Talk:Prayer/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested at WP:3O but havign looked at this page, I dont really have any idea what it's about. Can someone enlighten me? AndrewRT(Talk) 00:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The request listed there linked the Prayer Efficacy (reference from Deuteronomy?!) section above. It began in December 2007 and was taken up again this month. It's about a line at the end of the Prayer#Efficacy of prayer section. — Athaenara ✉ 06:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

God vs. god

Even though most religions capitalize the term "God", there are some that do not, and because of this the term must not be capitalized in the article. If you revert an edit that capitalizes "God", please refer to this thread on the talk page. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This issue is discussed in an earlier thread of the same title on this same talk page. I invite you, Blanchardb, to see that thread. According to that, it IS appropriate according to WP policy to capitalize "God" unless speaking of "a god." As far as I know, the regulations set therein are still valid. Because of this, I'm not sure where you got the impression that "the term must not be capitalized in the article". This seems to be incorrect. However, if WP policy has changed since the last post was made on this issue in that earlier topic, I'd appreciate being made aware of that so that I can change my viewpoint and what viewpoint I advance and defend accordingly. Thank you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason for my intervention here is that there seems to have been an edit war recently. But in the particular occurrence where the edit was occurred, "god" means any god of any religion, so I don't think it is appropriate to have it capitalized in that particular instance. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 09:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars are never constructive, so I can see why you said what you said. However, according to WP policy as I understand it, if the sentence was something like "the children of Israel gave sacrifice to other gods," or something like that, then it would be lower case. However, if the sentence was something like "Jehovah is the God of the Old Testament," then in that case, it would be capitalized. I'd have to know what the sentence in question was before I agreed or disagreed with you. Could you post a copy of it here so I can have a look at it and form an opinion? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Prayer in New Age spirituality

The article has nothing to say about this. This would lend one to suspect that New Agers don't pray. I feel the article is amiss without any discussion of this perspective. __meco (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you help solve that problem? --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

there are 4 types of prayer thanks, asking, praise, sorrow, there are different ways to remember such as TAPS or SPAT.

vain repetition

Removed "to avoid 'vain repetitions'" from /*Christianity*/ for neutrality requirement of wikipedia. The problem was that whilst it is a fact that some protestant groups avoid the Lord's prayer, that it is done to avoid "vain repetition", is not a fact but an opinion. Whilst it may be the opinion of some Christians who do not say the Lord's Prayer, the theological opinions of some groups or denominations should not be given preference in a wikipedia article on prayer over the opinion of any other group or denomination. A Catholic might say, "Some denominations avoid the Lord's prayer, mistakenly believing it to constitute vain repetition." A Jehovah's Witness might say, "Some denominations say the Lord's prayer, but that is vain repetition." Who is to say which of them is right? Certainly not a wikipedia editor, at least not in the wiki. Oliver Low (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Move Kabbalah

The "Kabbalistic approach" does not seem appropriate where it is, should it not be moved to the part of the article that describes specific religions approaches to prayer, since it is not a general category of approach in and off itself (sharing many characteristics with Christian Science prayer, for example) Lostsocks (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved as a subsection of Judaism. Christian Science was demoted into a subsection of Christianity as well. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 12:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Prayer healing

As I reviewed the to do list above which is the outcome of the peer review I ordered a few months ago, I came across the fact prayer healing is not mentioned directly in the article even though the section on efficacy speaks only of prayer with regard to healing. The peer review states that there is a redirect, Prayer healing, which links here, so the article should have a section on that aside from the one on efficacy. In fact, the section on efficacy should be a subsection of that new section.

As for the redirect Prayer healing, I can think of a better target: Faith healing. Our section here on prayer healing should summarize this latter article and mention it as the main article on that concept.

I am now determined to bring this article at least to GA status, so I am seeking everybody's input on this proposal to add material about faith healing that only explains the concept without regard to whether or not it works (we already have that in the article). --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 11:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Orison

I added the word Orison to the lead sentence per the peer review, which made sense to me since the two words are synonymous and since Orison (spirituality) redirects here. However, on second thought, while the term orison should definitely remain in the article, I'm not sure the lead sentence is the right place for it. I believe a better place would be in the section on etymology. What do you think? --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No feedback, so I acted unilaterally. Still open to better ideas, though. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Forms of prayer section

I added some citation tags to the Forms of prayer section. Here's my rationale...I -uh- pray that no one is offended! :-)

The Forms of prayer section makes a number of sweeping claims about various faith traditions that--while probably true--need to be backed up:

"Native Americans dance." All Native Americans? Which nations? Can this be verified?

