Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ilkali (talk | contribs) at 13:27, 4 July 2008 (changed section hierarchy and moved own comment to proper place). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mediation talk

I think this might be the space for us to fight it out without clogging the talk page of the article, or the original request for mediation. Also, it might be a place where others can say how wrong my appeal for mediation is. There's tons of space, so go for it. I've said pretty much all I need to say atm. We only talk in circles without a mediator, I'll hold my replies to challenges until the mediator comes. So shoot. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, you are currently the only person that hasn't expressed an opinion on Rushyo mediating the dispute (). Can you please do so, so we can move this along? Ilkali (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Issues

Hi folks, my name is User:L'Aquatique, and unless you tell me otherwise I guess I'll be co-mediating, with Rushyo leading the mediation. This will be my first attempt at mediation here on the Wiki, but I've done a lot of similar stuff in real life. Since no one has posted here in a while (as I write this this it's 7:45pm on 27 June, my time) so I'll see if I can get the ball rolling while we wait for a supreme cabalistic decree from the man upstairs (Rushyo, I mean). Anyway, it seems that most of the information supplied to us (the mediation cabal) was written by Alastair. I'd like to hear what the other interested parties feel about the three main problems (according to Alastair), which if my interpretation of his statement is correct are as follows:

1. There is contention about the title of the article. Since some of the article deals with polytheistic religions, is it appropriate to call the article Gender of God (singular) as Alynna originally did? If not, what should it be called?
2. Alastair then created a section called Comparative religion which addressed the first concern. It is not clear from Alastair's statement how well written this section was, whether it was sourced, etc etc, so I plan on going through the history to see if I can find it. In any case, it was apparently removed and personal attacks ensued.
3. A small section regarding the definition of gender and the difference between gender and gender identity was also removed. According to Alastair, this section was sourced, however he does not mention whether they were reliable sources. No reason for its removal was given.
   

Now, I'd like to hear from each of the interested parties about these three issues. Alastair, was my interpretation of your statement correct? Ilkali, Alynna, what is your perspective on these issues? At this point, let's try to avoid arguing and simply get the facts of the matter so we can move on to the actual mediation.
Just a final statement. I would strongly suggest that everyone involved, before you do anything else, go read WP:CIVIL, WP:DICK, and WP:CON. This is not a place to make personal attacks, to place blame on others, or to behave in a manner inconsistent with your age. Preview every single edit you make to this page, and think carefully about how you would feel if you were the one on the receiving end of the message you are about to post. And above all, remember that the other contributors, including Rushyo and I, are living, breathing people with thoughts and feelings, and any anonymity the internet might grant you is not an excuse to treat us any different than you would be if we were all having this discussion at the café over coffee. L'Aquatique 04:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Howdy L'Aquatique. Good to have you helping. In order:

1. I'm mostly neutral on the title and topic of the article. I have no problem with it being about either the gender of God or the gender of gods, but it should definitely be one or the other. If it's called 'Gender of God', it shouldn't address any deities that are not God.
2. "Dispute resulted regarding this text, but was expressed in terms of personal attacks. "Plagiarism", was one term; and, surprisingly given the first, "unsourced" was another". 'Unsourced' is not a personal attack. Neither is 'plagiarism'. For whatever it's worth, I don't think the text is plagiarised, and although I think the sourcing could be better, that's not a major problem for me (since it could always be improved). Alastair claims that "The text was never discussed in detail", but there was an entire talk page section dedicated to its removal, which Alastair gave no signs of ever reading. I maintain that the content is far too general and hardly at any point addresses the gender of God.
3. "A small section regarding the definition of gender and the difference between gender and gender identity was also removed". Checking the history, I'm actually not sure what happened there. I removed only the comparative religion section, but after I was accused of also removing the gender section, I assumed the claim was accurate and that I had removed it for the same reasons - the two blurred into one in my mind. Looking back, I don't actually have a problem with having a small section on gender. I think the text Alastair is proposing could be improved, but I don't intend to remove it any longer. I apologise to Alastair for not having more thoroughly analysed the situation.

There is also disagreement on the lead text, but I'm not sure if that's still an issue, since Alastair didn't include it in his dispute summary. I will wait for him to clarify the matter before I start making a case.

Regarding civility: Throughout this entire process, Alastair has on dozens of occasions accused others of making personal attacks. I believe that examining the history will show that this accusation is often ill-founded (such as when he accused me here, after I gave him a suggestion on how to create new talk page sections). His eagerness to take offense, combined with his propensity to jump straight to issuing 'warnings' (the details of which are never specified beyond those conveyed by "I'm warning you"), have aggravated and considerably slowed the proceedings on Gender of God.

