Talk:Gender of God

• archive 1

A fresh start please

I'm happy with clearing the talk page. I'm not happy with voting. Wiki doesn't work by votes but by consensus. (Although there is often a consensus to decide certain specific questions by voting.) Since Ilkali's first change prompted the whole controversy, that's the fair place to start. (I accepted it wasn't fair to have my version as the default, it's only fair that argument works the other way around.)

Also, we're not really going back to scratch by starting at that point, because anyone's free to propose, say, the text I wrote on Hinduism be returned. We just compare diffs in the article history, copy it here, discuss it, modify it and add it. I'd probably agree to that suggestion, but maybe I wouldn't, we'd need to discuss it.

Since basically I wrote everything since Ilkali arrived, you could almost rebuild the article to any point you wanted by recommending blocks of text you'd have a fair chance of me agreeing to.

Think about it, if you agree, please you reset the article to the diff prior to Ilkali's arrival (27 April I think). Then feel free to delete my comments here, they're proceedural, not really addressing the article. If you don't agree, I guess I'll be making a couple of random reverts every 24 hours or so as a reminder that only consensus brings stability to an article. Until Ilkali arrived the article was stable but awful. Since then, I think some good work has been done, but it's never had consensus. Time to lock in some of that good work by giving it the endorsement of consensus. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is unchanged ... we start from here. Abtract (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And neither is mine ... we start from here. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus time

To make things a little easier, it is probably worth applying this tag. Let's play by the rules. No changes until we discuss them. Until everyone agrees, no changes. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Until everyone agrees, no changes from your preferred version of the article? How is that different from before you were blocked? Ilkali (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I will leave your comment Ilkali, because it shows you are insisting on addressing editors rather than the text of the article. Your behaviour at this page has been disruptive for two reasons, you make edits without seeking agreement first (there are dozens of diffs to prove this). And you address editors not sources and text (plenty of text proves this too). I will digress no further. Issues with editors should be on talk pages or other forums. I shall remove my own comments about you eventually, because you and I are irrelevant to the article.

I will restore the page to the point prior to Ilkali's arrival, and see where we go from there. Any text added since that point can be recovered and added here for discussion. Comments about other editors are not welcome.

Looking forward to suggestions for improvements to the article, it needs heaps. I'll not be adding anything myself for a couple of months, but I'll take an active interest in the meantime. Perhaps Ilkali would like to get the ball rolling. How do you think things could be improved? Alastair Haines (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"I will leave your comment Ilkali, because it shows you are insisting on addressing editors rather than the text of the article". When editors are the problem, editors must be addressed. And did you seriously follow this sentence...

"Your behaviour at this page has been disruptive for two reasons" ...with this one?

I've already argued for replacing the lead text. Abtract also forwarded a candidate, which I endorse over yours. My issues with yours are, again: 1) It is not specific to God, despite the article being titled 'Gender of God'. 2) 'in a God' is either a violation of the MoS (capitalised common noun) or a clumsier, semantically equivalent version of 'in God'. 3) The metonymy in 'religions believe' is jarring.

You asserted that Abtract's version commits OR and POV violations but didn't ever substantiate this claim. I ask you now to do so. Ilkali (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

All your points have been previously refuted by sources, Ilkali. Read the archive "Problems with the lead". As for Abtacts' proposal, the burden of proof is on the poster. No sources were offered for "most religions believe God is male" for example. I'm sure that's just wrong. No source, no text. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"All your points have been previously refuted by sources, Ilkali". Nope. In all cases you either attacked a position I didn't hold or cited a source that didn't support your claim. If you want to build consensus, you'll have to do more than just insist that you're right.

"As for Abtacts' proposal, the burden of proof is on the poster". The default assumption isn't that every contribution violates every policy. When you claim that some material contains original research or expresses a POV, you must either support that claim or be prepared for it to be ignored.

"No sources were offered for "most religions believe God is male" for example". That's a false quote. The actual text is "The gender of God has generally been considered to be male". The two do not mean the same thing.

Freezing the article in an early state isn't something that should be done lightly, and it should certainly last for as little time as possible. Since you are refusing to discuss the criticisms I raise, and thereby lengthening this process, I agree with Abtract that it should remain unfrozen. We can always change it back later if consensus swings your way. Ilkali (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I also object to freezing, especially freezing back to a much earlier state. Overall the article looks much better than it used to. There are many uncontroversial improvements that have nothing to do with any dispute over the intro. Also, nobody owns this article. --Alynna (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we all agree about two things. We all want the article to go forward (not be freezed). We all agree that the article can be improved. Next step is agreeing on how it can be improved.

The main thing is, wherever we start, we only move forward with everyone's agreement (consensus), not by any individual or subgroup "owning" the step. In other words, it doesn't matter who ends up making an edit, because all have agreed and would be willing to make it anyway.

There are two fair options for where we start. Either A) minimial position -- the position prior to any dispute OR B) the maximal position -- text that includes everything currently under dispute. The former is simpler, since there is no consensus about what revision reflects the latter. It is also simpler to move forward, because slabs of consensus text can be added from the edit history, after being confirmed as having everyone's agreement here. (The updated Hinduism and Sikhism sections, for example.)

The only things potentially "freezing" this text would be: A) no one actually proposing this text (or any other text) OR B) attempts to add more than actually reflects consensus (which is attempting to "own" and bypass consensus, or, assuming better faith, just "clumsiness").

So, Alynna, can you actually propose anything specific, that already has consensus, to back your claim that consensus changes have been made. (I agree with you in general, but perhaps we're thinking of different parts of the article.)

And Ilkali, please stop returning disputed text to the article without consensus. Instead, propose parts of the revision you prefer for consensus here first. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Some uncontroversial edits of my own (I did not say "consensus", because I just did them without getting your permission discussing it on the talk page. It would not be realistic for every change ever made to be discussed beforehand.) include:

• Adding the New American Bible to the list of translations of John 16:13
• Moving the "Branch Davidians and other" section under Christianity, after the one sentence not about Christianity was moved to Judaism.