"Some Sufis whirl." Probably true, but how do we know this--how can we find out more?

"Hindus chant." Again, is there a source for this statement? To the best of my knowledge, nearly all faith traditions chant--why are Hindus being singled out here?

"Orthodox Jews sway their bodies back and forth." Source? Is this true for all Orthodox Jews?

"Quakers keep silent." Certainly not all Quakers keep silent in prayer, particularly those in Programmed Worship churches; nor are Quakers the only faith tradition to practice silent prayer.

Also, the second paragraph looks like original research. Unless we can provide a reference for this, it should probably be removed. Webbbbbbber (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The lack of citations on these assertions has been fixed, and, in some cases, the assertions themselves have been tweaked to address the above concerns. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Pope's intentions

There is a special prayer for the Pope's intentions within Roman Catholicism, something that should probably be looked at, and which might perhaps be deserving of a stub. ADM (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

Neither Vishnavas (70% of Hindus) nor Shaivas (25% of Hindus) see the impersonal Brahman as the ultimate reality of God. Rather they see Brahman as an impersonal component of whoever they see as the ultimate God (Shiva, Krishna, Rama, Narayan, etc.). -- Q Chris (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, can you tell me what is true about prayer in Hinduism? I am looking for sources that can be used. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This definition is not without bias

This definition: "Prayer is "the act of communicating with a deity or spirit in worship." is biased. It appears to be from a protestant source. This is not the definition in a Catholic sense. Prayer to a catholic is not always worship....only when directed to God is it worship. Catholics live out a fuller meaning of the word prayer in the sense of asking and ask those living among us to help by praying to God for us as well as those who are with God (but not God ) to pray to God to help us. The catholic sense of worship is broader than just prayer and singing...in the catholic belief we sacrifice in worship....this is not part of protestant theology. Thus a protestant definition of prayer is truncated and not sufficient to what would be taken as a source of encyclopedic knowledge.Steelwirefingers (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The opening paragraph that includes those words is pretty close to the first word sense in Webster's 3rd: "1a: a solemn and humble approach to Divinity in word or thought usu. involving beseeching, petition, confession, praise or thanksgiving". Wiki articles do allow more than one word sense. You might want to consider adding a few words later in the article, or in Prayer in Christianity. In this case a reference to an extremely reliable source would be best. (E.g., the most recent version of The Catholic Encyclopedia.) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The definition is a good one. All of our actions are done before God, so "communication" narrows it down to specifically directed actions, and "worship" excludes unprayerful communication (like cursing God, and so on). If a Roman Catholic asks his friend Fred to pray for him, you would hardly say that he is praying to Fred; prayers are always directed to God (though sometimes via another person, dead or alive). The broad idea of worship is not just protestant or Roman Catholic (it is, as you say "catholic"): worship encompasses all of our lives lived for God's glory, that is, the reflection and display of his characteristics. The Catholic encyclopaedia gives:

"In a more general sense it is the application of the mind to Divine things, not merely to acquire a knowledge of them but to make use of such knowledge as a means of union with God."

