Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Craigkbryant (talk | contribs) at 23:41, 6 August 2005 (→research). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has nothing to do with my point of view on mattwers, just to tell anyone whos interested, i saw a request on a user page for an articl;e such as this so i made the preliminary version. Ketrovin 18:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This page was created as a gift for Vashti, hopefully he can make it better too. Ketrovin 19:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This page is an incomprehenisble muddle and has a bizarre title. Odds are good there is something we can redirect this to, otherwise an actual article should be created elsewhere. DreamGuy 22:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I am truely srory if you dont like it, but Simply becasue you do not like it does not make it worthless. have a nice day. Ketrovin 22:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

Some editors may look at this and assume this article only exists to push an anti-religion POV. Thus, it's probably important that it get NPOV'd quickly. For starters, I bet we can't get away with saying things like "there are those who believe" in an article like this. Using actual quotes from actual experts is probably neccessary here. Friday 23:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it can be NPOVed quickly... It just seems like a rather random soapbox thing. Do we have another religion and psychology article here somewhere we can redirect to? Singling schizotypy out out of all the classifications seems rather bizarre. DreamGuy 23:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

you do it often enough, even ifits notyour article, that makesyou seem like a hiopocrite. ( my last edit here for two weeks) Gabrielsimon 23:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe any article belongs to any editor. We don't own things personally here; this is a group effort. Friday 23:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see there being a good article on religion and mental illness, but as this page stands, it's POV, unencyclopedic in the style it's written, and it has no sources. My suggestion is that it be deleted, and the creator (or someone else) puts it on a user subpage and works on it there, until it's ready to face the public, as it were. SlimVirgin 23:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Do I hear a call for a VfD? I'd support there being a vote. DreamGuy 00:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dreamguy and others drove Ketrovn to leave wikipedia, by pestering him all day, which was his forst day. i say keep the a rticle and expand it, and make it someting lasting. Gabrielsimon 23:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"He" didn't leave Misplaced Pages, you just went back to posting under your own name because so many people spotted the sock. DreamGuy 00:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

he left and your still an asshole. just shut up. Gabrielsimon 00:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, the personal attacks have to stop. As for the article, we can either put it up for a VfD, or if everyone on this page agrees it should be deleted, I can do it as a speedy. SlimVirgin 00:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy would be nice, but Gabriel has already objected to deletion... Unless you can convince him otherwise. DreamGuy 00:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with speedy. Perhaps something on this topic can be written, but what's here isn't much help. Friday 00:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

i beleive the subject matter has merit, and so i would suggest getting religious and phys cological experts, who arent dreamguy ( becaxue we both know he says his expertise is mythology) to take a look and improove t his articel. it was only one of ketrovins two attempts at adding to this place before he was driven off. so i say we keep it. Gabrielsimon 00:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, would you be prepared to put this article on your user subpage and work on it in there until it's ready to go in the encyclopedia? It needs a few changes in my view before it's a proper stub. For example, you might want to rethink the title. Calling it "Religion and schizotypy" is restrictive, and schizotypy is a disputed psychiatric term. It also needs sources, so you'd have to find credible published sources who said that religion was a sign or consequence of mental illness. It doesn't need a lot, just some tidying along those lines, in order to make it a proper stub. What do you think? SlimVirgin 01:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

would that guy who was shouting to a lion " jesus will save you" when he tried to put a feather boa on its neck., and got himself killed be a decent source for mental illness? Gabrielsimon 01:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Not in and of itself, but several good sources are available by Googling 'religion schizophrenia'. ~~ N (t/c) 01:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

research

This page stems from a comment on my user page stating that I thought such a page might be necessary and workable. There is a sizeable chunk of published research that studies the purported relationship between religiosity and schizotypal traits, mostly by Diduca and Joseph; one of the things on my heap has been tracking down those papers to see if I could work them into an article on the topic. This page is not quite what I had in mind. :) Vashti 10:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that such an article might be of value. For example, there is the case of an American man named Joel Hanson, whose case is documented in his parents' (Dan and Sue Hanson) book Room for J. He has been diagnosed as schitzophrenic, believes he is God incarnate, and has written a book which might be very easily construed as "holy scripture," called "J's Guide to the Universe." This cased was discussed extensively on the American radio program "Speaking of Faith," and information on the episode and Joel Hanson may be found at the program's web site. The similarities between this case and any number of past religious figures who have considered themselves God or God's messenger on Earth are obvious.

Hovever, it is also very clear that this article needs to rise to a much higher standard before it can be suitable. Note the very first sentence, which opens with the weasel words "there are those who..." That sets the tone for everything that follows: a soapbox speech disguised as objective inquiry.--Craigkbryant 14:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

looks like it was sopmeones second try at making an article, so the way it is should be forgiven. Gabrielsimon 22:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not a question of "forgiving." The article, as written, has certain shortcomings. We are discussing ways of overcoming them. The question is whether anyone wants to invest the time in making this a quality, neutral, encyclopedia-grade article, by investing time, doing research, citing sources, and generally striving for excellence. As is, this article is a POV source spouting undocumented opinion. Gabriel, are you interested in putting the work into this article that it needs? I would be happy to give you any advice that I can. --Craigkbryant 23:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)