There is no proof that everyone agrees on your favourite old version, so you can't claim it's a "consensus version". Going back there would be a HUGE step backwards. You appear to be the only person who has a major problem with the current incarnation of the article. Therefore, it is you who should suggest incremental changes, to the current version. --Alynna (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no "current" version Alynna, whatever alternative is proposed as current is challenged by one person or another.

Looks like it is only Ilkali who would be delaying consensus on your two changes above, then, since I don't object to them. I don't think we need additional translations of John 16:13, but I'm happy to wait six months until a passing editor complains there are too many copies, and agree to trim them then.

Anyway, if Ilkali agrees to your changes above, we have consensus, and they become part of the new, "consensus" version. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Looks like it is only Ilkali who would be delaying consensus on your two changes above, then". Ilkali isn't the one insisting on freezing the article! I am fine with any of the edits up to the version three out of four editors prefer. We do not need to painstakingly confirm consensus for these kinds of changes. Ilkali (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"The main thing is, wherever we start, we only move forward with everyone's agreement (consensus)". Consensus doesn't mean that everybody agrees - otherwise any single person could indefinitely lock any article in a state he preferred. Let me ask you: Under what circumstances would you allow the article to be changed in a way that you disagree with?

As for the content discussion, there are already specific issues raised above, such as my criticisms of your lead. If you don't want to discuss them, I question the point of this exercise. Ilkali (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You continue to address editors rather than issues, Ilkali. Consensus does mean anyone can object to a change because they present a case against the change. It is, in fact, no different to what you have been enforcing since your arrival at the page by reverting anything you disapprove of. Only now, by invoking the "dispute mode", it ensures the discussion remains documented on the talk page, not a matter of editors using numbers to force an edit.

It is an important and fair part of the process, that ensures no one's imput is discounted, nor anyone "railroaded". Alastair Haines (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"You continue to address editors rather than issues, Ilkali". What issues did you address in this post, Alastair? Did you address the issues I raised in my first comment in this section? The ones you still haven't addressed? Again, I question the point of this exercise.

Answer the question, Alastair. Under what circumstances would you allow the article to remain in the state that is currently preferred by three out of four involved editors, assuming you don't suddenly start preferring it? What would it take for you to stop edit warring? If the answer is 'nothing' then we have a problem that your purported attempts at consensus-building cannot ever solve. Ilkali (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Versions of this article:

1. 16 June — fullest text — disputed
2. 22 June — shorter text — disputed
3. 27 April — version prior to dispute

The edit history shows a number of editors reverting to the shorter text version. This has been done with little use of the talk page. When talk has been used, no attempt has been made to address objections or cite reliable sources.

The controversy tag on the page, and other standard Wiki policies make clear, that we are to seek consensus by:

• addressing issues of content raised by those who disagree with us; and
• to do this with reference to reliable sources.

While some may want to "fast-forward" to the "fullest text" so far as at 16 June, this is disputed, so has not been attempted. Others, however, have wanted to "rewind" some of that "fullest" text, while still "fast-forwarding" to 22 June, but have done so without addressing issues or seeking consensus. Warnings have been noted at User talk.

The first attempt to seek consensus by providing sourced text is being offered by me below. Perhaps it will be rejected, such is life. I look forward to others offering their own proposals for consensus, along with the sources that they are following.Alastair Haines (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"When talk has been used, no attempt has been made to address objections or cite reliable sources". Not true. People have explained what is wrong with your lead (see the three points I raised above) and they've explained why the article shouldn't be frozen. Your mention of reliable sources is a red herring, as most of the issues are 1) stylistic, 2) regarding the purview of the article, or 3) over the relevance of some material. What kind of reliable source would you like for something like 'Alastair's essay is not about the gender of God'?

To reiterate: You are the only one out of four involved editors who thinks the article should be frozen in an earlier state. It is not tenable. If this happened every time a single editor disagreed with the change, and continued without limit until that single editor were satisfied, Wikipedia would collapse. Accept that the majority are against you, argue for the superiority of your version, and restore it if you get consensus.

I ask again: Under what circumstances would you allow the article to remain in the state that is currently preferred by three out of four involved editors, assuming you don't suddenly start preferring it? What would it take for you to stop edit warring? Ilkali (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First sourced proposal

Let's start moving forward. Here's a sourced proposal, seeking comment from other editors. Does anyone have any objection to the following text to replace the current text on Hinduism? The source noted is Michael Witzel, 'Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts', Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7 (2001): 1–118.

Rigveda

The oldest of the Hindu scriptures is the Rigveda (2nd millennium BC). The first word of the Rigveda is the name Agni, the god of fire, to whom many of the vedic hymns are addressed, along with Indra the warrior. Agni and Indra are both male divinities.

The Rigveda refers to a creator (Hiranyagarbha or Prajapati), distinct from Agni and Indra. This creator is identified with Brahma, first of the gods, in later scriptures. Hiranyagarbha and Prajapati are male divinities, as is Brahma (who has a female consort, Saraswati).

There are many other gods in the Rigveda. They are "not simple forces of nature" and possess "complex character and their own mythology". They include goddesses of water (Āpaḥ) and dawn (Uṣas), and the complementary pairing of Father Heaven and Mother Earth. However, they are all "subservient to the abstract, but active positive 'force of truth'" (Rta), "which pervades the universe and all actions of the gods and humans." This force is sometimes mediated or represented by moral gods (Āditya such as Varuṇa) or even Indra. The Āditya are male and Rta is personified as masculine in later scriptures (see also Dharma).

There are some Hindu sects, such as Shakta and Tantra, that have a well-developed philosophy of a mother goddess, and literature that harmonizes this to greater or lesser extents with vedic and other traditions. In these traditions, Shiva is often conceived of as the consort of Shakti, rather than vice versa.

In some Hindu philosophical traditions, Brahma is depersonalized (and demasculinized) as Brahman, the fundamental life force of the universe.