This sounds rather like what is there already, as "the application of the mind to Divine things" is similar in intent to our idea of communication (asking for "gifts and graces", and receiving knowledge), with the restriction to right use for union serving the same purpose as the article's restriction to worship.— Kan8eDie (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem with defining it is that you COULD say he is praying to Fred. "Pray" basically just means "to ask or plead." The specific use of the word as something only directed to God developed FROM that (somewhat archaic, now) meaning. So the two get muddled and confused. When a Catholics says he's "praying to Mary" he means he's asking her something. The Protestant hears the word as synonymous with "worship." Carlo (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in the way that other asking words like beg, implore, beseech, and so on have shifted meaning. We have to be clear what we are defining though. In a dictionary, you are looking at the meaning of words; in the lead of an encyclopaedia, you are looking at the meaning of subjects. The article is about the idea of prayer, not the word prayer, so the first sentence is describing what Prayer (as the article's title) means. Perhaps it should be a bit more clear that the object of the 'prayer' (modern sense) is God, even if someone else is involved, that is, any thanks or petitions even presented through Saints have efficacy only because their ultimate source and object is Jesus. The prayer (article sense) is to God, even though a prayer (old, word sense) is made to the intermediate as well. I am not strongly attached to the current definition though, as, in trying to encompass all sorts of wacky stuff that Christians would not think of as true prayer, it by necessity misses out some of this. Perhaps a debate over the fine language from a protestant and Catholic viewpoint would be more appropriate on the Prayer in Christianity page? That has a crazy lead; copying this parent article's lead to there would make it more specific for a start!— Kan8eDie (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Prayer : A Gift from God." - I read this in the May, 2011 Knights of Columbus publication Columbia this past week. I immediately thought of what I tried to do to the "Prophecy" article here at wikipedia, mainly put at the forefront of the "Prophecy" article : "Prophecy is the gift of communication from God to man." Basically, any article could begin with the wording "X is a gift from God.", where "X" is the name of the wikipedia article. But where Divinity meets man, which is in man, any more specific article which concerns this meeting should include God as an immediate part of the idea to encapsulate such meaning. I particularly don't care how ruthless editors can be at wikipedia, how many rules editors have made (which they invariably break themselves anyway), or how many times an administrator/moderator abuses their power - all these things to me are evidence of a lack of serious growth in persons who would rather cling to a way of life of living by the sword and dying by it for their individual selves, rather than beating their sword into a plowshare and helping others, as is the intent of wikipedia. When one looks at a growing cornfield, there are columns and rows of vegatation that resemble the manufactured physical arrays of computer bits used in computer science, namely, RAM and ROM chips, hard drives and the like. And though they are manufactured similants, they remain the field which we plow. One can only trust that the group conscience will enjoy this field for group benefit, and this should be our prayer to the One God for wikipedia.

With that, I will place at the forefront of the article "PRAYER" a more suitable opening inclusive to the respect we should show to the only One, Christ, who can guide us to a better wikipedia. As it is written in prophecy that Jesus Christ would be a sign to be spoken against that the hearts of many would be revealed, when one gets rolling in one's "speaking against Christ", wikipedia can invariably suffer if an editor chooses to vent one's hostility via its potential. This is a matter outside the control of any individual editor, as even if were wikipedia were completely shut down on the internet, such personages could continue in their selfish tirade in other ways - so the admonition of Christ to allow the weeds to grow up with the good grain offers a great consolation - worry not - do the best you can - there is an infinite universe which God has given us, and it is God's prayer through Christ Jesus that we be one - no matter how far apart we are from each other God will keep us together in communication. --- Sincerely, the resurrected Prophet of the Most High, St. John the Baptist, whom Jesus Christ calls "the Elias who was to come", enjoying the Rapture of Christ's love in the duty of Petrus Romanus (Peter the Roman), your ultimate, penultimate authority, having been born by the power of the Holy Spirit without normal consummation as was Jesus Christ, I have been granted rebirth some 1,925 years later through normal consummation, hence my surname, Edward Palamar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.28.153 (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I just edited this article as can be seen by the history because it contained (and still contains) blatant bias in the opening statement. User "KillerChihuahua" accepted my change but made a minor change to the wording of my edit (though I think it was better as it was) and restored the reference, despite the fact my definition no longer quoted from that reference. User "Beirne" then reverted the article to its original state, claiming that "assuming some sort of god is reasonable in an article on prayer". It is absolutely not reasonable. The Wikipedia is supposed to be objective. Please acquaint yourself with the Wikipedia's policy on verifiablity, to which this article - along with all others - is subject. Grorland (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, please see the Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality. Implying in the text that people who pray are indeed successfully communicating with a supernatural entity violates this. Furthermore, believers might concede that even if their god exists (which is of course not verifiable), he might not always be listening when people pray. On these grounds, if not the others, this modification of the opening text should be allowed to pass without obstruction. Grorland (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually disagree with your points on the efficacy of prayer, but to just leave it at prayer being an "attempt" to communicate implies that it is futile, which is it's own type of bias. While one can say that it is technically neutral because the attempt might succeed, adding the word "attempt" changes to tone to a negative one. How about "The goal of prayer is communication with a god or spirit for the purpose of worship or petition."? This wording logically included the possibility that prayer may not succeed without casting it in a negative light. --Beirne (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

One more comment. Try searching for "god" in the article. You will find the word used in factual form throughout. This would seem to imply that the various gods exist, since the text doesn't include qualifications like "supposed god". It is understood, though, that the discussion is in the context of the various religions so such qualifications aren't needed. A similar context makes the word "attempted" unnecessary in the opening sentence. --Beirne (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The references to god are, as far as I can see, acceptable in an encylopedia because they simply refer to a concept people claim to have (if a vague one) which may or may not correspond to reality. (Indeed if you look up "God" it leads to "Deity" which is defined as merely "posulated".) The references do not seem to imply that such gods really exist, as the opening sentence of this article did. I have not examined the text in detail yet though - I was stopped short by the strong and unacceptable assumption present in the opening sentence.

