists do NOT consider themselves to be members of the same religion as Christians. They consider themselves "Christians" to the exclusion of all branches of Christianity: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical. Rather than proving your point, that chart, in the context of the article, proves mine: Mormons are only "Christianity" if Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, and Evangelicals are NOT. That's the entire POINT of "restorationism."

I invite you to cite a single source that Christians historically use as the litmus test for who is and who is not a Christian group that has the universal acceptance and consistent 1600 year record as the Nicene Creed. You can't, however, and instead resort to a dictionary definition that's broad enough to include Islam, and a jpeg clipped from a Wiki article from a section that proves my point.Tim (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation seems fruitless. You ignore all requests to provide references and continue to explain your POV. I have provided two references here that demonstrate that religious experts place JWs and LDS within Christianity. I understand that you have an opinion and I respect it. I also understand that several churches have specific sets of doctrine that are important to them and their own understanding of religion. However, there is no single group or groups that OWN Christianity or are in a position to claim their exclusive right to it. If I am mistakenn, please provide a reference for it. All that you have been able to do is demonstrate a history of certain groups within Christianity and how they perceive themselves and others. I think we need to step back and allow others to offer their references and comments on how to proceed. I have not reversed your POV edit out of a desire to avoid silly edit warring, but do not understand my lack of reverting as any sign that I agree with your edits. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my POV, Storm. It's simply a logical impossibility that you are postulating: 1) "We Mormons are Christians, and" 2) "we believe Christianity is false." It's a non-sequitor. If you believe that a religion is false, then you DON'T believe it. Period. It's like a Protestant claiming he's a Roman Catholic. Well, which is he? A Protestant or a Roman Catholic? You can't really be both. I gave one reference: the Nicene Creed. There aren't any others to give, because there aren't any other universally accepted self-definitions for Christianity. All other creed and confessional statements are more limited in scope. You are citing Wikipedia clips are "religious experts"? Come again? Do I really need to pull up reference after reference from Christians of all denominations that state that Mormonism is NOT Christianity and is not even Monotheistic? If you need me to, I will. But... ah, you don't WANT any statements from CHRISTIAN sources, do you? You keep saying that only SECULAR sources can define Christianity, and then claim that those SECULAR sources are religious experts? Again you are pulling a non-sequitor. Are they secular, or are they religious experts? Make up your mind. In any case, I'd welcome some third parties to suggest some alternate criteria, because the ones you are asking for cannot be provided: secular religious experts to show that a person can be a member of a religion that he insists is false. You leave me bewildered at how to even begin.

"However, there is no single group or groups that OWN Christianity or are in a position to claim their exclusive right to it" -- I believe that's EXACTLY what restorationists claim, which is precisely why they exclude themselves from the larger set of the other groups. It is their insistence on exclusive ownership of "true" Christianity that demonstrates that they claim that they are not inclusive within that same group. Do Nicene Christians own the term "Christianity"? Of course not. Anyone can call themselves a Christian whether they are Nicene or not. But an encyclopedia article that calls them "Christian" would have to coin another name for "Christians" so as to not create the very non-sequitor you are insisting upon: that a group is a member of a religion that they insist is false.Tim (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storm suggests, "there is no single group or groups that OWN Christianity or are in a position to claim their exclusive right to it". Well said, that's Protestantism.

Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, LDS, JW, and a host of sects claim precisely what you argue is unacceptable. Personally, I agree with you, so do hundreds of millions of Protestants. In fact, these Protestants go one step further and say that human groups claiming exclusive authority to teach Christianity are disobeying the New Testament hence are not Christian.