Alastair Haines (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The text on Hinduism is not the problem, Alastair! The major disagreements are over the lead and your section on comparative religion, and you have consistently abstained from discussing either. Your case for indefinitely freezing the article is so full of holes now that even you must realise it was a bad idea. Do me a favor and stop edit-warring over it before I have to go to the trouble of reporting you. Ilkali (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Hinduism is not the problem. Yes, the disagreements are over the lead and comparative religion (and gender). No, I have discussed those, it is you (and others) who assert, vote and edit without engaging with content. I have never suggested freezing the article, it is you (and others) who seek to freeze valid edits by reverting. I have never edit warred, only restored sourced or verifiable content that has been removed without consensus. You (and others) have edit warred, by reverting verifiable content without seeking consensus. I have now flagged the page for mediation cabal involvement. Alastair Haines (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"No, I have discussed those, it is you (and others) who assert, vote and edit without engaging with content". If you're talking about the discussions you and I had way back before you called me a troll and stormed out, then you obviously can't deny that I've engaged with content - else who were you talking to back then? And if you're talking about anything since then, then... where?

"I have never suggested freezing the article". Perhaps you are interpreting the term differently to how I intend it. You are insisting on keeping the article in an old state until some specified event occurs. That is what I call freezing.

"I have never edit warred, only restored sourced or verifiable content that has been removed without consensus". You have persistently reverted both the article and its talk page to states you prefer, and you were even blocked for doing so. Insisting that it doesn't count as edit warring because you're right and we're wrong isn't going to impress or convince anybody. Ilkali (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, this is my last post to you, until a mediator is here to hold you accountable for your claims. It was your actions, more than your words, that was troll like when I warned you the first time. History has only demonstrated that others have joined you in what are clearly disruptive edits to this article. You (and others), are quite entitled to dispute the fullest version of this article (16 June), but not to insist on your own version (22 June), without discussing content. It is by forcing the dispute you make the version prior to your arrival (27 April) the point of departure, but that's only a freeze if you're unwilling to discuss matters of content with editors who have objections to the content of your opinions. And indeed, you have never reverted the artcile to anything except versions you prefer. On the other hand, I surrendered my own preference in favour of a genuinely neutral version — the one prior to our own disagreement. Those are the verifiable facts. I'll also document here your early 3rr violation, which I chose not to report, since you are so new to Wiki. Editing other's posts is also a no-no, except in special circumstances.

• 01:13, 27 May 2008 Ilkali
• 01:08, 27 May 2008 Ilkali
• 17:34, 26 May 2008 Ilkali
• 03:06, 26 May 2008 Ilkali

I take it that you genuinely don't understand how Wiki works, hence, you are being disruptive, but this is mitigated by inexperience and by the encouragement of others. Your disparaging comments, however, have been consistent, starting with "guff" in your first post, and "Christians and Jews don't know what a common noun is", "Trinitarian language is an abuse of language", etc. in follow-ups. But your main problem is misunderstanding not only the linguistics, but the meaning of ad hominem, you genuinely feel attacks on a person can be valid arguments against what they say. You have been pointed to sources on this, but still refuse to accept it.

Although I try to give space for this to be about content, it is sadly true that it is, and always has been, about Ilkali's disruptive edits and personal attacks, both of which are verified, not by my opinion (or anyone else's), but by your own actions and words.

It takes time for volunteer mediators to arrive. You could save everyone a lot of time by thinking through how you could have done things better. I'd be thrilled to work with you if you could take responsibility and admit your mistakes.

As always, I expect you will have the last word, and it will involve an attack on me to distract from your own actions. Go ahead, I can't stop you. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Your disparaging comments, however, have been consistent, starting with "guff" in your first post, and "Christians and Jews don't know what a common noun is", "Trinitarian language is an abuse of language", etc. in follow-ups". Don't you think it's misleading to put quote marks around something that isn't a quotation? If you want to refer to something I've said, use the actual text, and provide at least the entire sentence.

"your main problem is misunderstanding not only the linguistics [...]". Cheap shots, Alastair. If you want to discuss the linguistics, I'm more than willing. I've spent enough time studying the subject (while earning my first-class degree) that I welcome opportunities to apply it in real life. But you're not. You won't ever go beyond cheap shots.

"but the meaning of ad hominem". In future, if you cite these things, can you provide the diffs so everyone can just read the counter-arguments I wrote at the time? It's tedious to have to explain twice why you're wrong when once would do.

"you genuinely feel attacks on a person can be valid arguments against what they say". Any evidence to support this?

I have no intention of "distract[ing] from [my] actions". On the contrary, I invite you to shine a spotlight on them. Give us the diffs that so conclusively prove your accusations, or stop making them and start talking about the article. I'm still waiting for at least one of: 1) you justifying the inclusion of your recently-removed sections on comparative religion and such, or 2) you defending your lead against the three criticisms raised above. Ilkali (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I simply note here that Ilkali again proves my point. He has just made a wholesale revision that includes removing sourced text, and he did so without any attempt to build consensus or support his edit with sources. It also includes permitting a lead that makes claims that are not supported by sources either in the lead itself, nor at any point in the whole article. It is not an accurate summary of the text, and is actually contrary to prior versions of the article.

Additionally, although he claims he is misquoted, the sense of his words is accurate in context as can be seen from the Archived Problems with the lead. In fact, I have chosen his least objectionable language. He also says, Do you seriously not recognise the distinction between adherents of a religion and the religion itself? (later using stronger language), an unfair criticism of the many sources that use metonomy, but expressed as a personal attack.

He also appeals to his own authority (for the first time, though); however, that doesn't change the fact that the Oxford dictionary and published journal articles have been cited that demonstrate his claims do not hold.

Specifically, God is capitalized when refering to the "One Supreme Being" (OED). It refers to a superhuman person whether capitalized or not (OED). Groups are spoken of as believing regularly in the literature (see archive for half a dozen examples, taken from pages of Google scholar hits in journal articles), according to a well-documented device of language (see links in archive).