I have more issues with Alastair's conduct, including a belief that he is trying to own the article, but I'm not sure that this is the place to raise them. Should I limit myself to talking about the content? Ilkali (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts:

1. It is my understanding that this article is about what various religions have to say about the gender of their main or only God. That's a different topic from the gender of multiple deities. It's clear that monotheistic religions belong here. I'm less sure about polytheistic religions in general, but for ones where the term "God" (as opposed to "god") is meaningful, they can be included too.
2. I haven't been following this aspect of the debate very closely, but it is my understanding that the section was either too long or too general. I believe that the current section "Clarifying the term "God"" was meant to address the same concern.
3. I haven't really been following this part either. I would have no objection to a short, relevant discussion of what "gender" means -- it would go well with a short, relevant discussion of what "God" means.

I was under the impression that the main current issues were the lead text, and which revision we should start from in working towards a consensus. The latter issue has recently brought work on the article to a standstill, so I hope it can be addressed in this mediation. --Alynna (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all I'd like to apologise profusely for not posting sooner. I've been unexpectedly rather busy IRL and unable to dedicate the time required to assist (thanks L'Aqùatique!). I'd like to just confirm the ground rules by stating that, yes, one really ought to just worry about the content. Discussing the actions of others seldom assists in actually helping further the discussion.

It seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the debate regarding the title is a semantic one and I don't think it'll be too hard to find common ground on that if every party states their opinions up front.

I'd really like Alastair to make a post outlining his viewpoints regarding his perceived worth of the disputed texts that were added/removed (such as verifiability, whether they were in context, etc). From there everyone concerned can have some things to find agreement about and specific points of disagreement can be focused upon, since it seems the other parties are somewhat unsure of the details of his complaints (including myself). -Rushyo (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For record's sake, this is the section that is in question: Comparative religion L'Aquatique 17:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone, here are some replies.

I think Alynna describes exactly what an average reader may want from this kind of article. "It's clear that monotheistic religions belong here. I'm less sure about polytheistic religions in general, but for ones where the term God (as opposed to god) is meaningful, they can be included too."

I say "this kind of article", because originally it was called God and gender, which was much vaguer, and more naturally allowed exploration of polytheism. In fact, a small section was devoted to basic comparative religion distinguishing polytheism and monotheism.

Now I still agree with Alynna's old suggestion to change the title, which I supported and still endorse. However, I would not support a change of subject matter under the new title, since the question that was explored by the creators of the old article obviously mattered to them, it is apparent from the text they left, and can be developed by referencing a wide literature in reliable sources.

In fact, as Alynna's comments show, God and god are distinct terms and polytheism, monotheism, etc. are linked to the title in different ways. So these clearly need clarification from reliable sources. Also, although neither Ilkali nor Alynna have mentioned it, animism is also linked to the title and the subject matter, Shinto being a very large contemporary example—the official religion of Japan, no less. Some forms of Buddhism consider Buddha to be a god, or God himself. Obviously Buddha was male, but in his divine manifestation, do they consider him to be masculine, or like Islam, view the One Supreme Being as beyond gender as well as beyond sex.

That raises another issue, gender is not simply a matter of sex. A very considerable literature distinguishes biological sex from interpersonal gender roles as understood in a variety of cultural settings. Arguable it is monotheism where a single God cannot properly be spoken of as having gender, because there is no interpersonal relating at the divine level. In fact, Islam appears to adopt precisely this approach, whereas Christianity has a complex trinitarian understanding, where the role of the Holy Spirit is argued by a few as being feminine in contrast to the masculine Father and Son.

Now, the reason I requested this mediation is because the points I make above were being dismissed as irrelevant, without meaningful engagement with the ideas, without reliable sources being cited in support of those claims, by appeal to majority opinion and by ad hominem attacks. I would like the points discussed to consensus and the personal attacks withdrawn. As I understand it, we have no choice regarding the things I request, since "no personal attacks" and "consensus rather than votes or democracy" are simply Wiki policy.

I hope my reply clarifies the simplicity of the procedural problem, while outlining the fascinating depth of the topic this article addresses. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"I would not support a change of subject matter under the new title, since the question that was explored by the creators of the old article obviously mattered to them, it is apparent from the text they left, and can be developed by referencing a wide literature in reliable sources". I don't see your argument here. An article's creators don't have any more say than anybody else, and much less if they're not even here. I am invoking a simple tenet here: The subject matter of an article should be predictable from and consistent with the article's title. If the title is specific to God, the content should be as well. If an article were called "Gender of George", we would not expect to see sections describing the gender of Peter or Claire.