Regarding your proposed alteration, I do not feel the word "attempt" implies futility - though there is plenty of evidence that prayer is indeed futile. Your suggested text also seems to be less a definition of the act than of its goal. For these reasons I believe it is better left as is.

However, despite my points being valid, I notice this article has yet again been reverted to its original form so that it sits in violation of Wikipedia policy. I guess that's the way things work round here. Well, no-one can say I didn't try. Grorland (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC) — Grorland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Just as people are smart enough to know that "god" is a concept that people claim to have, they are also smart enough to know that prayer is a process or thing that people do. The original sentence already had enough qualifications with "a god or a spirit" that it is more of a conceptual statement than a doctrinal one.

The word "attempt" gives the sentence a negative tone in the same way as "claimed" or "supposed". Say I took the opening sentence from the article on vaccination: "Vaccination is the administration of antigenic material (the vaccine) to produce immunity to a disease." and changed it to "Vaccination is the administration of antigenic material (the vaccine) to attempt to produce immunity to a disease." The sentence is still correct, but it now has a bit of a negative tone. Now, one may say that there is a difference, because vaccinations work and prayer doesn't, but that is a separate discussion.

KillerChihuahua asked in his change if anyone has an OED. I don't, but I looked it up in the dictionary I have. I think the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1979) has a good definition: "an address (as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought". It does not say whether the process succeeds or not but it does not have a negative tone. Too bad we can't use this definition in the article, but it might help lead to a solution.

And yes, people should join in the discussion here rather than do reverts of good-faith changes. --Beirne (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, clarity and simplicity are more important than neutrality, especially where any idiot can see through the lack of the latter, which is clearly the case here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's fine. It says "the act of communicating with a god or spirit" and links to the article on God, which article discusses belief and disbelief in a deity. It is impossible and undesirable to qualify every thing that someone thinks isn't real every time that thing is mentioned. Doing so is its own bias. Carlo (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me (and it's neutral by not specifically mentioning any particular religion): "Prayer is the act of communicating with a god or spirit for the purpose of worship or petition." -- Trelawnie (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There are likely to be more believers than non-believers contributing to this article so I know I am unlikely to get any changes through, however let me explain a little further my reasoning on this.

First, I regard the opening statement as essentially (logically) an example of the Fallacy of Many Questions. It hinges on the interpretation of the word "communicate", and for me communication assumes the existence of a "target".

To illustrate my point very clearly, take the SETI project. We would not say that the workers on this project are "communicating with alien life forms" - precisely because we do not know with certainty whether such life forms exist. We would rather say that workers on the SETI project are with their transmissions "attempting to communicate with alien life forms". Since we do not know whether god(s) exists either, this example is perfectly analogous with the case of prayer.

I don't think I can put it any more clearly than this, so having explained myself I will leave you all to have the article as you wish, even though I believe it is in breach of the Wikipedia's own guidelines on impartiality and verifiablity, and the addition of the word "attempt" would certainly not in any way make it more difficult to understand (as has been claimed). Grorland (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference being that no one at SETI has ever claimed to have received an answer. Also, the presence of the word "attempt" here would serve no other purpose than being cumbersome. Please read what I wrote on your talk page about gender-neutral disclaimers in French. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Grorland, don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a believer, they may just like precise language.

The loaded question article was pretty interesting, especially the part on the implied form. Adding "attempt" is an implied form, as it implies failure. Now, prayer may well fail, but one should not imply this in the definition. See again my example of putting "attempt" into the definition of vaccination.

I still think a more neutral definition can be devised. I like the example I gave from Webster's, we just need to come up with something that doesn't run afoul of copyright law. How about "Prayer is the act of addressing a god or spirit for the purpose of worship or petition"? --Beirne (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support that: "addressing" bypasses both the positive implication of "communicating" and the negative of "attempting to communicate". I see no bias issues with that; it appears to neatly walk the NPOV tightrope. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Addressing" sounds like a good solution to me. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Blanchardb, I did see your mail but disgaree with your argument, and as I have said I think the Wikipedia's standards should be upheld and my suggestion does not lead to any lack of clarity whatsoever. Also we cannot take seriously people's claims to have had replies from god since they have no evidence and the prudence of Occam's razor suggests such individuals are more likely to be delusional.

