Talk:Prayer/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

Prayer in Japan

In response to the request for peer review, I'll suggest some topics that are relevant to Japan, a nation not well covered in the text of the article. These are some thoughts that are not in any particular order or organization. I made these suggestions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, hoping members of the project would have contributions to make. Any of these topics would be interesting additions to the article.

It's weak in information on Japanese Buddhism, and the only mention of Shinto is in a photo. Possible topics include prayer by adherents of multiple religions or sects, prayer in sects as varied as Nichiren and Ōbaku and Shingon Mikkyō, prayer in present-day and in historic Shinto, the types of things people pray for at Shinto shrines (abundant harvest, good marriage, safe birth, success in studies...), ema, omikuji, hyakudo mairi, Jizō statues and offerings, State-sponsored religion (including Kokubun-ji and Gokoku-ji to pray for the nation, the Ise Shrine, State Shinto etc.), recitation and copying of sutras, yamabushi, the monastic tradition, new religions; the blessing of automobiles, the fishing fleet, the sumo ring. The Ainu bear worship. Osorezan. Okinawan religion.

Fg2 11:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have written a brief stub about those, based on existing Wikipedia articles, which unfortunately I found to be unsourced. If anyone in WikiProject Japan can expand what I wrote, I'd be grateful. Thank you. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 17:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to communicate?

That doesn't sound NPOV to me 65.102.202.63 17:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you point us to the exact passage in the article to which you object? Please mark it with {{POVassertion}}, and then we can discuss. Thank you. --Blanchardb 17:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought :-) --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 18:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

DI effects on MRI scans?

I have a couple issues with the following line from the Efficacy of Prayer section:

A 2005 study found strong evidence that healers in a variety of modalities were able to remotely influence the MRI-measurable brain activity in partners who were physically and electrically isolated.
(Reference for it) Achterberg, Jeanne et al Evidence for Correlations Between Distant Intentionality and Brain Function in Recipients: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Analysis The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2005, 11(6): 965-971.

My first issue is that this isn't necessarily dealing with prayer here. The concept of "distant intentionality," as described in the abstract, seems to deal with a direct connection between minds, rather than appealing to a deity to intercede. It's a bit hard to say for sure, though, as the individual healers may invoke some spirits and/or deities in their methodology, though this wasn't a requirement for their inclusion.

My second issue with this has to do with the nature of the sourcing. If you scan through the references, you'll notice that pretty much every other study is in some reputable journal and available on PubMed. This one was published in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, which is far from a reputable journal, and doesn't pass the threshold of being a reliable source. If nothing else, we should reword this so it doesn't state the results of the study quite so strongly, or if criticisms of it exist, add those in as well.

Yes, I'll admit I have a bit of a personal bias against "alternative medicine" and this particular journal. That's why I decided to bring this up here so others could weigh in, rather than just changing it myself and risking a revert war. Perhaps I'm being overcautious though, as in any case, I think the fact that this isn't really prayer should be enough to take this sentence out. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed that does not sound like it has anything to do with prayer, but I want to wait to see what others think before that sentence gets deleted. Thanks for the heads up. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 18:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It's been a week with no dissent, so I've gone ahead and removed the applicable sentences. If anyone contests this, we can discuss it here. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed WP:OR to talk page

Removed the following to talk page:

Efficacy of prayer is not proven. Although many things prayed for do happen, it is unknown whether they happen due to prayer or whether they would have happened regardless. If prayer is effective, it is not effective for all requests nor all types of requests. The mechanisms through which prayers are answered is not known and simple demonstrations of the direct effects prayer do not exist. If prayer does work, it only does so through "indirect" mechanisms. In the absence of simple demonstrations, experiments have been performed to determine whether there is a statistically detectable effect over many trials.

This is original research reflecting an editor's personal religious beliefs. Many people claim to know the meechanism by which prayer is answered etc. Wikipedia cannot assert matters of religious belief as fact. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

General

A "Criticism of Prayer" section is needed. 59.92.174.53 (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Chetan

There is one already, but it is not called that. See here. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 13:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the etymology of the word prayer? Wouldn't it give further insight to its origin or why it was developed?

Assistance required: need a better word. The word "discard" in the Buddhist section isn't quite right. It doesn't quite discard it. It just finds it *uncecessary* as a *primary* means of spiritual growth. You can't discard something you never had in the first place. Plus discard sounds oppositional, or like a strong rejection, which is inaccurate. Can someone think of a better word? ___________________________________________ What about what I might call the "contemplative approach"? Namely that the purpose of prayer is to enable the person praying to experience God... kind of like the "rational approach", but without presuming the contemplation to be so "intellectual". Or to make the person praying able to experience God (again, like the "educational", but less "intellectual" or "propositional")... Just trying to see where my own views fit in :)

