Jump to content

Talk:Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

[edit]
Rationale :   The actual article is about something much more specific. I have no idea how it should be renamed, though.
Proposer : The Famous Movie Director 01:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
I've moved as you suggested; you can still merge, of course. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 06:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Further source)

[edit]

A further source: http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/08/Neighborhoodtimes/An_image_of_Jesus__Al.shtml

Pareidola in Islam?

[edit]

such as characters for the word Allah being seen on the body pattern of oscars (the fish) etc.

Yes, worth mentioning. I've added this to the intro, and will dig out some news references. There's a nice compilation at Miracle Pictures of Islam. Tearlach 15:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth pointing out that the word "Allah", written in the Arabic script, is *really* easy to find in a bunch of random squiggles with a vertical tendency? Three vertical strokes and something roundish, connected at the bottom except for the first stroke. That's all you need to claim that Allah signed the tsunami or whatever.

Is it worth pointing out?
Reckon so. With only slight exaggeration, it's as if God in English were called "OOO" or "III". There's probably a more formal way of expressing this. General simplicity of letter forms in the Arabic alphabet (especially in the everyday Riq'a); a tradition of massive typographical flexibility (see Islamic calligraphy); and the particular shape of the word Allah. Tearlach 08:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, some decoration of Muslim pottery consists of simply three vertical strokes that are interpreted as some religious word. --Error 01:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I hate these "vege-miracles" (as I call them). Armyrifle 21:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

This article needs many pictures. --Error 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

[edit]

As this is basically a list, I propose renaming it "list of religious pareidolia". Λυδαcιτγ 21:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work Shirahadasha. It is still a list, though, so "List of perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena"? Λυδαcιτγ 18:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move and WP:NPOV problems

[edit]

This entire page, including the title, seems written in a completely POV fashion. The claim that religious patterns are seen "where none intended" is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The article needs to characterize and describe the various claims of seeing religious visions and patterns in a neutral way. This article doesn't do that. I'd suggest a title change to "religious patterns" or similar, with pareidolia being one theory -- among others -- offered to explain them. Suggest revisting the RfM, seems to have died out for lack of interest in discussing rather than concensus. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR problems

[edit]

Many of the items in the list are completely unsourced. For items that are sourced, in most cases the source describes the phenomena and fails to contain any claim that the particular incident involves pareidolia. The basic thrust of this list seems to be essentially WP:OR. Editors seem to be presenting their own personal belief and opinion about the nature of these phenomena, without bothering to obtain or present any sources for their claims. --Shirahadasha 07:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As but one example of many, this reference doesn't contain anything even approximating a claim that the phenomenon described is pareidolia. It contains claims that the phenomenon is a legitimately religious one, contrasted with a wait-and-see can't-be-sure skepticism expressed by a Catholic priest. Characterizing this phenomenon as pareidolia in the complete absence of any source supporting such a characterization represents a leap of WP:OR specifically prohibited by Wikipedia polices. Best, --Shirahadasha 07:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the article, changed intro, attempted to describe phenomena from a completely neutral point of view. Made pareidolia a POV explanation of these phenomena rather than part of their definition. Removed article tags. There problems of sourcing etc. with individual items in the list but believe this addresses the WP:NPOV issue with the article as a whole. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're getting at here. Perhaps I was lax in thinking it sufficient to link to the pareidolia article here, which is reasonably cited. You're not going to get, for every single news item of this type, a mention of the possibility of pareidolia. Newspapers are not terribly into discussing cognitive psychology. But there are plenty of sources describing pareidolia as a general explanation for such phenomena. It may not get into newspapers, but it's the mainstream scientific view and deserves prominent inclusion, not just a footnote after the listcruft. Check out SkepDic Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking Medical Meanderings Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction: Where Real Science Ends-- and Pseudoscience Begins Faces, Faces Everywhere, etc. Tearlach 03:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial images

[edit]

A photo, suggesting an image of Jesus, of a dog's bum has been widely seen on the Internet in recent months. Should this be included? I'm unaware whether it has been controversial, but I imagine that some users may find it offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanky (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is for info that is notable and verifiable regardless of whether some find it offensive. If the story was in multiple news sources it MAY be notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagarism?