Beirne, I'm afraid you've made a false inference: I don't assume that everyone who disagrees with me is a believer (you, for example, might not be),but merely that believers will be more likely to edit this article and to take a position opposed to mine.

Regarding your other points, I thought we had already agreed to disagree that "attempt" implies failure (even though this would in fact be acceptable since no prayer has ever be conclusively shown to be successful and the burden of proof is upon the claimant). I didn't mention your example of vaccination because I thought the SETI one more useful and analogous.

Regarding your proposed sentence using "addressing", though, I think this is a good compromise as the word is less loaded. Given the circumstances I'd be happy if the definition were changed to this. Perhaps we've reached a decision? Grorland (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Next time I start to get Wikipedia burnout I'll remember how we came to a good compromise here. --Beirne (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, good. Just further to this, on the issue of your vaccination example:

I interpret "attempt" as saying nothing about success or failure, it is merely 50/50. It is ideal for cases where we do not know the success rate (and we do not know the success rate of prayer). The reason it seems inappropriate in the case of vaccination is that we do know the success rate with certainty. To be negative, in contrast, we would say "the probably futile attempt" and to be conclusively negative "the futile attempt" or "the entirely futile attempt". I am arguing for none of these.

I'm still not entirely happy with "addressing", by the way, but happy enough to settle for it, for now, by way of compromise. Grorland (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I'm very keen on precise use of language too - whch is why I raised this issue in the first place. Grorland (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with "addressing." It is more accurate that "communicating" anyway, and it achieved the originator's objective while actually reducing the number of bytes required to convey the message. Regarding the argumentation of those who insisted on "attempting," another thing that needs to be said is that neutrality does not imply that the agnostic point of view is more neutral than any other in religious matters. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw no "argumentation" or "insisting" - I saw someone making a good-faith attempt to improve this article, which led to this discussion and hence to Beirne's outstanding suggestion of "addressing" for which there is currently 100% support. No one has implied that agnostic is more neutral than other views; I suggest you be a little less accusatory about people's motives or personal beliefs, about which you cannot possibly be knowledgeable and which are irrelevent anyway. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree that the initially suggested edit was done in good faith, but when I see argumentation such as "they have no evidence" with regard to the existence of God or any other deity, I do not see neutrality, I see a direct (albeit unconscious) imposition of agnosticism as a masquerade for neutrality. As a former strong atheist who is now a strong believer, I know exactly what I am talking about. And I am not accusing anyone of any wrongdoing here, I am just stating something that needs to be taken in consideration for future reference. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Explaining rationale for specific verbiage is not advocating a view, Blancardb. I don't care what your personal beliefs are, and wish you had not posted them here - they are less than irrelevant. I very nearly posted an AGF warning on your talk page after the edit above and your previous "idiots" edit; now I am sorry I did not do so, as it is clear you do not get the point. You're failing to AGF; you're presuming you know other's thoughts and motivations, which is impossible, and you are merrily passing judgement on your fellow editors based on that. Cease this accusatory and hostile behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have deleted that AGF warning from my talk page as not applicable. In any case, I am satisfied with the outcome here, and I do not wish to discuss this any further. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone may remove any warning from their talk page at any time, whether "applicable" or not. My view stands. If you didn't want to discuss it further, you probably should not have left your protestations, "witnessing" or "personal journey" post on my page; I saw that first due to the "new messages" and have already replied there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Re a possible negative implication in the word "attempt": I would respectfully draw your attention to the instance where in the case of a homicide, the alleged perpetrator may be charged with murder or manslaughter, etc., but not "attempt" as this is included in the completion of the act. Were the individual actually trying to effect the demise of another person, he/she would be still be charged with the death of the decedent, and additionally with an attempt (unsuccessfull) on the original target. I would suggest that there are enough people addicted to crime dramas who would indeed recognize a negative connotation in the word "attempt".Mannanan51 (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