Looks like I missed that totally. This is very significant in Christianity, fairly wide-spread in Judaism (but, it appears to me, viewed as less theologically imporant than the other views); this view must also be existent to some degree in Unitarian-Universalism. We should add this in! I would prefer a different title than "contemplative approach", because that name may give the impression of formal philosophical contemplation. What about a name like the "experiential approach", or something like that? RK
In Eastern Orthodoxy, this would be called hesychasm, I believe. It was defended theologically by Gregory Palamas at about three separate Hesychast Synods in Constantinople in the 1340's; it was attacked by Barlaam of Calabria, who advocated a more intellectual approach to prayer. This sort of prayer is described in great detail in the Philokalia, a compilation of what various Eastern Orthodox saints wrote about prayer. The Philokalia also talks a lot about the "prayer of the heart", or prayer without ceasing, which I think is related but slightly different. I suppose all of this might be called a subset of the "experiential approach". --Wesley
I unconsciously left this view out because, though this experience exists in Jewish prayer, it usually isn't considered a separate type of prayer (although, of course, it could be.) Rather, I have seen it presented as a consequence, or effect, of one of the other types of prayer. Of course, if such emotional communion is the goal, it becomes a separate category of prayer outright. To give an example, Hasidic Jews (and some non-Orthodox Jews as well) follow the Kabbalistic form of prayer; yet in doing so they also state that they strive to feel an emotional bond with God. To wit:
"In Hasidism, the kabbalistic type of kavvanot yields to a far more emotional involvement and attachment (devekut) to God. "The metamorphosis which took place in the meaning of kavvanot at the advent of Hasidism, and more explicitly after the Great Maggid [Dov Baer of Mezhirech], consists in this—that an originally intellectual effort of meditation and contemplation had become an intensely emotional and highly enthusiastic act". In Hasidism, prayer is a mystical encounter with the Divine, the heart leaping in ecstasy to its Source. Violent movements in prayer were not unusual; some of the hasidic groups even encouraged their followers to turn somersaults during their prayers." [Encyclopaedia Judaica, Prayer]

Also, we should add stuff on prayer in religions other than Western monotheism... -- SJK

Absolutely. RK

I removed a sentence saying that critics have complained about lack of control in the Mayo study. If those critics are different from the writer of that sentence, I would like to see a reference. [Whoever wrote this, please replace this bracketed comment with four consecutive ~. Thanks.]

Here is one rerference; there are more. Irwin Tessman and Jack Tessman in ""Efficacy of Prayer: A Critical Examination of Claims,"" Skeptical Inquirer, March/April 2000
This article appeared before the Mayo study so it is irrelevant to the question --AxelBoldt

The study had in fact a control group. Whether the people in the control group were in addition prayed for by family and friends is irrelevant, since the trial was randomized and you would expect to see the same amount of family-and-friend prayer in the control group as in the study group. The study showed only that the additional effect of the prayer group was nil. --AxelBoldt

You missed the point: how can one make any determination of the effect of prayer on a patient, if ALL the patients are being prayed for? (And in all likelihood, most of them are being prayer for by someone, even if this is not known.) In such a case, no control group is possible. Having additional people doing extra praying for some people only wouldn't make a difference - unless there was an additional and unreasonable hypothesis, such as that the prayers of friends and family outside the study don't count. In the study you describe, NO CONTROL existed. You had one group in which people were probably being prayed for a lot, plus five extra prayers, and a second group in which people were probably being prayer for a lot, without an extra five people. There is prayer in both groups! Hence, there was no control group to begin with; that is the essence of the criticism. (Unless the scientists running the study claimed that they somehow "knew" that no one was praying for these people. RK
Where did you read this criticism? The study claims to show that the additional five people praying didn't make a difference, and they didn't. If you don't think that "more prayer is better", than those five people should at least have made a difference for those patients that nobody else was praying for; and you would expect about the same number of these in the treatment group and in the control group. But even for those it didn't make a difference. --AxelBoldt

Thanks much for the needed addition on Bahai prayer! RK

I removed the link to 'dua', because the article dua gives a common Indian surname. In the edit history of dua, a redirect to Duamutef is given, which is an ancient Egyptian god. If someone can make a good article about the Islamic dua, feel free to make a disambiguation page. Coffeemonster 14:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the first picture/link be Mary Magdalene rather than Maria Magdalene? 129.234.4.76 13:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Section on Efficacy of Prayer