But this is Wiki, we cannot support your Protestant POV Storm. Even if these groups misinterpret their primary source, Wiki cannot set itself up as a superior interpreter of the NT. Nor can it excommunicate, or alternatively, legitimate such interpretations. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storm -- I appreciate your urgency, but having anti-Nicene Mormons as Christians and (mostly) Nicene Messianics as not Christians isn't NPOV, it's just... well... I don't have a good description for it. Go back to my rule of thumb:

• a Messianic is at your door and you say, "I'm already Baptist, but my neighbor is an Orthodox Jew" -- WHICH person is he going to try to convert? Right, the Jew. Why? Because he's Christian!
• Now for an LDS, "I'm already Baptist, but my neighbor is an Orthodox Jew" -- they'll be very happy to convert BOTH of you.
• And if a Baptist missionary were at your door and you said, "I'm already LDS, but my neighbor is a Messianic Jew" -- he'll try to convert YOU and not the Messianic.Tim (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completely artificial and unworkable system. People do attempt conversions between denominations and, depending on the context, it may even be more likely (consider an environment where there is hostility between two denominational groups, similar to the situation in Northern Ireland). There's no black and white, just probabilities. If there's a 11% chance that the missionary would try to convert you, does that mean you don't belong to the same religion as him? What about a 38% chance? Where's the cutoff point? And do you see that this estimation of probabilities is entirely subjective?

In all or most cases, my preference would be for classifying religions according to how their members self-identify. It's not an ideal approach, but I don't see anything better. Ilkali (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's my point -- classify a religion by how their MEMBERS self identify. LDS will insist that the Nicene Creed is not correct, and Christians universally insist that those who reject the Nicene Creed are not members of the Christian church, nor any Christian denomination.

If you try to do this in reverse, though, then you'll have Messianic Judaism labelled as a subset of Judaism, just because most of the smaller group will insist on doing so. But BOTH Christianity AND Judiasm would disagree with that classification. Messianic Judaism is Christianity, and not Judaism. The larger groups have to be the self-definers, and not the smaller groups.

Finally, the conversion motivation is a rule of thumb. It's meant to put something in perspective; not to create some universal Wiki-law. The perspective it's meant to illustrate is that you cannot list a smaller group as a subset of a larger group when the larger group does not accept them as their own -- but even less so when the smaller group won't accept the larger group as well. To insist that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, for instance, is to insist that Roman Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, and Eastern Orthodox are NOT Christians. That violates all kinds of NPOV, not to mention common sense.

Let's say that Lichtenstein decided that it WAS France, and that France was NOT France. You then have two mutually exclusive groups insisting on the same name. You go with the older and bigger group. Sorry. THAT is NPOV. Anything else is to start championing a POV cause.Tim (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"But that's my point -- classify a religion by how their MEMBERS self identify. LDS will insist that the Nicene Creed is not correct, and Christians universally insist that those who reject the Nicene Creed are not members of the Christian church". You're begging the question. "Christians universally insist that those who reject the Nicene Creed are not members of the Christian church" is only true if you presuppose that those who reject the Nicene Creed aren't Christians, which is precisely the point in contention.

"To insist that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, for instance, is to insist that Roman Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, and Eastern Orthodox are NOT Christians". Does not follow. There is nothing logically incoherent about saying that they are all Christians.

Let's say we do it your way and concoct some definition of Christianity that any given religion has to meet in order to qualify. Why should we concoct it based on what Christians think? They don't own the word, and they're not the majority. Do Muslims and Buddhists and atheists say the Nicene Creed is a necessary aspect of Christianity? Ilkali (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali -- the Nicene Creed has been the self definition of Christianity for 1600 years now. The contention stopped a long time before the English language was even invented. BOTH Jehovah's witnesses AND Christians absolutely reject each other. NEITHER define themselves as part of the same group. NEITHER the small group NOR the large group accept a definition you want to impose on them that puts them together. And your last paragraph there is completely unintelligible. Do you seriously expect Buddhists to be the ones to say who is and who is not a Christian? Christians define themselves. Buddhists define themselves. We just report what they say about themselves, and let everyone worry about their own ultimate truth. By saying "Jehovah's Witnesses are not a subset of Christianity" I'm saying the same thing that BOTH Jehovah's Witnesses AND Christians insist upon. Granted, Jehovah's Witnesses claim the name "Christians" but ONLY with the understanding that Roman Catholics, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Evangelicals -- are NOT. They don't want to be in bed together. Leave them be.Tim (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali, you said above, "This is a completely artificial and unworkable system". If you're going to describe something as artificial, you need to provide a source that describes the real system. As to "unworkable", none of us are prophets, what will work and what won't isn't ours to guess. Also, we're all equal here, there's no reason for us to accept Ilkali's authority over Tim's sources.