Framing this as a matter of monotheism vs polytheism clouds the issue. There are two types of religion that should be included: Monotheistic and henotheistic. Those are the religions in which the proper noun God is meaningful. Additionally, in the case of henotheistic religions, which may include multiple deities, we have to address only that single deity that is God. The others are outside the scope of the article. That's one of the reasons I object to your lead, which references "God or gods". If a deity is not God, it is outside the scope of the article.

"In fact, as Alynna's comments show, God and god are distinct terms and polytheism, monotheism, etc. are linked to the title in different ways. So these clearly need clarification from reliable sources". It's not necessary to clarify every term that could conceivably be misunderstood, and this one isn't a high risk. We include wikilinks so people can independently decide to read more about topics they're unsure about. I don't think we need to shepherd them into learning these things.

"Also, although neither Ilkali nor Alynna have mentioned it, animism is also linked to the title and the subject matter, Shinto being a very large contemporary example—the official religion of Japan, no less". Shinto is only within the article's purview if it contains a God entity.

"Now, the reason I requested this mediation is because the points I make above were being dismissed as irrelevant, without meaningful engagement with the ideas, without reliable sources being cited in support of those claims, by appeal to majority opinion and by ad hominem attacks". We're supposed to be talking about the content only, Alastair. Save the sniping for some other venue. Ilkali (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, sports fans, gather round and pass me the soap box. It seems you agree that in this context God does not necessarily refer to the various deities of polytheistic religions. I'd like everyone to take a look at the article God, especially the hatnote: This article is about the term "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. See deity or god (male deity) for details on polytheistic usages. For other uses, see God (disambiguation). Do you guys believe that a similar notice placed on your article would help to solve this disagreement? L'Aquatique 23:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Great suggestion, specifically because it hits the heart of the issue. It would appear that Ilkali and Alynna tend to think of this article as addressing henotheism, where I consider the creators of the article to have intended it to address the history of human thought on gender as regards supernatural persons—i.e. it is much broader than either monotheism or henotheism (neither of which is as clearly defined as we may like anyway).

The problem I have with the suggestion is that it proposes (charitably) a content fork or (uncharitably) a POV fork. I'm not having a go at you L'Aquatique, even POV forks have their place, perhaps even in this case. However, I make a case against that in this article in the following way.

Max Müller, who coined henotheism is one of the 19th century scholars of religious thought, whose views the disputed section I added represents. These scholars did not isolate their attention to henotheism. Their interest was in the relationships between various religious views, seeking a "grand theory" explaining the history religious views, in particular the (contemporary for them) dominant monotheism v. atheism of European thought. In fact, although henotheism is a helpful theoretical category, just precisely which religions are classified by it would be highly controversial. For example, Mormonism is henotheistic (as far as I understand). Ilkali seems to view Christianity as henotheistic, although it has condemned that view officially since Nicaea. Ilkali's view appears (he didn't say much) to be similar to the view of Jewish scholars, who describe the Christian view as shituf. The Jewish scholars are actually divided on whether Christianity is henotheistic or polytheistic.

Additionally, it is not simply religious views that this article would seem to address (given its history prior to my arrival). Metaphysics in several traditions proposes pantheism, often conceived of as feminine Gaia. Now, we could POV fork so Gender of God (henotheism) reflects "Sky Father" religions and Gender of god (other views) reflects "Earth Mother" philosophies. For some reason, the latent feminist in me finds this objectionable. I'm sure others will appreciate the problem.

On the other hand, there's really not all that much more that needs to be said about this than has already been said—in the disputed section and in the comments above. These provide a context for the list of religious views, and explicitly invite significant alternative POVs into a single article, for a reader's ease of comparison.

The article title addresses the English language question, "What is God's gender?" The article itself needs to put that question in a worldwide and historical context, noting the English language question presupposes to a vague extent Judeo-Christian views. Plenty of reliable sources exist to contextualise more widely in a responsible way. In most cases these clarify both the words god and gender.

In any case, even were this article to cover henotheism only, it would still require explanation of that term, which immediately invokes the 19th century scholars of comparative religion. It would also require clarification of the meaning of gender in the supernatural realm, including the views of religions that are "polytheistic in practice".

So, I support the comment in so far as it points directly to what needs clarification right at the top of the article, but not in so far as it suggests two articles addressing separate sides of what has historically been an interactive dialogue. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"It would appear that Ilkali and Alynna tend to think of this article as addressing henotheism". I think of it as addressing God. I mention henotheistic religions simply because they include God entities.

"I consider the creators of the article to have intended it to address the history of human thought on gender as regards supernatural persons". I reiterate that the creators of an article do not get special privileges regarding its future direction. If the scope of the article is to include entities that are not God, it should not be called 'Gender of God' (or 'God and gender').

"Ilkali seems to view Christianity as henotheistic". What gave you this impression? Regardless, whether it is monotheistic or henotheistic is irrelevant; what matters is that it uncontroversially includes a God entity whose gender (or lack thereof) can be discussed.