As long as sourced content is being removed (three sentences of Gender have three sources, sourced text in God is also being removed), and reversions are being made to disputed revisions, Ilkali (or anyone else) is "freezing" the article and disrupting progress. There is consensus that such behaviour is unacceptable.

With my next edits, I'll be adding a few sources to the full version of the article. I'd wait for consensus, but there's no rule against providing sources for text. This seems like a creative way of addressing expressed concerns and moving things forward. Other editors are welcomed to add sources and sourced text despite the dispute, I will do my best to gently guard against others simply reverting to an old version they prefer, without having attempted gain consensus for their removal of sourced and verifiable content. Cheerio. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not addressing me directly doesn't mean you're not replying to me, Alastair.

"He has just made a wholesale revision that includes removing sourced text, and he did so without any attempt to build consensus or support his edit with sources". Every person other than you agrees that this is the version of the article that should be taken forward. There was even a talk page section about your essays, which I see you haven't replied to. Where did you gain consensus for including them in the first place? You didn't. You inserted them without discussion and ignored all claims that they were off-topic. Double standards, Alastair?

"the Oxford dictionary and published journal articles have been cited that demonstrate his claims do not hold". As I already said, I'm not interested in rehashing old refutations. Drop the cheap shots and let people read the archive and decide for themselves.

"Specifically, God is capitalized (OED). It refers to a superhuman person whether capitalized or not (OED)". This I will address, since it's directly relevant to the article. The MoS clearly states that common noun god (as in "many religions believe in a god") should not be capitalised. Even if the OED did support your position (it doesn't - go back to our earlier discussion for explanation of how you've misinterpreted it), it doesn't matter because the MoS is definitive here.

"Groups are spoken of as believing regularly in the literature". Irrelevant, since religions aren't groups. My claim is not that the metonymy in "religions believe" is somehow illegal or incomprehensible - just that it is clumsy, in the same way that "Judaism doesn't eat pork" is clumsy. Finding some uses of it in literature does not in any way support the claim that it is not poor style. Ilkali (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Expanded slightly on Hinduism

I added a short note reworking a neat quote regarding Hinduism as essentially theist. Since it's only one short sentence and Ilkali's already expressed his view that the Hinduism section's not a problem, and that we don't want to be freezing the article, I don't think this stretches consensus much.

The next section worth returning would be Sikhism, since, like Hinduism, prior text was quite misleading, and certainly contrary to the lead that others have said they prefer. I'll post it here for comment, and if there are no objections to the content of this Section, this will be even more progress on the article.

It would be really nice if some of the other editors here could provide some sourced material too. There are a lot of gaps—Shinto is not covered, and the Islam section is woeful.

The scripture of Sikhism is the Gurū Granth (GG). Printed as a heading for the Guru Granth, and for each of its major divisions, is the Mul Mantra, a short summary description of God, in Punjabi. Sikh tradition has it that this was originally composed by Nanak Dev (1469–1539), the founder of Sikhism.

Punjabi: ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥

ISO 15919: Ika ōaṅkāra sati nāmu karatā purakhu nirabha'u niravairu akāla mūrati ajūnī saibhaṃ gura prasādi.

English: One Universal Creator God, The Name Is Truth, Creative Being Personified, No Fear, No Hatred, Image Of The Timeless One, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent, By Guru's Grace.

The sixth word of the mantra, purakhu, is the Punjabi form of Sanskrit puruṣa (पुरुष), meaning man (personal and male). Verse 5 of a 16 verse hymn in the 10th mandala (or cycle) of the Sanskrit Rgveda (RV) called puruṣa sūkta, speaks of a primal man, Puruṣa, from whom Viraj (woman) was born, being himself then reborn of her.

• From him Viraj was born; again Purusa from Viraj was born. (RV 10:90:5)

The masculine gender sense of purakhu in the Mantra is found in a verse like the following.

• That house, in which the soulbride has married her Husband Lord—in that house, O my companions, sing the songs of rejoicing. (GG, p. 97.)
• You are the Husband Lord, and I am the soul-bride. (GG, p. 484.)

Irrespective of the native language meaning of the Mantra, the standard English translation neutralises the implied gender role. Nonetheless, the Guru Granth consistently refers to God as He, even in English. He is also almost uniformly refered to as Father.

• In attachment to Maya, they have forgotten the Father, the Cherisher of the World. (GG 4:9:42)
• You are our Self-sufficient Father.
  — O Father, I do not know—how can I know Your Way? (GG, p. 51.)
• You are the Universal Father of all, O my Lord and Master.

Some of these references are inclusive, where God is both Mother and Father.

• The One is my Brother, the One is my Friend. The One is my Mother and Father. The One is the Support of the mind; He has given us body and soul. May I never forget God from my mind; He holds all in the Power of His Hands. (GG 4:8:78)
• Relying on Your Mercy, Dear Lord, I have indulged in sensual pleasures. Like a foolish child, I have made mistakes. O Lord, You are my Father and Mother. (GG 4:26:96)

There is at least one reference to God as Mother, without reference to his fatherhood.

• O my wandering mind, you are like a camel - how will you meet the Lord, your Mother?, in 2

I notice that the referencing is inconsistant. Page numbers are sufficient for quoting the Guru Granth, since these are standardised. Additionally, I obtained these from the major, standard English translation, I'll provide more details, so others can research this even further. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Done:

• Singh Sahib Sant Singh Khalsa, English Translation of Siri Guru Granth Sahib, 3rd edition, Tucson, Arizona: Hand Made Books, ND.

Alastair Haines (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Formal proposal to move forwards from the current version

"Current version" referring to the version that Ilkali, Abtract, and I have been consistently referring to as the current version. "Old version" referring to the version that Alastair has been reverting to.

I propose this for the following reasons:

• The majority of text in the current version is not the subject of dispute.
• Relative to the old version, the current version contains significant changes that are not the subject of dispute.
• The only text in the current version that actually seems to be actively disputed is one sentence of the introduction.