This strikes me as an important discussion, though. The criteria for establishing the boundaries between religions is something Wiki needs to do in an NPOV way, i.e. based on RS, like e.g. self-description. Other concrete, potentially workable options are admissible. Let's hear a case for an alternative, and suggestions of sources that would support it. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem is polytheism. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all Monotheistic faiths. Judaism and Islam will sometimes argue that Christianity is not REALLY Monotheistic. Nevertheless, Mormonism doesn't even claim to be. "What man is, God once was; what God is, man may become." Is this wrong? Heck, it could be the gospel truth. But only if Christianity is NOT. It's not the same religion. It's a "restorationist" movement (which Islam also claims to be) that restores the true religion that was lost and abandoned by all of Christianity (which restorationists, including Muslims, believe to be apostate and false). You can't believe that a religion is FALSE (as restorationists do) and ALSO claim to be in the SAME religion. You can't have it both ways. Is Christianity false, or are you a Christian? Pick one, not both.Tim (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nicene Creed is not Christianity and never was. It represents a creed for orthodoxy (small "o" is on purpose). You might want to do some more reading on Restorationism or Primitivism. In Roman Catholicism we use the term fullness of truth or faith; those same terms are used by members of Restorationist movements. What it signifies is that other churches have truth, but they are lacking in some way...there is not a fullness of truth. This is not the place for a discussion on choosing churches or what you think are absolutes. I would say that your choices above are wrong, but opinions differ often. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storm, I think you can find all the sources you need from my position in two articles: Nicene Creed and Mormonism and Christianity. Or you can just quote yourself: "The Nicene Creed is not Christianity and never was". EXACTLY! You can't say that the Nicene Creed is NOT Christianity and insist on being a member of the same faith that INSISTS that it is. That's my point. BTW, something in your wording indicated that you may identify as a Roman Catholic. I'd suggest that you ask your priest about this and argue your case with him. You might find it helpful.Tim (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing a false dilemma. We don't have to pick a flavor of Christianity and say that Wikipedia's definition is the same as theirs. We can instead adopt a very simple definition based solely on self-identification: A religious group is Christian if they say they are, regardless of how they define 'Christian'. Ilkali (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali -- Moonies say they are Christian. Messianic Jews say their religion is Judaism. I like the simplicity of your suggestion, and I wish it could be used. The problems though, are insurmountable. Trust me, if we COULD do your suggestion and get away with it, I'd be right on your bandwagon campaigning the loudest. It's just not possible. Even Storm regards Messianic Judaism as Christianity and not Judaism, so I think he might agree with me that your idea, while REALLY attractive, isn't feasable.Tim (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the only reason you've given is that lots of people will disagree with it. That is not something we should be considering here. Wikipedia policy is not to always pander to the largest group. Ilkali (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do a simple test: try listing Messianic Judaism under Judaism here and elsewhere, and see how far you get. You'll create chaos everywhere you go. Yes, they DO call themselves Judaism, even in the name. But you won't get very far with that argument. Even Storm knows this, which is why he considers them Christianity. All I'm suggesting is that you apply the same standard to Christianity that you would be able to enforce for Judaism. And I suspect that even you know that your suggestion cannot be applied there.Tim (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the only reason you've given is that lots of people will disagree with it. That is not something we should be considering here. Wikipedia policy is not to always pander to the largest group. Well said, young padawan.