As mentioned previously, I am not opposed to having a small section clarifying the relevant aspects of gender - the difference between gender and sex, etc. Ilkali (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

L'Aquatique: I think it's a good idea to use a hatnote to clarify the article's scope, provided we can reach some conclusion on what that scope should be. From my perspective, a note like the one you describe, highlighting that the article specifically addresses God (rather than other deities), would be good. Ilkali (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)No offense taken. Look, I'll be real honest with you and please don't take this the wrong way, Alastair, I think you're making this more complicated than it has to be. I see from your userpage that you are a scholar- years and years in collage has ingrained in you that technical writing must be written in a very precise way. I know how that feels because I'm the same way! But I really think that if you step back and stop trying to read meaning into this situation where there isn't necessarily any meaning at all, this will be much, much easier. Again, this is not intended to be a personal slight, merely an observation.
I'm curious what the other two participants think of using a hatnote to solve this issue. L'Aquatique 05:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my last post then. Henotheism seems too scholastic for the lead to me, you introduced it, not me. What my user page doesn't say is that I've spent decades working with teenagers. Let's not speculate on scholarship driving either of us crazy. You don't know me, I don't know you, and ad hominem speculations, even if not slighting, are still not addressing the issue.

What the average dudes who first opened this article seemed to be interested in is whether there is any boy-ness or girl-ness to supernatural figures in real religions, rather than in, say, those of online games. I think I have little choice but to accept you introducing the scholastic approach, since this is an encyclopedia. I just can't follow how it's OK for you to go scholastic, and then suggest it is me that's making things complicated. The literature says the referent God simply is complicated when generalized. I would have thought it's our job to make what the literature says as easy to follow as possible, not to dismiss subjects because they're more complicated than we'd like. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe what L'Aquatique was getting at is that your slant is more semantic, a discussion about the discussion, an approach to discussion usually reserved by scholars for discussing complex theorem and peer review; rather than actually dealing with the topic at hand. It's very handy if you're assessing a complex linguistic thesis but less so in this instance. -Rushyo (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a hatnote specifying that this article is about God rather than gods is a great idea.

This seems like a logical distinction, not just because it matches the title. The historical significance of God having a gender is very different from the historical significance of various gods having genders.

As far as history of the article, the "God and gender" article was split into "Gender of God" and "Gender in Bible translation" (with an added link to "Gender and Religion"). Those were the topics it addressed. When I performed the split in October of 2007, there was one sentence on polytheism: "Polytheistic and henotheistic religions, including pagan religions and various ethnic religions, believe the spiritual world is encompassed by multiple gods, though they may be one spirit or be born from one parent god." --Alynna (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A content fork should, by Misplaced Pages's usual standards, be considered a last ditch attempt to save useful content where their place in the original topic is absolutely unsalvageable. Still, it seems like a widely agreeable solution in this instance and if nothing else will help delineate discussion in the future!. -Rushyo (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I apologize if you feel I have slighted you in some way, Alastair, but I can assure you that was not the intention. I merely conjectured from reading your additions to the article that you have an academic slant to you- which is a good thing! But, there is also a problem with that, in that you want to provide as much information as possible into the article and in an encyclopedia it is imperative to keep it concise. If an article already exists giving information about definitions of God, gender, etc etc, then rather than including that content we should link to those articles. This a fundamental principle of our community and helps to keep things from descending into complete and utter chaos.
I would be interested in hearing Ilkali's view on the idea of a hatnote, so far there seems to be a slight consensus toward it, with some reasonable objections raised. L'Aquatique 21:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the idea above (). It probably would've been more sensible for me to make a new unindented comment instead, but I'm still carrying habits from other styles of forum. Ilkali (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. Alastair, you're the only one who hasn't expressed an opinion on the hatnote proposal.Thoughts? L'Aquatique 00:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have actually answered the question above, first by mentioning forking, secondly by explaining that the boundary of what is considered henotheistic is easy to state in theory, but hard to apply in practice. Is shituf henotheistic? I reject the proposal on the grounds that I think it would exclude trinitarian Christianity, certainly those branches that consider Jesus to be male and the Holy Spirit to be female.

How about we spare ourselves intricate arguments over which religions believe in one God and which believe in many by starting the lead with a simple sentence like, "Many religions believe in a God or gods. These religions have a range of views regarding gender as it applies to divine persons."

That appears to say exactly the same thing as the hatnote, without the disadvantage of requiring forking. If ever the article gets too big, we can indeed content fork. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"I reject the proposal on the grounds that I think it would exclude trinitarian Christianity, certainly those branches that consider Jesus to be male and the Holy Spirit to be female". Can you please explain your reasoning for this?