Sourcing of first sentence

I have been staying out of the discussion since we came to a compromise, but I thought of one more thing. Does the new form of the definition accurately reflect the definition given in the reference? I don't have the book to check this but I suspect that with the changes that have been made the given reference is no longer applicable. --Beirne (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question, I do not have the reference used either. We can let it ride for a little while pending locating a copy, or we can change the reference. I'm open to options. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I searched amazon.com for this book, and it appears that the authorship we have in the references section is not accurate: Edmond Clowney is not mentioned in the list of authors there, although all others are. But the reason I went there was to check whether there was a PDF preview available, as is often the case on that site. My search turned out to be in vain, so I cannot check whether our new wording accurately reflects the reference. But as far as leaving the reference in place for a while until this can be checked, as suggested by KillerChihuahua, I think that for the time being this is the best option we have. It might very well turn out to be a permanent solution if the change is deemed minor. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I had better success at Google books - it seems authorship changes each edition. For example, 1987 edition lists Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins, Dermot A. Lane - the 1988 lists Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright, James Innell Packer. No telling which version may have had Clowney. No preview available there, either, so I looked for alternate sourcing.

I searched for books with the words "Dictionary, theology" and the characterstics "partial or full preview" and the first one which came up was The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology edited by Alan Richardson, John Bowden whose definition, serendipitously enough, uses the exact word "address"[1] KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

~~Could you point to a page number? Seems like the preview I got from that book goes directly from "Praxis" to "Prayer, Theology of", the latter of which is not expected to define prayer itself.~~ Never mind. Found it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have updated the reference with the one I located on Google books, but wish to state clearly I am not happy with using a Christian source for an article which is not Christian-specific. This is not the Christian prayer article; this is the prayer article and I would appreciate if anyone locates better sourcing - thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is room for improvement, of course, but I don't think using a Christian source means that other religions do not have the same definition. I did some of the research for the Buddhism, Shinto, and Animism sections, (in the latter case all of it) and it seems to me that in all three cases the definition we agreed on applies in these three vastly different religions as well. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Location of prayer

It would be interesting to have a section on location of prayer. Why do people go to a church/mosque/temple/shrine/etc. to pray instead of at home or in a meadow, etc.?

There is a small section on Prayer groups, so prayer location may follow on that. But people do go to "places of worship" to pray alone, so it is not just groups prayer. And they go to tombs of people to pray. So there are several lines of thought there. I have not researched this and I do not watch this page, but I bet there are many opinions here that may start a section. I will look back in a week or so, to see if you guys have ideas. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I think that is pretty much covered (or else should be) in the sections about individual religions. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It relates more to the concept of "sacred space" than prayer per se. Wikipedia doesn't even have an article of Sacred Space (except for a website by the name). It might be worth a mention, but there would be no need to go into detail in this particular article, I think. Carlo (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Carlo, that was a very interesting term you introduced. Yes, there is a website by that name and once I did a google search [2] lots of other items showed up. Many of them are new age related and another book by that name shows how to make your home a sacred place by various means such as energy etc. - whatever that may mean. Given that I am mostly interested in Christian concepts, do you have another term or item I can search on? I tried "sanct space" but not much there. Is there a term that one would apply to a church as being a "sacred space" or "sanct space"? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Spam in the external links section

At least once a week for as far back as I can tell, someone inserts an external link to a prayer request website. Feel free to edit the comment I've inserted there today about that problem. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Extremely POV as it stands now

Blanchard, I see you removed my fact check on the statement that "most religions involve prayer in one way or another" which as worded is a weasel statement with equivocation on the subject word "prayer" as I noted in the edit log, with advice to look for the support elsewhere in the article. I did peruse the article and its talk space and find that it is an encomium to Prayer maintained largely by you. Although this is a violation of the spirit as well as the letter of wikipedia policies, I join the many I'm sure that have preceeded me in demurring from engaging in a conflict over this with the standard (and certainly false) excuse that only the deluded are harmed. If you would like someone to write a section balancing the advert with a summary the positions of those who believe prayer is contemptible and childish superstition in order to balance the current advert for same, I or some other non-believer I'm sure will oblige. Lycurgus (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the rest of the article is almost entirely devoted to elaborating on that statement, I don't see how having over 60 reference tags to support a single sentence would be constructive. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your response does not seem to relate directly to the entry with which I started this thread as summarized in its title, so I inserted space in same. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You want to assert that Christianity does not involve prayer? Or Islam? Or Buddhism? If you could show that to be true, then you'd have a case. As far as I can tell, Atheism is the only major religion in which prayer is not involved. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well as I've tried to get across to you in the subsequent entries after the first, I've moved on from the matter of whether or not there are major religions that don't have "prayer". That would rapidly descend into what a religion is and the fact that prayer or something like it is practiced by the less learned adherents of "religions" where there is no supreme being (Confucianism, Taoism, etc.) and in societies in which the literate classes ceased to believe in gods or spirits before the time of Christ (like China) would mean little. Only degenerate forms of Buddhism have prayer, in the sense in which this article defines it, as my original edit summary noted it is wrong to conflate prayer with meditation or any kind of contemplative thought (such as even atheists may have), even your article makes clear the volition element in prayer. Also atheism is the denial of all religion, it cannot therefore be a religion though it is a belief. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

