Revision as of 11:07, 4 September 2005

Some suggestions

Two suggestions. I would consider either taking the list of biblical passages and converting them to links, or possibly, including the relavent sections of the bible directly in the text.

Second, I think I would feel much better if this block:

From a linguistic point of view, the syllables that make up instances of glossolalia typically appear to be unpatterned reorganizations of phonemes from the primary language of the person uttering the syllables; thus, the glossolalia of people from Russia, Britain, and Brazil all sound quite different from each other, but vaguely resemble the Russian, English, and Portuguese languages, respectively. Linguists generally regard most glossalia as lacking any identifiable semantics, syntax, or morphology—i.e., as nonsense and not as language at all.

Had some sort of cite. It's fine if the cite goes in the discussion, although placing a reference to a research paper in the main text would be preferable. Neither the Christian nor the atheist interpretation, alone, is NPOV. A link to another website that claims this is not really a good reference --- what happens with these is that one web site makes a very weak claim, another picks it up, etc. until it is claimed as fact. The above text certainly sounds plausible, but it's hard to evaluate for correctness without a cite. (I got no username)

Please use sections and usernames

'nuff sed? MrJones 12:45, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Christian Belief, Speaking in Tongues and Glossolalia

The definition here is correct, however there is a confusion of two uses it seems. I think it would be clearer if there were separate articles on Glossolalia and speaking in tongues with links to each other.

This article should explain the controversy in Chrisitan circles about whether speaking in tongues is genuine or not and the Linguistic and psychological definition. The two should not be confused, as they are different things. I may come back here and do this some time.

MrJones 12:45, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Syntactically viable glossolalia?

The interesting thing about glossolalia is that it appears syntactically viable!. Do I need to provide a scholarly reference from a linguist, published in an archival, peer-reviewed journal to support this claim?

Some support, yes, and even then, the article must state that others disagree with the claim. Please see neutral point of view. Your claim directly contradicts several things I read online earlier today, and in this reading I saw no mention of any claim that glossolalia often, or ever, has anything like a syntax. I find it extremely implausible, on its face, but I'm willing to be taught on this point. --LMS

I think there is some confusion over terminology here. See above.

Glossolalia and mental illness

If glossolalia is also associated with mental illness, it would be nice to have another paragraph, preferably written by someone with some exposure, if not training with this aspect of mental illness.

Another paragraph or several are definitely in order. But I disagree that the person who writes them needs to have exposure or training; he or she needs only to be able to do some good basic research. According to several sources online, which you can find out for yourself by following the links I've added, it is used by the psychiatric community. --LMS

These links do not point to archival literature.

A search on the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association websites returned 0 results on the query glossolalia. How shall I assess your claim?

I'm sure you can be creative; the fact that those websites search engines do not return results for that term proves nothing. Try searching Google.

I will continue to change that definition back to what it should be, because it is manifestly wrong. Glossolalia does not even appear to be syntactically viable language. Who thinks so, besides you? More importantly, consider the merits of your definition as a definition. The essential feature of glossolalia is not that it "utterance of what appears to be syntactically viable language, sometimes as a form of religious worship (religious glossolalia), and sometimes by the mentally ill." According to that definition, the English language would be glossolalia; it certainly appears to be syntactically viable (unlike glossolalia), and it is sometimes used as a form of religious worship (e.g., preaching), and sometimes by the mentally ill. No, the distinguishing feature of glossolalia is that it appears to be nonsense. Now, we can argue 'til we're blue in the face about whether it is nonsense or not; but it's just a fact about what the word means that it appears to be nonsense. --LMS

Ok, you win.

Request for writing about schizophrenic glossolalia

Moving this suggestion here from the main page:

We need a few good paragraphs about schizophrenic glossolalia...

Nonsensical paragraphs?

"Curiously, however, Christian fundamentalists in the last two centuries have developed a definition of this term that is the precise opposite of what is described in the New Testament."

Whoever wrote this seems to have overlooked that glossolalia, apart from being described in Acts.2, is mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament, most importantly in 1Cor.14. And there are important differences between what Acts.2 and 1Cor.14 say about glossolalia.

As a historical source to the manifestations of the primitive church, 1Cor. is the more reliable. Even the most critical scholars accept that letter as written by the apostle Paul (who died in the 60s). As for Acts, that book is now often dated to 90-110, and the story in ch. 2 cannot well be an eyewitness account.

S.

Questions of historical accuracy aside, the paragraph was simply incorrect. Removed. MrJones 12:45, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Moved from the page:

"(I am not aware of any literature which studies the cognative dissonance displayed by Christian fundamentalists. How do they reconcile the fact that what they observe is the precise opposite of what they claim to observe? Can someone add some references and info?)" -- (followed sentence beginning "This is the precise opposite of what is described in the New Testament...")

Other discussion

"which neither English speakers nor non-English speakers understand". Can someone find a better phrase because this works in any langage. Ericd 13:02 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Concerns about Neutrality

This may only be the way that I, as someone who believes in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, read this, but to me this article seems to lean on the point of view that Glossolalia is fake. But maybe it's just me. Thudgens

Regarding Neutrality

I've had this problem with many other pages about controversial topics, as well as pages about famous people who are known for controversial opinions. It seems to me that an encyclopedia entry should use the greatest portion of its space in giving information about the topic, with identification that there are criticisms of it as a uniquely headed section toward the end of the section. This seems a good across-the-board rule. It's just nonsense to pepper a description of a topic with criticisms. They interrupt the attempt to describe the topic and create a sense that the entire article is POV against the topic.

Qinah

Qinah writes: "It seems to me that an encyclopedia entry should use the greatest portion of its space in giving information about the topic, with identification that there are criticisms of it as a uniquely headed section toward the end of the section. This seems a good across-the-board rule."

It is a good rule. Unfortunately, in Misplaced Pages it's only applied to LIBERALS as far as I have been able to discern in my short time here.

A non-liberal's article will be CHOCK FULL of every tiny little nitpicking thing some lefty thinks they can slime them with.

It's pathetic and, as a result, most reasonable people know they can't trust Wik in it's present state.

That's too bad, when it could so easily be fixed.

Ps I actually think the version of Tongues in Wik is pretty good and well written.

I take exception to the following excerpt as it seems a gratiuitous cheap shot, but I'll hold my fire until I do some more research:

"...Glossolalists tend to have more need of authority figures and appeared to have had more crises in their lives."

Ps Is he talking about tongue talkers or Oprah-watchers? lol!

Big Daddy 11:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)