"How about we spare ourselves intricate arguments over which religions believe in one God and which believe in many by ". With the article scope I'm advocating, it doesn't matter if a religion has one or more than one deities. All that matters is whether it has a God deity. If it has at least one deity identified as God, it is included. Since any form of Christianity uncontroversially includes a God deity, it is uncontroversially included.

"starting the lead with a simple sentence like, "Many religions believe in a God or gods. These religions have a range of views regarding gender as it applies to divine persons."". I've already argued against this lead. 1) 'in a God' is either a contravention of the MoS (which prescribes non-capitalisation for common nouns) or a clumsy way of saying 'in God', and 2) the article title is specific to God, so the content should be as well. If the title is to remain as it is then deities that are not God should not be addressed. Ilkali (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think POV forking alone is sufficient objection to reject the proposal.

Although I think answering your other points takes us off track, and I've covered this ground before, I'll repeat it here in small type.

Since you ask for more information, I'll provide a very simplified summary. Trinitarian Chistianity (see Athenasian Creed) asserts that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. It is also explicit that the Father is not identical with the Son and neither of them is identical with the Spirit. Finally (for our purposes, but not for this creed), it is explicit that there is no ontological subordination of any of the persons of the Godhead. Trinitarianism, in its classical formulation, is explicitly neither unambiguously monotheism, nor henotheism. Just why this matters in Christian theology need not concern us here; however, it is simply what Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant and Pentecostal branches of Christianity teach, and is considered definitive of the bounds of reliable sources of Christian doctrine.

Your second and third points reflect your own dissatisfaction with standard conventions (see Oxford English Dictionary) regarding references to One Supreme Being or any God, as conceived in various forms of henotheism. Reference to such a God as paternal are capitalised Father, as for example in "Our Father who art in heaven", just as the OED itself capitalises One Supreme Being.

In the academic literature we can find generic references following this same convention. "Modern science is relatively unsuccessful in dealing with the loss of personal meaning experienced by people who are suffering due to illness (Baldacchino & Draper, 2001). Research suggests that spiritual coping strategies, involving relationship with self, others, Ultimate other/God or nature are found to help individuals to cope with their illness."

The Wiki MoS is quite correct in following the OED. When god is a common noun it is not capitalised. In any henotheistic context, and even in the context of the language of devotees of polytheistic deities, God is a proper noun with a specific, personal referent. Frequently this involves determiners like definite and indefintite articles—the God of Abraham or a God who is rich in mercy—or possessive adjectives—My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? and Our Father (above).

Alastair Haines (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"I think POV forking alone is sufficient objection to reject the proposal". I do not agree that anybody is proposing a POV fork.

"Trinitarianism, in its classical formulation, is explicitly neither unambiguously monotheism, nor henotheism". As I have already said, whether a religion is monotheistic or henotheistic is irrelevant under the scope I have described. All that matters is whether it contains a God deity. Christianity uncontroversially does, correct?

You do not need to go into depth on the meanings of the two /gɒd/-words, Alastair. Let's be specific to in a God. Syntactically, the word in question is behaving as a common noun, as evidenced by the indefinite article. There are then two interpretations of the /gɒd/-word: It is either the common noun god acting as a normal common noun, or the proper noun God being converted to act as a common noun (as in, for example, I know three Simons or the comic features an evil Batman). If it is the former, the capitalisation is inappropriate. If it is the latter, and the meaning is essentially "in a deity that is God", then why don't we just say "in God" and remove all possibility for confusion? Ilkali (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Most branches of Wicca use the term 'Gods' in an honourific sense. I personally do as well. There's little point arguing over the pedantic niceties of terminology. This is undoubtedly WP:Wikilawyering and you must realise that. Anyone can Wikilawyer and bog down a discussion needlessly. Would it kill to WP:Use common sense just insofar as required to reach an agreement? I cannot imagine all the points being raised by both parties are ones they actually care about. Can we just identify real bones of contention and discuss those rather than elongated debates about the niceties of grammar and obscure grammar rules? -Rushyo (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

About the Wiccan (and any similar) usage of 'Gods' -- in such a context, is a single deity also referred to as a God? I ask not to get into the debate on the grammatical merits of "a God", but because it may affect the language needed in our hatnote, should we reach consensus to have one.