when it said prayer, we will do it heartily because we pray on something that we believe that our prayer will be acknowledge by God our savior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.79.11 (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The article needs SOME mention, beyond just faith healers, about prayer not actually doing anything. Someone unfamiliar with religion or prayer (I understand this is an unlikely hypothetical, but this the perspective "someone who knows nothing about x" should take in x article) who read this article would be of the impression he or she could gain significant supernatural favor by copying the methods described. --NEMT (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the paragraph on the scientific study of prayer (in the intro) gives way too much weight to a recent fad. Prayer is an important part of human culture, like it or not. (As well as if anyone is listening or not.) Wolfview (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed the whitespace I had in starting this thread, it looked like something had been removed but I checked and it was in my original edit. FTR it was double break because I did not know of wikiML to do anything other than a line feed with a single break, guess hard line break and continuing the same indent level would work. I would define prayer as "a supplication from a believer to a purported superior or supernatural being for the achievement of some state of affairs" since that, pray you, would allow the connection to relations between two actual parties, petitions, etc.. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"And preide is fader wel ȝerne"

The quote is from the etymology section. It's nice to include the earliest known use of the word pray, but what exactly does this phrase mean? If no one knows, I'd like to remove the quotation say simply "Pray entered Middle English as preyen, prayen,and preien around 1290, with the meaning to ask earnestly" and leave it at that. --Rsl12 (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The more I look at the etymology section, the more I want to clean it up. What is the reason for going into all this detail? Particularly for foreign languages? If I hear no objection in the next few days, I'll work on cleaning it up. --Rsl12 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I started to edit the etymology section, but the more I reviewed it, the less useful it seemed. I'm going to delete it, as per WP:NAD. --Rsl12 (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Vajrayana and Tibetan Buddhist sections seem to lack comprehensiveness or accuracy

The Tibetan Buddhist section needs more thoroughness, and accuracy, given the tremendous diversity of approaches within that tradition. One small point; it was not clear in the article that most of Tibetan Buddhism is a form of Vajrayana, which may or may not be given as a separate topic. There are other Vajrayana sects, and Tibetan Buddhism may have some non-Vajrayana sects (I am not sure). The range of view of prayer is generally understood to include a number of forms; supplication, connection to, synchronization with, or praise of a person or a "deity". The article says that deities are considered to exist, which is not accurate or comprehensive. It says that the advanced realization is different. Actually, in many traditions, the common understanding is that a deity is an embodiment of natural aspects of our minds or the minds of teachers as well as a personification of commitment to the disciplines. For example, one deity might represent the energy of compassion, another wrathfulness which can purify laziness and narcissism, to some extent. The article separates guru yoga from "development stage" practice, but "development stage practice" is a big component of what is defined in the article as prayer and is also a key component of guru yoga, and most other Tibetan Buddhist practices, which the article would seem to call prayer. This is a very beginning level anaylsis after a quick read. It needs a lot more work, and I will try to say more later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.184.202 (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is an overview of the subject and as such can only provide a brief synopsis of the role of prayer in the major Eastern and Western traditions, otherwise it would become extremely long, and off-putting to the general reader. The article therefore needs to avoid becoming bogged down in technicalities which can be better addressed in ancillary articles.

The deficiencies raised above by User:70.81.184.202 re the Buddhist section could perhaps be more appropriately met by putting in a link to a main article such as Buddhist devotion; however in its present state, that article needs a lot more work before it can be considered as a main article. At present it is mainly written from a Therevadin perspective (with some mention of the Chinese traditions), and largely consists of a series of lists. It could certainly benefit from further expansion, particularly with mention of the Tibetan traditions, which are currently a very significant omission. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)