--Alynna (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Freezing the entire article for so long is a bad idea in any case, but to do so over a single paragraph is bordering on insane. Ilkali (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Preemptive clarification: To "move forward" from a version means starting any changes from that version, with no reverting to versions older than it. --Alynna (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a proposal to endorse deletion of sourced material (Gender section and God section) in the fullest text version. And to endorse unsourced text in the lead in the shorter version. Both contra Wiki basic principles, so I have no choice but to oppose.

The proposal also bypasses any attempt to make a case

• seeking consensus
• addressing content
• on the basis of sources.

Abtract is absent. We cannot assume yay or nay what he would say to new proposals.

If there are no specific objections to Sikhism (as above), I shall return that tomorrow.

Again, I invite other editors to make verifiable contributions of content to this article, it needs more contributions. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"This is a proposal to endorse deletion of sourced material (Gender section and God section) in the fullest text version. And to endorse unsourced text in the lead in the shorter version". The material you talk about isn't in the version you keep reverting to either, so that point seems a little hollow. And Alynna's proposal isn't about picking any particular version to remain permanently, it's just about ending the repeated reversion to an earlier version. If you can argue convincingly that your text should be included, and thereby gain consensus for that view, it can be easily inserted at any point. If you convince other editors that your lead is superior, it can replace the current one at a moment's notice.

"Abtract is absent. We cannot assume yay or nay what he would say to new proposals". We can take note of the opinions he has previously expressed, however. Ilkali (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning! User:Ilkali. You are removing sourced text without using the talk page to gain consensus. That is a basic Wiki policy. What peer reviewed experts on gender say about gender is relevant to gender of God, unless you can cite a source or make a good case. Similarly, an article that offers a comparison of the views of various religions, is addressed by sources that are well-known experts on comparative religion. Perhaps other views are needed, perhaps better sources can be found, but until these are offered, the opinions of these experts address the topic better than any of us. ... and, it's just the rules of those who provide the software we are using—sourced text cannot be removed without consensus. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"You are removing sourced text without using the talk page to gain consensus. That is a basic Wiki policy". Even if your text were impeccably sourced (and I do not think it is - you have far more assertions than citations), that wouldn't automatically justify its inclusion. Otherwise what is to stop you inserting the same text in every article in the encyclopedia? Content must meet basic standards of relevance, regardless of any other aspect of its quality. The burden is on you, as the person introducing material, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Ilkali (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A practical example: Let's say I inserted some extremely well-sourced text describing how Batman kicked Superman's ass in The Dark Knight Returns. What would you do? Would you allow it to remain until you had convinced me that it was not sufficiently relevant, or would you remove it despite its good sourcing? Ilkali (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

2nd Warning! Removal of souced text.

Ilkali is asserting his own opinion over Rodney Stark, William Sims Bainbridge and Emile Durkheim, without even discussing this. Your Superman example is a straw man. You actions are disruptive and could be construed as "gaming the system", Ilkali. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ilkali is asserting his own opinion over Rodney Stark, William Sims Bainbridge and Emile Durkheim". Deliberate misrepresentation. I'm not asserting that any of your material is inaccurate, just that it's inappropriate for the article.

"...without even discussing this". What's this, Alastair? It's a talk page section I created when I removed your essays (where another editor expressed support for such), which you never responded to. I already linked you there once ([1]), but again you ignored it. I'm not the one unwilling to discuss the matter.

"Your Superman example is a straw man". Support this assertion. What's the fundamental difference between the two?

"You actions are disruptive and could be construed as "gaming the system", Ilkali". Only by you, Alastair. Ilkali (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You admit you are "not asserting that any of your [read the] material is inaccurate." Yet you insist on reverting it! You assert Durkheim, Stark and Bainbridge "irrelevant" and "inappropriate"! On what basis? Yet you insist on reverting the text!

Superman is irrelevant to the gender of gods. Theory of Religion discussing the meaning of god in different cultures is clearly more relevant, if not essential to the topic Gender of God. The burden of proof is on you to establish consensus to remove sourced text.

Claiming policy against constructive edits is called gaming the system, quoting rules against their intention. You do this in words. You do it with edits. And you do it in personal attacks on me. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"You admit you are "not asserting that any of your [read the] material is inaccurate." Yet you insist on reverting it!". Its accuracy, like that of the hypothetical Batman piece, is irrelevant. I revert it because I believe that each part of it is either insufficiently relevant or excessively detailed.

"Superman is irrelevant to the gender of gods". And, on making this judgement, you would remove the text and demand that he who added it must justify its inclusion? Your words: "You are removing sourced text without using the talk page to gain consensus. That is a basic Wiki policy". But you admit you would do exactly the same in the example I cited. The only difference between the two is which side you agree with, and you can't presuppose that you're right when arguing about cases like this.

"Claiming policy against constructive edits is called gaming the system". For me to be gaming the system, I would have to believe that my actions were not constructive. You're supposed to be assuming good faith, Alastair. Ilkali (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

2nd 3RR violation from user Ilkali

For the second time Ilkali has violated 3RR. This time I am reporting him.

• 00:10, 27 June 2008
• 07:54, 27 June 2008
• 01:15, 27 June 2008

Perhaps another user could do this for me, I am away at work for the next little while. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to reread the policy page, Alastair. If reverting three times in 24h constituted a violation, you'd be at least as guilty as I - you've reverted four times, although one of those was to a different version of the article. Ilkali (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that I didn't even violate 3RR the first time you're talking about. You're counting the following edits: [2] (not a reversion or a removal), [3] (first removal), [4] (first reversion), [5] (second reversion). That's half as many reversions as I'd need to violate the policy. Ilkali (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order for religions

I think the most neutral way to order religions is chronologically, clearly several depend on others. Islam depends on Christianity, and probably even more on Judaism. Sikhism is somewhat older than Mormonism, and Buddhism/Shinto may be added between Judaism and Christianity. Babylonian religions should precede Judaism. It's no big deal, just now, but if we follow what the books say, there will come a time where we will need to follow their order. Any comments? What do other people's sources say? Alastair Haines (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's sensible to adopt a neutral system of ordering as you suggest, but I would advocate leaving it until the article is more stable. There's no reason not to discuss it in the meantime though, so: In what sense is chronological ordering more neutral than, say, alphabetical? The former seems to have much more potential for controversy. Ilkali (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order for the religions has been stable for more than a year. Alphabetical listing would certainly be more neutral, however you are the first to propose it. Most texts consider religions chronologically, which is not only easier for a reader to follow, it allows conceptual development to be traced and hypotheses offered regarding cause and effect.