I believe a real bone of contention is the scope of the article - whether it ought to include all deities, or only the kind described by the article God. --Alynna (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"I believe a real bone of contention is the scope of the article". Agreed. This is something we should reach a conclusion on before anything else. Ilkali (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. With that the grammatical issues will likely become redundant anyway. "is a single deity also referred to as a God" Sometimes. It's a reflex to the concept of the capitalisation of God representing power in some Christian cultures. All the Gods are also one whole, which in various guises can be nature or the universe or 'God' itself. -Rushyo (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"There's little point arguing over the pedantic niceties of terminology. This is undoubtedly WP:Wikilawyering and you must realise that". How can I be wikilawyering without making reference to any wiki laws? All I'm doing is discussing the content that Alastair proposed. You of all people should be assuming good faith in this discussion. Ilkali (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You can wikilawyer in good faith. I just felt some actions being taken were 'abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit'. Specifically I'm talking about WP:MoS. Sorry, I should have qualified it better. -Rushyo (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What this all seems to be coming down to is Ilkali objecting to my use of the indefinite article.

One letter a prompting so much text! (And it is where it started.)

Semantics

"Many religions believe in God" is not acceptable because it assumes there is only one God.

But that is not the case in the context of this article.

Christians insist Jesus is God, Jews insist he isn't (apologies to MJ). Despite sharing the same God in important ways, both religions are agreed that they are actually worshipping different gods, only one of which can be the true God.

Because Ilkali doesn't believe in God, any God, which is fine by me, it is hard for him to intuit that genuine henotheistic believers exist and recognise differences between their conceptions of the object of their worship. We might all call him God, but specifically he is either Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or some other name for some specific conception of A Supreme Being (cf. OED Church of England POV "the One " ). If HaShem is God, Christians are in trouble, because he won't be pleased. If Allah is God, others are in trouble. All religions are not the same. It is only atheists that don't believe in the same God, though even that's debatable!

To leave out the indefinite article is to present an atheist POV.

Now that would be fine, except in an article that assumes readers are wanting to engage with analysis of writers who have believed in their God—a God who doesn't exist, doesn't have gender (though I can't cite a source for that).

Syntax

Because Ilkali genuinely doesn't see the semantic significance of the article, he mounts a syntactic argument, that he wouldn't bother with if the semantic subtlety stood out to him. Those of us who are familiar with the differences between people's conceptions of God realise the indefinite article concisely expresses the wide variety of PsOV. To us it's obviously a well-formed expression, making a meaningful distinction in the regular pattern of English usage—"Many religions believe in a God".

Ilkali bravely tries to construct a linguistic argument to help us see we're speaking meaningless nonsense. However, the problem is actually that he's missed the meaning of the expression, because it doesn't engage with his world view—Ilkali knows precisely which God he doesn't believe in, there's only one of Him, or an empty set is singular or something.

But there is no rule against indefinite articles before proper nouns—an American, a Big Mac, a Democratic nominee, etc. Definite articles are almost mandatory before proper nouns in Koine Greek, and are common in English. I gave plenty of examples of a variety of other determiners with God in the post above. In a previous discussion with Ilkali I cited other sources.

I've been asking Ilkali to provide a source for his syntactic argument for more than a month, with nothing forthcoming as yet.

However, it's a shame he keeps raising this, since it only distracts from the semantics.

For Ilkali a God is craziness, he's a smart man, he uses Okham's razor, why disbelieve in many Gods (or gods), when you only need to disbelieve in one? He's absolutely sure there's only one God he doesn't believe in. Actually, he's wrong, Ilkali and I both don't believe in almost equally many Gods, gods or supernatural spiritual entities. In fact, if he only doesn't believe in one God, perhaps I should tell him more about mine, he might believe in that one. ;)

I'm trying to introduce humour here. It is not intended to be at anyone's expense, least of all Ilkali's. I'm happy to remove any part of it people might take personally. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"What this all seems to be coming down to is Ilkali objecting to my use of the indefinite article". That's a tiny part of the discussion, and one I'm happy to shelve for now. What's more important is deciding on a scope for the article. See the section I created below.

On another note, I'd like to point out that the way you've written this reply, primarily addressing me rather than my arguments and continually assigning me motives and opinions, is not conducive to establishing peaceful consensus. I'd advise you to remove it, but will not insist on it. Ilkali (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting line for you to take Ilkali. Actually, I was attempting to offer a credible interpretation of your editing that is consistent with good faith. I'm quite happy there's no personal attack in the text. Quite the contrary, I'm actually suggesting good motives while disagreeing with arguments.

I admit I don't know your motives unless you state them. Your actions and your comments regarding my motives are part of this mediation and we'll get to those in time. If they are different to those I've proposed above, I'll be interested to hear what they are. But, for now, I agree content is first priority. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, please refrain from making judgments about other users. Even if what you are posting is a good faith analysis of another user's behavior, it is not helping and is only serving to inflame the situation. Similarly, Ilkali, let's try to move away from semantics and to the heart of the issue. I can only say this: as it stands currently, the name of the article is Gender of God. God is a name referring to a specific omnipotent being as described in the Torah (and later in the Qur'an, New Testament, etc), while god is a common noun used to refer to any omnipotent being. As it stands right now, the article is mostly covering Abrahamic religions and so the real question is: do we want to keep it that way or expand the scope? L'Aquatique 18:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Many religions believe in a God or gods. These religions have a range of views regarding gender as it applies to divine persons.