The best defence of Wiki not classing Messianic Judaism as Judaism, imo, is that Christianity itself claims to be Messianic. In fact, that's why I call myself a Messianic Gentile—I'm a Christian acknowledging the dependency of Christianity on Judaism. Additionally, Judaism is a family matter, even in Christian understanding of it. Gentile and Jewish Christians were distinct groups in New Testament times. In fact, the NT doesn't dissolve the distinction, it urges the groups to adopt one another as "spiritual siblings". By admitting myself to be Gentile, I attempt to deflect any Jewish irritation at my presumption in being Messianic.

It needs appreciation of a good deal of literature to argue it formally, but Messianic Judaism rightly fits under Christianity by Christian and Messianic Jewish definitions, but does not fit under Judaism by historical Jewish definitions. According to Romans, Christianity belongs by right, inalienable and divine, to the Jews, an inheritance they can claim at any time. In a sense, Jews who become Christian are not converts, merely heirs accepting what is theirs by right.

Messianic Judaism is important because it shows the relationship between Judaism and Christianity very clearly. Categorization is less important than documentation. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I think the process is that is advocated by each person. There are merits and demerits to each point, but I think that a clarification of WHAT we are arguing for may help focus the discussion of merits and demerits elsewhere:

(BTW, feel free to correct your position if I've misstated it)

Since the names have been removed, please edit the table in a way that covers the possible positions. If your position cannot be simply stated, then it cannot be adopted or applied by anyone else (because you can't explain it to us). Pick whatever position you like and fine tune it -- or add another one if it exists.

Your position is not "Each group defines itself, with preference given to larger groups". It's closer to "The largest group that claims a label gets to decide who else can be described by it", but that's a simplification (what's the largest group for Christianity? depends on how we categorise people). Maybe "Group X can claim label Y if most people who claim label Y assign that label to X"?

Do we agree that Wikipedia's standard approach is to base categorisation on self-identification? Transgendered people are referred to according the gender they claim, terms like 'psychic' are defined according to what people claim rather than what they can actually do, etc. If that's the case, I'd say we're obligated to take that position here as well, unless very strong arguments can be given against it. 'Lots of Christians will disagree' doesn't seem strong enough to me. Ilkali (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali -- I AM advocating self identification. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc DO NOT claim to represent the same religion! Neither do they claim to represent the beliefs of Christians. NEITHER the small groups nor the big group self identify as representing the same religion, and yet you want to clump them together, against both the identity of the smaller and larger groups. It's like taking some group that believes the Pope is the Antichrist and trying to call them Catholics. It just is not feasable. It's not that lot's of Christians disagree, but that all of the groups you are trying to clump together disagree. Do you really think Jehovah's Witnesses claim belief that Jesus is God? Do you really think they want to even be represented that way? They do want to be called Christians, but ONLY to the exclusion of every group that actually is Christian.

And if you don't think I fairly represented you, I invited you to at least correct it so that we would at least have a clue WHAT you are arguing for... unless it's just to argue (then you don't need a statement).Tim (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any references for anything you are saying? It sounds like your opinion. Do you have a reference from LDS that indicate they are not Christian? This same request is applied to all the groups you have mentioned. Since I know little of JW's I can't speak with certainty, but knowing the LDS religion well I can say without reservation that you are misrepresenting their belief system completely. At this time, please stop using your opinion as fact and stick to references. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A statement from LDS that indicates they are not "Christian"? Again you are asking an impossible question. Do you mean the NAME "Christian" or the DEFINITION "Christian"? If you mean the name, they will always say they are Christian -- even TO Christians that they are busily converting FROM Christianity. If you mean the definition, there are plenty of statements of that I can supply that indicate they aren't even in the same religious category as Christianity (monotheism). Further, I just gave you two entire articles full of enough references to keep you happily reading for a month. What part of Nicene Creed and Mormonism and Christianity do you feel to lack the references you are asking for? Of do you want me to start importing entire articles worth of references en masse on a talk page and try to overload the Wikipedia servers?Tim (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a disclaimer -- I've worked with plenty of Mormons and have close and happy relationships with them. I fully respect them and they respect me. I have no intention of misrepresenting them. I'm not even saying they are wrong. They could be absolutely right -- which would mean that Christianity is wrong and Christians really SHOULD convert to LDS beliefs. All I'm saying is that mutually exclusive self-definitions cannot be lumped together as the same thing, especially when NEITHER the smaller group (Mormonism) and the larger group (Christianity) will claim to represent the same beliefs. They don't. Do you have LDS sources that CLAIM to represent Nicene beliefs? I would be shocked to see any (and so would my Mormon friends).Tim (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From now on, for brevity's sake, I'll use the term iChristian to mean 'person who identifies as Christian'. Same for iMuslim, iJedi, iEtc.