A strength of Alynna's reordering is that religions explicitly derived from Christianity are placed together. They are so closely related conceptually, that it may be appropriate. However, it raises issues of what should be done regarding Jehovah's Witnesses, who are far more numerous and older than Branch Davidians for example. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Most texts consider religions chronologically, which is not only easier for a reader to follow, it allows conceptual development to be traced and hypotheses offered regarding cause and effect". I have some doubts. While a chronological ordering might be easier to follow for someone reading each section in turn, start-to-finish, I'm not sure that's how people are most likely to approach the article. And at a glance, it doesn't seem like we currently offer any cause-and-effect hypotheses.

My concern is that, with almost any ordering other than alphabetical, there's always room for suspecting ulterior motives in picking that scheme. Followers of old religions might prefer ascending chronological order, and argue that the parallels between positioning in the article and positioning in history make the progression clearer. Followers of large religions might prefer a descending size-based order, and argue that it makes more sense for the bigger religions to be listed first, since they're the ones people will be more interested in. And so on, and so on.

On that ground, I think my preference would be for something alphabetical. But it's not something I feel strongly about, and if a chronological ordering is more prevalent in the literature (and I'm happy to accept your word for that) then it's probably just about neutral enough for our purposes.

The matter of Jehovah's Witnesses could be tricky. My undiscriminating atheist eyes say they are unequivocally Christian, but I recognise that this classification is controversial in some quarters. I don't think we can put them anywhere in the hierarchy without asserting some POV or another. In the absence of any better options, I think I would favor classifying them based on self-identification. Would I be correct in thinking that they typically consider themselves Christians? Ilkali (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

From the Jehovah's Witnesses article it appears they consider themselves Christians. I'd go with filing them under Christianity, for that reason. Not sure what order to put them in relative to Mormonism. The ordering of sub-sections should probably follow the same rule as the ordering of main sections.

I can't find anything definitive on what Jehovah's Witnesses believe about the gender of God - can anyone else? --Alynna (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point Alynna. We can't place JWs under Christianity, since there are two POVs. JWs say they are, the Popes for more than a thousand years says they aren't. Wiki has the NPOV—JWs, since they don't believe in a Trinity, fall into a different logical class. Perhaps the way of ordering the religions should be neither chronological, nor alphabetical, but under the classifications of comparative religion—monotheistic, henotheistic, trinitarian, polytheistic, animist. Probably in the reverse order, since the literature proposes something of a historical development in that direction. Interestingly, the very classification raised in the mediation discussion provides a natural way of distinguishing between notable branches of a broadly defined Christianity—Catholics (and Protestants) are distinctly trinitarian, Mormons are henotheistic and JWs are monotheistic. Views of the gender of the HS are clearly different—Catholic and Protestants (maybe most Orthodox except the Syrians) have a tradition of a male HS, Mormons admit the possibility of a female HS, JWs deny a distinct HS altogether. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually -- it's easier than that. JW's don't believe they are the same Christians as mainstream Christians. That is, they are ONLY Christians if Christians are not Christians. Christians themselves agree. JWs believe in a partnership of a lesser god (Jesus) with a higher supreme God (Jehovah). By Christian definition, belief in multiple deities is polytheistic. Both Christianity ahd Jehovah's Witnesses regard themselves as two mutually exclusive religions. Neither side would be satisfied being labelled together.Tim (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To Avoid an Edit War

I think the comparative religion section should be shortened and possibly moved, but not deleted. Can we EDIT this page instead of running over everyone?

PS to Lisa -- thanks for the catch on the Messianic thing. I hadn't read that far.Tim (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The section in question is so far unsupported by anyone other than the person who recently added it, so, pending conclusion of mediation, it should be kept out of the article. That's how Wikipedia works. When introduction of content is disputed, said content is held in reserve until the matter is properly discussed and consensus reached. Can either of you say you wouldn't cite this protocol for content you didn't like, added by someone else?

I'd be happy to review a (radically) shortened version of the section, but I can't promise that my opinion will change. I still think that Alastair's view of the article's scope is incompatible both with the title and with the opinions of other editors. It might not be useful to try and edit this content until the scoping issue has been fully discussed. Ilkali (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"he section in question is so far unsupported by anyone other than the person who recently added it, so, pending conclusion of mediation, it should be kept out of the article. That's how Wikipedia works."

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Per WP:CONSENSUS "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and the logic may outweigh the logic of the majority". There is an ongoing dispute with no consensus met. Your reverts are precisely as unhelpful as his. Stop trying to garner support and please, instead, attempt to resolve this through reasonable discussion. -Rushyo (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The question seems to be one of the Gender of God. The first thing that I noticed was that a definition of "gender" was being deleted along with the comparative religion section. Whenever edits eliminate a good deal of work by a known editor, the elimination is suspect.

"God" is a big concept. It's not limited to just a few religions, and religions do tend to follow certain archetypcal patterns. A comparative religion section is therefore in order. The work of Jung, and in particular Erich Neumann certainly plays a part here. The gender of God has historic, anthropological, and even archeological and psychological ramifications. To limit it to the patriarchal overlay of a few relatively recent religions fails to incorporate the substrata of the mother-goddess religions that lie underneath. Many of the patriarchal overlays in the Old Testament have matriarchal underpinnings from previous tellings of those same stories in earlier cultures.