Alastair Haines (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Divine entities or perhaps deities at the end? There's not many religions that identify their God(s) as people. -Rushyo (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mono- and poly-theism consider deities to be personal. That's a standard distinction made in the literature. Many languages have personal/impersonal syntactic agreement (including English). Gods are inflected as personal, like humans. It is also documented in the literature that animism does not always view its "higher spirits" in the same way.

If we agree to include animism in the article, as I propose, it would make sense to speak of "spiritual beings" rather than "divine persons". Entities is too broad, too vague and especially too impersonal, even for animism. Powers would be better, but slants too far towards the animist and away from the theist. An animist would be happy with it, a polytheist wouldn't.

Entity is actually derived from the Greek ontos for "being", but has evolved a somewhat impersonal flavour in English usage. It might just be used by deists, but not theists. Divinities might work for Wicca, but not for many other forms of animism, where spiritual forces are not clearly gods.

I think this article is exploring views of the gender of supernatural beings, documenting the range and relationship of published views around the world and through time. It excludes an important, related question that is often discussed, regarding "soul gender" of human beings. It also does not focus on demonology, angelology or on archons, demi-gods, titans, dryads and other beings considered intermediate between gods and men.

So, if we "focus on God", the topic is divine persons (because we're restricting our scope). If we include Wicca et. al., the topic is spiritual beings (because we're generalising). Alastair Haines (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Article scope

This section is solely for discussion of what scope the article should have. I'd ask that everybody clearly declare their positions here, as I feel there may have been confusion over this in the past. For the moment, I'd like us not to start discussing which of the options is better - we should start a separate sub-section for that once we're all clear on one another's positions.

Options

1. Make specific to God

Include only deities that are identified as God. This does not restrict us to discussion of only a single type of religion and it does not exclude Hinduism or Christianity or, I think, any of the religions that are currently on the list. Any religion that contains a God deity can be examined with respect to that deity. Any distinct entities that are associated with the deity, such as the elements of the Trinity, can also be examined.

2. Change article title, and address all deities

Rather than discriminate between deities based on whether they are identified as God, we could relabel the article and open it to discussion of any deity from any religion.

3. Retain article title, disambiguate at top of lead (text or hatnote).

Other titles may prove to be either too specific or too vague. Disambiguation of God/god may be inevitable due to subject of article rather than title.

4. Other options

Options 1-3 may not be the only or best way forward. Other proposals welcome.

Positions

Ilkali

I would favor either 1 or 2, and am open to arguments on which of the two is better.

Alastair

Alynna

I favour Option 1 over Option 2, because I think that the gender of entities called "God" is a topic deserving of its own article. I am unclear as to what Option 3 is.

Ilkali wrote options 1 and 2, I've supplied 3 and 4. Option 1 is titled "specific to God", but then described as including polytheism (Hinduism). I don't understand. Option 2 describes pretty much what I think the article should be, but I don't see why that needs a change in title. So I'm more confused. If the Oxford can cope with God and god in one article under a single title, because they're inextricably related, I don't see why we can't. I think we need to refine the way the options are being presented here. :I intended for this section to only include declaration of positions. Would you mind saving the supporting arguments for a different sub-section, as I did? I don't want this section to get polluted with debate. Also, feel free to create a separate section for discussion of the process (eg, how the options are presented). Ilkali (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)(moved to discussion section below, L'Aquatique 18:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

Discussions on the above

Discussion about the choices listed above should be placed here.

Option One

Option 1 is titled "specific to God", but then described as including polytheism (Hinduism). I don't understand. (Alastair)

"Hinduism is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism and atheism. It is sometimes referred to as henotheistic (devotion to a single god while accepting the existence of others), but any such term is an oversimplification of the complexities and variations of belief." -Hinduism -Rushyo (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Hinduism article references God several times. The God article references Hinduism multiple times. We even have an article God in Hinduism. I would say this is reasonable evidence that the term God is meaningful in the context of Hinduism, even if not everybody recognises it or maps it to the same entity. Ilkali (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Option Two

Option 2 describes pretty much what I think the article should be, but I don't see why that needs a change in title. So I'm more confused. If the Oxford can cope with God and god in one article under a single title, because they're inextricably related, I don't see why we can't. I think we need to refine the way the options are being presented here. (Alastair)

Not all deities are called "God", but it is (I think) appropriate to call them all "gods". Therefore, an article about all deities should have "gods", not "God", in its title. --Alynna (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Option Three

(the below comment was relocated here from above. Ilkali (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)) Alastair, this doesn't seem to specify a scope - is it the same as 2 but with a note rather than a relabelling? Ilkali (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, could you please explain this option more clearly? Does it include God only, or all deities? In what way does it differ from Option 1/2 (the one with which it shares an answer to the previous question)? --Alynna (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Option Four

Clarify Discussion

I find the options above confuse rather than clarify things for me. Rather than spend time, words and space refining that approach, I'd rather ask four key yes-or-no questions. This can be taken as my answer to the section above if desired.