"I AM advocating self identification". Utterly false. Self-identification means identifying people how they identify themselves, which you are arguing against.

"Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc DO NOT claim to represent the same religion!". Irrelevant. They claim the same label.

"Do you really think they want to even be represented that way? They do want to be called Christians, but ONLY to the exclusion of every group that actually is Christian". The "actually is" betrays your POV. Anyway, yes, I do think they'd prefer all iChristians to be labelled as Christian if the alternative is for (almost) all iChristians except Jehovah's Witnesses to be labelled as Christian.

"And if you don't think I fairly represented you", "If your position cannot be simply stated, then [...]". Here's my edit summary: "attempts to reduce the entire debate to such a simple table will not help". Please focus on the objections that I actually make rather than inventing your own to tackle. I wouldn't have a problem with the table if all you were using it for is stating positions, but you're also trying to represent supporting and opposing arguments in there. That's what threaded discussions are for.

I think I've already made my position clear, but if you need a simple summary, here it is: Christian = iChristian. I'm still waiting for a simple, precise statement of your own position. I already explained how your summary was inaccurate. Ilkali (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm still waiting for a simple, precise statement of your own position" -- see table above.Tim (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary is inaccurate. It is not the case that, in your proposed system, "each group defines itself". Some groups are defined by other groups (or rather by you, by proxy). It is also imprecise. What does "with preference given" actually mean? What's the algorithm in use here? Ilkali (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali -- I'll repeat my challenge. Messianic Judaism is "iJudaism" in your classification. Or rather, Messianic Judaism = Judaism. It doesn't, but AT LEAST Messianic Judaism is INCLUSIVE of Judaism. That is, the smaller group does not throw out the larger group from the name "Judaism" although the larger group throws out the smaller. Messianic Judaism is only a one way exclusion, not a two way. But Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians are MUTUALLY exclusive. EACH side says that the other represents a false religion. Well, no one actually CLAIMS to be a member of a religion they are insisting is false, do they? Definitions and names should be consistently and rationally applied. You can't just go willy nilly pinning people into the same religion who do not claim to be. It would cause some Wikipedia readers to think that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is God. Or worse -- it would cause some Wikipedia readers to think that Judaism believes Jesus is God!!! Trust me, I've seen it happen here too many times.Tim (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Messianic Judaism is "iJudaism" in your classification. Or rather, Messianic Judaism = Judaism". Firstly, the i prefix applies to labels for people, not names of religions. Notice it was iChristian, iMuslim, etc? Religions can't self-identify, people can. Secondly, I think you have misunderstood either my system or my notation. Under the system I described, MessianicJew is a proper subset of Jew. If that is what you meant, I urge you to use more precise language - the difference between subset and identity relations is an important one.

"EACH side says that the other represents a false religion". Irrelevant. Both sides claim the same label.

"It would cause some Wikipedia readers to think that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is God". No it wouldn't. Doctrinal differences aren't some new fangled thing that everybody's still getting used to. And heck, you still haven't supported your claim that the average Wikipedia reader defines Christianity the same way you do. I'd bet a significant portion of them haven't even heard of the Nicene Creed. Ilkali (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali, I am not sure how much clearer either of us can make the distinction. Tim, you have a strong POV and seem incapable of backing away from the topic far enough to find a neutral position. You seem focused upon definitions used by Christian churches about other Christian churches. This is further complicated by a misunderstanding of at least some of the positions of groups you seek to qualify as non-Christian. Making it more difficult, you ignore all references that are contrary to your POV and provide nothing to support your position. Stating the Nicene Creed as a reference is meaningless and is not a reference for anything except itself. What we are seeking is a reference from an objective, scholarly person that supports your position...and no, referring to other Wikipedia articles is not sufficient for a reputable reference. This should not be hard if your position is so well known and supported.