Alastair has done a good deal of work on this subject separately, and I've found his work to be both thorough and credible by Wikipedia standards. Rather than an antagonistic deletion, Wikipedia thrives better on a cooperative editing process. That is, instead of working against each other to destroy, working together to create is much more productive.Tim (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tim about having a comparative section (size being arguable). But a definition of gender is really out of place in this article. A wikilink to the article gender should suffice. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"The first thing that I noticed was that a definition of "gender" was being deleted along with the comparative religion section". For my part, that was unintentional. I intended only to remove the comparative religion section.

""God" is a big concept. It's not limited to just a few religions, and religions do tend to follow certain archetypcal patterns. A comparative religion section is therefore in order". All I can say is that it depends on the content. As long as every point is tightly bound to the gender of God, I don't have a problem with it. Ilkali (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lisa!

I'd like to add that anything out of scope in one article (including gender) would be in scope for other articles. I'd suggest MOVING another editor's hard work to the best section (or best article) by a simple search and insertion -- with a quick link regarding the general subject matter.

This would be best for Wikipedia, because good work would go to the best location.

This would be good for the initial editor, since the best location for his hard work would be found.

This would be good for those who would otherwise delete the article -- because it would save time, arguments, arbitration, and flat out wiki-warring.

After looking at the deleted section I think that a lot of it could be moved, and the rest shortened. But the work itself is good work.Tim (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask all parties to discuss this in the Mediation Cabal case. This is simply to avoid two sets of consensus being reached, followed by lots of mud-slinging. :) -Rushyo (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wise words Rushyo. The mediation issue does need to be resolved, and comments relevant to that should be posted there. However, it could also be argued that all progress on the article should not be impeded by having to go through that process. My request for the mediation was specifically directed at the way I perceived only two editors to be behaving, and the request that personal attacks be stopped and removed.

I for one will be giving the mediation issue first priority, since I requested your assistance in the first place, and want to respect the time you've invested in this already. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Gender section, extended treatment of the details is indeed already available at both Gender and at Patriarchy. What I've included here is a bare minimum summary of material at those articles, which have been widely sourced and also effectively stable for more than a year since I expanded and sourced them.

Cynthia Eller's Why an invented past won't give women a future is a classic recentish source that explains why "the search for matriarchy" might be misguided even were it verifiable (which current consensus says it isn't). However, reconstruction of the trajectory of the history of spiritual thought is potentially more fruitful. Patriarchal cultures with feminine dominated spirituality are not uncommon. Some would argue that Roman Catholicism approaches this in some cults of the Madonna officiated by celibate male priests.

Just where, or even if, such material should be included is not yet clear. I'm just outlining where a bibliography for adding such text may start, or what it will need to include.

Also, I'm noting that the Gender section is already compressed to three sentences, they are very general. Further detail probably needs to fall under each POV covered in the article, since their diversity is precisely the topic of the article. For example, in what sense is Shekhinah feminine, what does this imply about the gender of HaShem? That question doesn't make sense in a Qur'anic formulation. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Comparative Religions, I have said several times it is draft text. But it's obviously impossible to discuss and edit it if it is continually removed without such discussion. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- the thing cannot be edited while it is invisible.Tim (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism - file under Judaism or Christianity?

Content on Messianic Judaism was recently moved from the Judaism section to the Christianity section. According to the Messianic Judaism article, however, most Messianic Jews identify as Jewish. Should they not then be classified that way in this article? --Alynna (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think giving it its own section would be the least offensive approach. Trying to make a decision one way or the other is poking a hungry bear. -Rushyo (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "Messianic" is synonymous with "Christian" by Messianic Jews, without some things they consider to be "Gentile" (like Christmas). In any case, although their idea of the Trinity is not orthodox by Christian standards, they do fall under the loose category of "Christian" by Wikipedia standards. Their synagogues are sponsored by Christian denominations and are frequently held in Christian churches. They are not sponsored by mainstream Jewish movements and do not share buildings with mainstream Jewish synagogues. Giving them a third section is not necessary.Tim (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good question. I'll stay neutral. Rushyo is absolutely spot on, categorising MJ as Jewish is "poking a hungry bear". As Tim notes, categorizing them as Christian is fine by most Christians, but implies a loss of Jewishness MJ, in their very name, themselves insist upon.

This is a good question for us to consider, since it also bears on how we deal with JWs and Mormons. It is also not just a Judaeo-Christian issue, but would be relevant to Sufism and mysticism within several traditions—Judaism (Kabbalah, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam no less than Christianity. Kabbalah especially is absolutely relevant to this article.

The wonderful thing about doing this from a world-wide perspective is that sectarian disputes within any particular tradition can be handled the same way across the whole article. A measure of objectivity is immediately available for us.

The issues here are neither hopelessly complex, but nor are they unambiguously simple. Thankfully there are mountains of books addressing the topics quite neutrally. Many such resources are also available online.

It's absolutely wonderful to see so many interested people gathering at the page. Thank you to all who are giving time to addressing the fascinating questions raised by this article. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm staying out of this one. But seriously, guys, can we move this over to the mediation page? It's there for a reason and it's easier to follow the conversation. L'Aquatique[review] 02:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good for you L'Aquatique! The MJ thing really is a can of worms. But (imo) it has nothing to do with my appeal for mediation, so I'd prefer it not to clutter that discussion, if that's OK with you. It would also allow you to steer clear of it as, I think wisely, you say you desire. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me. Carry on, then... L'Aquatique[review] 03:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks L'Aquatique, I also appreciate the inclusion of WikiProject Judaism for this page. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparative religion - draft

What is understood by words for god varies across cultures and has sometimes changed dramatically at various times. Buddhism challenged various ideas in Hinduism, the montheism of Judaism challenged its polytheistic neighbours, and in european history, the Roman Empire officially adopted Christianity under Constantine I, later becoming its centre, but being challenged itself during the Reformation.

A simple view of the history of religion as an evolutionary process was proposed in the 19th century— from animism to polytheism to monotheism, with some believing theism, atheism or agnosticism to be the most advanced approach. Such views are no longer widely current either in the study of religion, nor in philosophy. Analytic philosophy widely considers speculative metaphysics to be outside the reach of epistemology and scientific scrutiny. Comparative religion notes distinctive idiosyncracies across major religions that are better explained by close historical scrutiny, rather than appeal to a simplistic theory.

