Talk:Prayer/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Prayer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Completeness

I'd suggest that, for completeness, some commentary on criticism is notable. For example, some criticise prayer as harmful in some cases, pointing to deaths in Christian Science families (as an example) where parents prayed for family members instead of taking them to a physician for easily curable ailments. I don't think that the article needs much of this, but it's notable enough to help the article meet Wikipedia's GA criterion 3 and FA criterion 1.b. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology in the lead sentence

We never put etymology in the lead sentence - see Wikipedia:LEAD#First_sentence. It's fine to include in the article body, however. Plus, the current structure of the lead sentence contextualized 'prayer' as both a term and a concept simultaneously, which is confusing. Kaldari (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

None of the dictionaries or websites I consulted agree with our etymology anyway. Kaldari (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Jews do NOT kneel

The footnote cited to support this claim is fallacious. Please remove this erroneous statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.227.249 (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the claim of kneeling in Jewish prayer (something which, for what it's worth, is not claimed in the cited source). — Rich wales 22:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Metaphysics missing

There are numerous metaphysical examinations regarding whether prayer can "work" within various religious traditions (or in general), especially monotheistic traditions which consider an all-powerful personal god who can answer prayers. These analyses—which seem like they would contribute to a treatment of prayer in an online encyclopedia—are notably missing from the article. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of efficacy discussion found in intro

To me it seems that to much of the intro is dedicated to the issue of whether or not prayer is efficacious. I think that matter is better handled in the subsection later on in the article and need not be so prominently featured in the introduction.

The whole issue of whether of not prayer is efficacious seems to be primarily directed at a specific type of prayer; i.e., prayers in which the petitioner is making a specific request of a divine being or spiritual agency to interact on the outcome a specific circumstance. Given that there is a large variety of pray traditions throughout history and across cultures which are totally unrelated to the issue of efficacy as it is presented in the introduction, it seems quite inappropriate to give the topic such prominence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.17.209.20 (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

New thing for "See also" section

Shouldn't the section "See also" also have Grace_(prayer) - the prayer that Christians say before meals?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Taoist Prayer

The prayer under Taoism is just plain false. Too many things are wrong with it that a whole revision needs to be done. One important thing to remember is that Taoists are not atheists. 140.254.227.87 (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have a source that proves what you are claiming, that is just your opinion. Wikipedia thrives on verifiability. If it's not verifiable, we don't include it. So why not detail your objections to the section in question and provide sources to prove your claims instead of making the sweeping generalization that "too many things are wrong with it that a whole revision needs to be done." Good luck with your research! --Jgstokes (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The original isn't verifiable either. 140.254.227.87 (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Witchcraft navbox

I have removed the {{witchcraft}} navbox. There are many religions mentioned in this article, and we should neither add navboxes for all of them (that would be overkill), nor should we single out one comparatively small group that's mentioned only in passing (that would be undue weight). The main {{religion topics}} navbox already serves the same purpose and does it better. Huon (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The naxbox concerns magic and witchcraft (many types) in general, including rituals and practices. Prayer is a practice in [general, religious or otherwise] magic, as defined by an action taken by a group or individual to elicit a supernatural response or commune with supernatural beings. Restoring unless better argument can be given. 144.32.60.216 (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Prayer is not commonly considered magic, and the article does not say so. In fact it mentions magic only in connection with specific, comparatively small, religions. Claiming such a connection for prayer in general would be original research. Huon (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It is sorted by definition of a category, the way all categories are organized. Please, if you would have a reasonable argument against my definition above applying to prayer, then by all means tell me so. The definition of magic EXACTLY describes the general purpose of prayer. 144.32.60.216 (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Says WP:Categorization: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." The page is not in Category:Magic, and it shouldn't be because prayer is not commonly held to be magic. Neither should navboxes be added based on an editor's original research. I also disagree philosophically with the claim, but that doesn't matter because even if I agreed it would still be original research. Huon (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I will provide verification as soon as my schedule allows. Otherwise, I am disappointed in your cultural bias. 144.32.60.216 (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Image

Considering that there are plenty of images in art history choosing a black and white scan of a relatively unknown artist is not the best choice. Hafspajen (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The motivation for removing this image was Artist is not well known. Ary Scheffer is not very well known either. If we want to stick to Ary Scheffer there is still a picture of much better quality, higher resolution, and in colour. Hafspajen (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC) The image I removed was 320 × 504 pixels, file size: 24 KB, scan blurry and extremly bad quality. The image I added - now removed - is 2,779 × 3,339 pixels, file size: 2.73 MB, it is a Google Art Project scan of high quality. Both illustrate about the same thing - a woman praying. Hafspajen (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being accused of edit warring when I only reverted your edit once in good faith. I did not revert you repeatedly and you did not take the issue to the talk page until after I reverted you. I don't feel strongly enough about the lead image to get into an argument about. If there is a consensus to change the image then I have no objection. The black and white image has been in use for several years, however. -- Hazhk^Talk 00:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Could we consider File:Duerer-Prayer.jpg, below? It's a very simple and clear image depicting two hands clasped together. It symbolises prayer: "to ask earnestly, beg, entreat". I think it would avert any conflict over artistic style. It essentially depicts the same primary feature of the other pictures. -- Hazhk^Talk 05:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

YES, it is great. Very good choice. Also added here another Mary Magdalene by Tintoretto, and some other depictions of prayer made by famous artist's. Let you chose if you want to use any of them. Hafspajen (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Other representations of Mary Magdalene and others in prayer in art
Carlo Dolci
Rubens Jeanne' d'Arc
Sassoferrato
Saint Francis in prayer by Zurbarán
El Greco, St Dominic in Prayer
Medieval
Saint Francis in Meditation by Caravaggio
Andrea del Sarto

I'm not convinced a large file size is necessarily an indication of quality. Personally I'd go with the Dürer image: A well-known artist and an image that focuses on the essentals: No landscape in the background, no allegorical accessories, no famous historical or mythological persons, just a gesture that (at least in Western Christianity) clearly symbolizes prayer. Huon (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it is the best choice for the lead. -- Hazhk^Talk 19:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The other ones can be used in the article . Or not. You decide. Hafspajen (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"Pray to God"

The usage and primary topic of Pray to God is under discussion, see talk:Pray to God (song) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Focusing on what Prayer is, and is not.

If we are to use the definition; “Prayer is the active effort to communicate with a deity or higher being”, then we must not use “chant, mantra, scripted recital, meditation or minnisveig” as forms of “prayer”. Confusing Prayer with superstitious behaviors like lighting candles, dance, kneeling and ringing bells is a disservice. --13:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Russell Williams (Chicago) (talk)

A "disservice" to whom? Our readers or people who pray without those behaviors?" Carptrash (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This Page reads like a hit piece

I want to take a knife to several sections of this page. Prayer is a widespread aspect of many cultures, and has obvious significance in terms of (at least) history, anthropology, theology, etc. But much of this page reads like talking points for a debate about whether or not _intercessionary_ prayer is physically efficacious. That is an interesting question, and deserves mention here, but right now it is warping the article out of all proportion. Why are we discussing the Raëlians and Aztec human sacrifice on this page at all? This is presumably one of the A-list pages for theological topics, it seems like it we should treat it that way.EthanMitchellsNewAccount (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Prayer. 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) 19:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Prayer. 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) 12:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)