Tim, your position attempts to make Christianity into a monolithic Christian church. Unfortunately, there is nothing similar to such a position. There are over 34,000 different Christian denominations in the world and each of them has a different doctrine, belief system, and social structure. What binds them together is they all profess to be Christian. They may not all be orthodox Christians, but Christians none-the-less. Heretical beliefs are a topic within Chrisitianity and are not a topic of this article nor should it be. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storm and Ilkali and Alastair

What categories will you put the following in?

Christians Jews Hindus

Polytheist or Monotheist?

Moonies Messianic Jews Jehovah's Witnesses

Christians, Jewish, other?

Mormons Muslims

Polytheist or Monotheist?

To help me understand your classification systems, please tell me which groups you will put these in. Then at least we can have a basis for discussion.

Further, I'm assuming that your lack of correction to my table indicates that these are the only parameters being discussed. If not, then correct the table.

Thanks.Tim (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, the topic of this article is "Gender of God". None of the above questions is connected to this article and is irrelevant. My personal lack of comment on your table has nothing to do with anything except that it has nothing to do with the topic. Can you understand my objective is to just focus on the article topic and how to improve the article? I have no desire to offend you, but when your questions are off topic I try not to respond. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether religions are poly- or monotheistic seems irrelevant to what we're discussing. For the other questions, just apply the rule I already described: iX = X.

"I'm assuming that your lack of correction to my table indicates that [...]". Don't. I already rejected your table. That's the reason I'm not editing it. Ilkali (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like one of Storm's sources. It's not reliable even by Wiki standards, but it is correct. It says, 'Depending on the country, government census records often recognize only one, two or three divisions of Christians. Religious affiliation in surveys is always defined by self-identification, not by theology or practice. In predominantly non-Christian nations such as India or Iraq, available data may simply identify "Christians," to separate them from the majority populations of Hindus, Muslims, etc. If the data is more detailed (usually because there are larger numbers of Christians), Christians will be divided into "Catholics" and "Protestants" (with Orthodox/Eastern Christians typically classified as Protestant). With more accuracy, Orthodox are added as a third division, leaving all Christians who are not Catholic or Orthodox classified as Protestant. Typically this includes many groups who would prefer not to grouped with Protestants, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints.'

Thousands of reliable sources could be provided that establish what Storm's source and Tim have been saying. In particular, classification is by self-identification and JW and LDS do not want to be classified with Protestants, let alone Prot+Cath+Orth.

The text of Storm's source, although with no recognizable authroity, is extremely well worded and addresses the current issue directly. When Christianity is very much a minority, all Christianity related groups get lumped together. When Christianity is a majority, subgroups are (self-)identified.

Now, there's even more good news. For the purposes of this article only, Catholics and Orthodox believe the same things as Protestants—Evangelical, Pentacostal and Liberal. We are talking about a billion people who self-identify as Christian, and would articulate their own acceptance of masculinity of Father and Son. Regarding the Spirit, we'd have to rely on qualified teachers, because it's not obvious even if you know Koine Greek; however, the masculinity of the Spirit is there in the teaching of the church ancient and modern (partially documented), with a few exceptions (exhaustively documented).

A few liberal protestant groups willing to modify language related to God to being gender-neutral have been noted. A few conservative groups willing to modify language for the Spirit to being feminine have been noted. I can add, there are also liberal protestant groups that are willing to use exclusively feminine language for God too, but these are very rare.