[edit]

I don't know if it is plagarism or not but this article seems to be suspiciously similar to this [1] entry from Reference.com. The question is who is plagarizing who? Just an observation. Anthony 23:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, they cite us. Anthony 23:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and vandalism

[edit]

Because of the nature of the subject matter it must be very tempting for vandals to make up content. It is, therefore, particularly important that all the content is sourced. I have removed one statement that looked unsourceable and have added a bunch of ((fact)) tags. Unless these statements are sourced soon I intend to remove them. TerriersFan 15:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity

[edit]

I'm a big fan of quantity, but this is kinda silly. I think someone needs to look into categorically pruning the list and finding only the better (bigger?) examples? Just an idea. Imasleepviking ( talk ) 22:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any examples that are not referenced should be deleted but it seems well referenced. The page can be split into Perceptions of Mary in natural phenomena, Perceptions of Jesus in natural phenomena, Perceptions of Allah in natural phenomena. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a split tag to the article. The page is only 38k at present but the split would break it up into logical divisions. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Pizza Pan

[edit]

This originally started "On February 21, 2007, Ash Wednesday, a kitchen worker at Pugh Elementary School [...]". After boggling for a moment at the remarkable coincidence that the kitchen worker concerned should be named "Ash Wednesday" ("Ash" is a not-uncommon shortening of "Ashley") - even to following the link and looking at the Ash Wednesday disambig page - I decided that I'd made a Garden Path parse error. Hence I inserted "the date of" to fend off false parses. If you think it's overkill, feel free to revert, of course. Kay Dekker (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


God works in breathtakingly tedious and painstaking ways

[edit]

Does being omnipotent come with a, may only communicate through the most rediculous of things? Seriously god, it's time for another plague. Theese people are insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.141.89.53 (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested for deletion

[edit]

This type of whacky article probably reduces the credibility of Wikipedia. I looked at the image of Mother Teresa supposedly seen on a piece of food in a store. It is just hopeless. What if someone notices the face of Einstein on a piece of fruit? Will there be an article on that? There is more material on this topic than on some serious works of art or some scientific or serious religious topics. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, this type of semi-sane articles need to be removed. History2007 (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I first considered suggesting a rename to Acheropite, which is the correct "technical" term for these phenomena, but I'm hesitant because it's not in widespread use - I'll create it as a redirect for now and see whether anyone else likes the idea.
I'm strongly opposed to the idea of splitting the article based on whether Jesus, Mary, the name of Allah or whatever is the subject of the image, simply because there are other borderline cases - various saints, for example - which wouldn't slot in neatly, and anyway the whole concept is quite straightforward and doesn't need a fork of this type. Far better to prune this ridiculously long list of examples down to a properly sourced description of what the phenomenon is, its history, and a representative sampling of examples from the various religious traditions, ditching anything with dodgy references. I'm going to have a go at sorting this out, but any and all input from other editors will be most gratefully accepted. And btw: if Einstein appeared on a kiwi fruit tomorrow, he'd be a "simulacrum" unless people happened to venerate him and believe some supernatural entity put him there, at which point he'd be an acheropite, and I'd recommend an eBay seller's account quickly before he started to shrivel :) Karenjc 21:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least try to inject some sanity into it. As is, this page looks like News of the World, tabloid junk, not an encyclopedia item. There are millions who read News of the World, but I wonder about their knowledge and education level, etc. An encyclopedia needs to be serious, not tabloid. History2007 (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree with you, but the fact is that there are millions of people out there who do believe this stuff, just as there are (allegedly) many thousands who read The News of the World or indeed the Sunday Sport, and an encyclopaedia needs to record the fact whilst neatly avoiding becoming a fansite for holy aubergines and haunted windows, as it currently is. And I've just found our article on the subject (it's at Acheiropoieta, which is a bit classical but there you go). I'll add a see-also and see about cutting the thing down to a manageable size. Karenjc 21:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a list of....?

[edit]

I feel that the info on the assorted cases of pareidolia that has been deleted should be listed on a List of religious pareidolia page. There are plenty of less notable lists that attract a small and selected readership eg. List of Transformers UK Comics, List of Ergo Proxy characters. The heavily edited page certainly flows a lot better without all of the cases being listed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-religious pareidolia

[edit]

Would it be possible to include non-religious pareidolia, such as the one alleged to be of Ho Chi Minh on a Boston gas tank? [2] [3] Orville Eastland (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The writing on the wall

[edit]

According to http://www.arsxxi.com/pfw_files/cma/ArticulosR/Neurologia/2002/10/109100206330642.pdf Pareidolia en los códices visigóticos iluminados de Beato de Liébana, A. Martín Araguz, M. C. Bustamante Martínez, V. Fernández-Armayor Ajo, M. López Gómez, Neurología:2002:17(10):633-642 the representation of the writing on the wall in the Visigothic Beatus is the first representation of pareidolia in History. Should it be mentioned? --Error (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pareidolia

[edit]

I see no reference to support the assertion that the generally accepted scientific view is that such phenomena are examples of pareidolia. I have toned it down to "a sceptical view" in the intro. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mary pancake 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Mary pancake 2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perceptions_of_religious_imagery_in_natural_phenomena&oldid=1197994482"