Nonetheless, animist religions are common among preliterate societies, many of which still exist in the 21st century. Typically, natural forces and shaman spiritual guides feature in these religions, rather than fully fledged personal divinities with established personalities. It is in polytheism that such deities are found, Hinduism being the largest current polytheistic religion. Animist religions often, but not always, attribute gender to spirits considered to permeate the world and its events. Polytheistics religions, however, almost always attribute gender to their gods, though a few notable divinities are associated with various forms of epicene characteristics—gods that manifest alternatingly as male and female, gods with one male and one female "face", and gods whose most distinctive characteristic is their unknown gender.

In the philosophies of several polytheistic traditions, a primal, "high" God is postulated as source of the lesser gods (and demi-gods) of the pantheon. In some religions, like Buddhism, such philosophising goes further, considering ultimate reality to transcend pantheons of gods, without proposing a high God in their place. Buddhism considers anihilation or nirvana to be ultimate reality, and the desire for existence to be the wrong-headed heart of human misery. European nihilism since the 19th century may owe a debt to western thinkers discovering Buddhist ideas from that time of increased trade with the East.

Nonetheless, a hegemonic western conception of metaphysics, influenced strongly by Judaism and Christianity is identifiable in European literature from Greek and Roman authors through to the present, such that English language betrays an inherent bias towards monotheistic thought. Where animist languages may not even have words for personal deities, but rather a nuanced vocabulary of spiritualism, and polytheistic cultures have lexis suited to articulating relationships between deities in a pantheon, some modern English speakers only recognize alternatives such as God, gods or no God, being unfamiliar with Buddhism and animism.

When considering the literature of the world's religions and metaphysical philosophies, the diversity of the underlying conceptions of the spiritual realm is foundational to appreciating any points of comparison. Comparison of views of the gender of spiritual entities is no exception. Each religion or philosophy needs to be understood in its historical, social, linguistic and philosophical context. Thus, matters of gender do apply to animism, but not in the foundational way they do in polytheism and monotheism. Additionally, since animism is largely associated with preliterate societies, we are dependent on the ethnographies of cultural anthropologists rather than documented scriptures. Shinto is a notable exception.

Comments

As I look at this, I'm reminded of how much is left out. It's still woefully biased towards western and modern views, yet leaves out New Age spirituality. Sufism, Kabbalah and other mysticisms aren't mentioned, it really is very general. Thanks, Tim, for placing it back here so we can build on it.

I think what we're looking for is a framework, an organizing principle for the article. I really think animism would have interesting things to tell us. It would be nice if the article could tell a story, rather than simply being a "phone book" list of terse discriptions of various groups.

In fact, researching eastern religions would probably teach us a lot, 'cause they're more inclined to conflate religion with philosophy, attributing writings to wisdom rather than to the more presumptuous divine inspiration of western scriptures. The divine is "meditated upon" in the East, "revealed" in the West. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also the problem of impersonality vs. personality. Ultimately, the origin of all life is the womb. In the womb there is darkness and water. The water is broken or divided, there is light, and the universe is born (as in Genesis 1). The earliest images children have of people, however, are neither male nor female (or rather both male and female). And the shape of this image is a circle. The immediate universal parent is the mother, but recognition of the father's role comes later in individual and historical human consciousness. First, the mother. Then only later the father acting on the mother.

The first religions, then were matriarchal and only later patriarchal. In most religions the separation of the world parents has the father representing the sky and the mother the earth below. But there are exceptions to this, in which the father is below and the mother above (I think Neumann said Egypt was this way).

So then we have these categories:

1. Female only (the most ancient and basic)
2. Male only (later western overlays)
3. Both male and female (certain kabbalistic aspects as a monotheistic example / and of course sexual pantheons in polytheistic systems)
4. NEITHER male nor female (eastern religions)

I think that the breakdown should be categorized according to genders instead of according to religions -- but that's a total rewrite!Tim (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. You appear to know more about this than I do, which wouldn't be hard. If the Rgveda is anything to go by, the East also has a primal masculine creator. But the Vedas are not strictly East, rather they are possibly the source of some of the West.

Then there's the evidence for fertility cults based on feminine spirits, which is far more ancient than writing—tens of thousands of years of artifacts, rather than thousands of years of writing. I seem to recall even a Neanderthal artifact.

And the best evidence of all is the testimony of contemporary pre-literate cultures and their spiritual beliefs.

I think your idea of classifying by views of gender first, before classification according to religion is ideal for the article. It's a gender studies article more than a religious studies article, in a way. We just need to seek out the sources that make this classification for us.

If there is a God, and there's only one of Her. The religions that don't worship Her are constructed in the image of their host societies, so at least 90% of this article would be indirect sociological history, and indeed that is the tradition of the 19th century, with substantial quality revision in the last 30 years or so. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Alastair -- I don't know if I know more, I think I just know a few different things. BTW, an interesting "writer" observation. According to Jung, humans have a collective psychological makeup that makes us different from other animals; an instinct. We do and see things in common ways. In a broader sense, there are instincts we have in common with other animals, as well, like caring for our young, etc. But just looking at what is common to humanity gives us (according to Jung) a handle on the "image of God." To Jung, the collective psyche IS the image of God. Individuals build their lives off of that image, and only poke their indivudual consciousness outside of that image in a limited way -- what Jung called "individuation." While that's way beyond the scope of the article, I wanted to point out a curious observation screenwriters have noticed: female audiences can empathize with both male and female characters on the screen, but in general male audiences can only fully empathize with male characters. They can sympathize with a female character, but they have trouble empathizing. There are exceptions, like Ripley in Alien, who BTW was originally scripted as a male character and only changed at the last minute to a female without rewriting the characters actions or dialogue. For some reason, males COULD empathize with Ripley. If there is some kind of distinctive male pattern in the collective psyche of our current cultures, then the deity we envision WOULD tend to be male.Tim (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)