Finally, JWs, Christadelphians, Unitarians, Christian Scientists and dozens of other groups with roots in forms of Christianity do not believe in the Trinitarian formulation of Nicaea. The gender of Jesus is irrelevant to the gender of God in these religions because Jesus is not God. Christianity is Jesus-worship (that's actually the meaning of its name, and why it is anathema to Judaism). When Jesus is not God, it's not Christianity—by the New Testament, by Nicaea or by any mainstream denomination in the tradition of these documented Christian teachings.

LDS is a good deal closer to Nicaean Christianity in some respects, and further in others. On gender issues, LDS and JWs believe strongly in traditional husband-wife gender roles (often more strongly than conservative Protestants or Catholics). I suspect Christadelphians would be similar. But it really doesn't matter, because they self-identify as distinct from the main branch (or mainstream) of historical Christianity as the non-Christian world knows it. JWs have claimed direct descent from Arianism.

In conclusion, Wiki cannot side with mainstream Christianity to say JWs are not authentically Christian, nor can it side with JWs to say mainstream Christians are not authentically Christian; but lastly and far from leastly, it cannot claim both sides are wrong and that both sides are authentically Christian. When speaking of Christianity, Wiki is bound to the NPOV which uses the word historically not theologically.

In fact, this is essential, since very liberal Protestants are not considered Christian by mainstream Protestants, Catholic or Orthodox branches of Christianity on doctrinal grounds—i.e. they do not teach what Christianity has always taught. However, since their historical association with the mainstream is impeccable and recent, Wiki must stick to the NPOV historical definition of Christian and include their views among those advanced within historical Christianity.

I'll mention one last thing about why Christianity is both easier and harder to delineate—it is not racial but doctrinal. Most religions propagate cultural values through family networks, there are real teachings and people really can be expelled for breaking teaching or practice. However, from its beginnings, Christianity involved, if you like, an aggressive policy of converting people from any cultural background to a single set of values. Eventually, Christianity became a victim of its own success, people began to think of themselves as "born Christian" and of their tribe or culture being a "Christian culture". We don't need to be troubled with why this makes things harder for Christian evangelists, but we do need to appreciate that the adjective Christian has distinctly different usage in broader culture to that within communities of faith.

To disambiguate, this article is about Christian views of God, for non-Christian views of what Christians should believe about God see Criticism of Christianity. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Ilkali. Please don't revert sourced text. Please discuss major revisions on the talk page before making them. You have had a month to make improvements and discuss the Comparative religion (CR) section and not done so. Now appears to be a good time to start.

I note that in several months at this page you have contributed two unsourced sentences, all your other edits are reversions, that is edit-warring and obstruction of progress on the article. Please drop the reverting and start providing sources and other constructive contributions.

You reverted Tim when he placed the CR section in the text here, and you have never interacted in the Talk:Gender of God#Comparative religion - draft section above since.

As I count it, that makes two editors to one for inclusion, and precisely no discussion but only edits from you. It makes a month of patience from two editors, and a reflex reversion when you see the edit from you.

Please discuss specifics of the text, we're quite happy to modify it, that's what co-operative editing is all about. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Please discuss major revisions on the talk page before making them". Does this somehow not apply to you? You have at no point stopped to gain consensus for adding that section - you have simply put it up and edit-warred with anybody who disagrees with its inclusion. Numerous people have expressed an opinion that it is too far off-topic, and I can't remember seeing anybody other than you supporting it. What's more, you rejected mediation that was meant to discuss it.

Lastly, you were recently cautioned against making false threats. I suggest you take notice rather than flooding this page with 'warnings'. Ilkali (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali, there is abudant evidence of your disruptive behaviour at Wiki, and after two years precisely none against mine.

But sticking to the point. Regarding CR, I asked for comments, got no criticisms in a month, have Tim's support. It is sourced text, we're adding. It doesn't even need even need consensus to add it. Sources rule. Consensus is needed to edit sources. But because we're team-players we've given people a chance to interact. Can't get fairer than that.

It would appear you can't actually make a case against the text. You haven't ever made one, just insisted on your opinion and endless reverted. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]