1. Methodology Should this article interact with reliable sources of comparative religion or simply with the language popular culture?
2. Scope Should this article continue to address Hinduism, hence polytheism and beyond?
3. Title Does the title need to be changed to reflect its content?
4. Lead Is disambiguation required in the lead?

Comments

Question 1 is a serious question. Wiki has many quality articles on popular culture. However, it would seem contrary to the history of this article to move in that direction. Also, reliable sources of comparative religion do not exclude popular culture. I only raise the question because the idea of "being too academic" has been raised. Is anyone seriously against basing the article on the published work of comparative religion? If we all agree on these sources, they go a long way to answering our other questions for us.

As far as I can tell, no one is against Hinduism being in the article, hence there is agreement the article extends beyond henotheism. In practice rather than theory, there is no sharp line dividing henotheism and polytheism, nor between polytheism and animism. Additionally, gender in polytheism and animism is a much clearer issue than with monotheism, which some argue shows clear traces of arising from masculine dominated prior conceptions. Perhaps Question 2 should be phrased, "Should the article include animism—like Shinto and Wicca?" I say yes, does anyone say no?

I think Question 3 is extremely difficult. As far as I can tell, we nearly all agree there are clear weaknesses, but also real strengths about the title. I think it would be good to explore options, and document that, so that future discussion can be progressive rather than covering the same ground.

Question 4 seems simple. Almost any article starts by clarifying terms. It's probably helpful to realise any change of title will still need clarification, specifically of God and gender, neither of which is ever going to be outside the scope of the article. Recognising this allows us more freedom with what is selected for the title.

• Who objects, and why, to the inclusion of Shinto, Wicca and animism in general? (for reasons other than the title)
• What specific proposals are there for an alternative title?
• What, if any, other significant issues are being overlooked or inadequately represented?

Alastair Haines (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses

"As far as I can tell, no one is against Hinduism being in the article, hence there is agreement the article extends beyond henotheism". The point of my above section clarifying our positions was that we would stop talking past one another. This focus on henotheism is purely yours. Stop framing other people's positions as being specific to henotheism. As I wrote above, option 1 includes Hinduism because God is a meaningful term in the context of that religion. Its inclusion does not entail the inclusion of all other religions. Ilkali (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, you are the one framing things according to your POV. That has been the problem from the start. Your two options are framed according to your view. You're proposing we negotiate as editors, the scope of the reference of the word god. This is simply a waste of time since there are thousands of books that do that for us. You are now explicit that you think God is meaningful in Hinduism. Which mandala of the Rgveda do you get that from? Yes, in modern Hinduism there is much written that is basically henotheistic, the academic term, not mine. Introduced here by L'Aquatique, not me. But the fact remains, if Hinduism is in the article the word gods and the phrase divine persons are also needed to accomodate it. This is so far from being confusing that this description survived 12 months of edits to the page. The only reason for a hat note is that you have insisted on replacing that description with OR text. Failing to answer my questions, is "talking past me". Four yes or no questions, what are your answers? Alastair Haines (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Ilkali, you are the one framing things according to your POV". I did not accuse you of that. I said only that you were misrepresenting other people's positions.

"Your two options are framed according to your view". Please elaborate. I'm still not at all clear on what your problem is with either of them.

"You're proposing we negotiate as editors, the scope of the reference of the word god". I emphatically deny proposing that. I have no idea how you got that impression.

"You are now explicit that you think God is meaningful in Hinduism". I think the term is meaningful within that context to at least a significant subset of people, yes. So does Misplaced Pages in general, according to the articles I directed you to (God, Hinduism, God in Hinduism). As I said, it may not be that everybody agrees on whether the term is appropriate or what it should mean, but there is clearly at least one deity that is commonly referred to as God.

"But the fact remains, if Hinduism is in the article the word gods and the phrase divine persons are also needed to accomodate it". No, because it is not necessary to examine every entity defined within Hinduism. Just that/those that is/are identified as God.

"Failing to answer my questions, is "talking past me"". All but the first question are covered by the above section on scope (where, I will note, others have asked you to clarify your position and you have failed to answer). Ilkali (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)