The section on "efficacy of prayer" may well deserve a page of its own, with a brief review and a link from here. As is, the efficacy issues are somewhat burried here among so many other items. Once on a separate page, it will probably develop a life of its own and get more content. I wanted to add some new materal here, with links to the British Medical Journal, etc. but I think the efficacy issue really deserves a separate page with the same title "Efficacy of prayer". Please add your comments here, and if no one objects in a week or so, I will try to move most of that material to a new page and add some new material that I have seen in research as well. Thanks History2007 (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You may try. However, what is already in this article should stay here and be accompanied by a {{main}} tag linking to your article. Be aware, however, that if your article becomes some kind of POV fork, the Wikipedia community may ask that your article be deleted and its content merged back into this article. Whatever you do, your article will be on my watchlist. --Blanchardb (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Suggest that the section stay here until it is large enough for there to be a legitimate argument for splitting on size grounds. Why not simply add the content you were planning to add now? We can see how large it makes the section and discuss the issue of splitting after you finish. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll second that. There are articles twice as large as this one on which content forking on the grounds of article size has been rejected by consensus. --Blanchardb (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that within a few hours of my suggesting a new page there is enough resistance to it that the idea of a new page may already be DOA before it gets off the ground. As for your POV warning, no worries my friend, I am well versed in avoiding POV debates by presenting both sides of a story and remaining neutral. My main reason for suggesting a new page was that this page seems to be mixing scientific and religoious viewpoints, and that is often a recipe for unending debate that usually gets nowhere. My guess is that a scientifically oriented page on the effects of prayer will eventually be needed, as well as a page on the religious view points. And the best way may well be to have both pages coexist without spending time on debates that are unlikely to convince either side. In any case, I will wait a few days to see if there are other comments and then add a few things (ever so slowly) to this page to see how it affects the blood pressure of those who feel so strongly about this page. Yet, let me again restate my opinion that new pages often attract new content faster than items burried within large pages. Yet, let us leave things as they are and we will see how the future takes shape. No pun intended, but let us pray that the page will turn out for the best History2007 (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

Please don't take offense. There are also practical considerations to look into. The article title should reflect what a normal person would type in Wikipedia's internal search engine to get to the information he wants. And I doubt that there are many people who would type "Efficacy of prayer" to get information on the efficacy of prayer. One would simply type "Prayer" and work from there. And since the section on efficacy is listed in the index, one can simply jump to it. You should also know that we recently had a heated debate about the very title of that section, which was formerly titled "Experimental evaluation of prayer" and may someday revert to that title. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 17:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken my friend. Now, you had a heated debate at the crossroads where science meets religion? But that was to be expected. That is why it is my feeling that the scientific and religious viewpoints here are best kept separate for the parties involved have already made their minds up before the debate begins. The debate will not convince either side, they will just stop debating only after one side runs out of energy to debate any more. And both sides usually go away with bitterness - an outcome that is best avoided. But at least one group can pray that they will be forgiven. History2007 (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I support having "Efficacy of prayer" in it's own article. I would expect such a topic to have plenty of material and agree it is constrained by being embedded in the Prayer page. I don't see any "POV fork" issues. -- Barrylb (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A Suggested Structure for the Section

Now that I see there is a lot of debate about the Efficacy of Prayer, let me make my suggestions here, on the talk page first. Please comment on them here and if there seems to be some form of agreement, then we can modify the page accordingly.

To begin with, this section seems to be silently praying for subsections, as we discuss its fate. In fact, my first observation (as someone who used to be a data analysis expert years ago) is that the text here just lumps together a number of studies with no distinction as to their structure or as to what they aimed to measure. As a beginning we may just gather those studies that have a similar structure together, to help with clarity. There will be no more or no less POV issues since the text will remain mostly the same, it will just be more structured and easy to follow. Here is a 1st cut suggestion:

A number of studies have been performed to scientifically measure the impact of prayer, often within a medical setting. The studies performed have used different structural methods and measured both hard data (such as blood pressure variations) and soft data such as anxiety levels and number of doctor visits. They have measured first person effects (where the beneficiary performs the prayer) second person effects (where someone with a personal connection to the beneficiary performs the prayer) and third party effects where a group of unknown people pray for the beneficiary.

First person studies

The Bernardi study in the British Medical Journal [1] reported in 2001 that by praying the rosary or reciting yoga mantras at specific rates, baroreflex sensitivity increased significantly in cardiovascular patients.

      • Other first person items to be added here ***

Second person studies

One condition that may affect the efficacy of intercessory prayer is whether the person praying has a personal connection to the person prayed for. A 2005 study found strong evidence that healers in a variety of modalities were able to remotely influence the MRI-measurable brain activity in partners who were physically and electrically isolated.[1]

      • Other second person items to be added here ***

Third party studies

The oldest statistical analysis of the effects of third party prayer was performed In 1872 by Francis Galton, perhaps as a form of satire as well as an experiment. Galton hypothesized that if prayer was effective, members of the British Royal family would live longer, given that thousands prayed for their wellbeing every Sunday. He therefore compared longevity in the British Royal family with that of the general population, and found no difference.[2] Galton’s experiment, suffered from a number of confounders.

      • Rest of 3rd party studies to be categorized and discussed here ***

This restructuring will use the text that is already there, but will separate things out so they are more clear. And it will have no more and no less POV than the text that is there because the text will be mostly the same, but the structure will be more clear. Then other people can expand each section more easily. Usualy when a section is created, new material will be easier to add in a logical way.

The text on the religious objection to the measurement (as in Deuteronomy) and the objection to the use of a scripted prayer (which made things too mechanical in one experiment) should probably go into yet another section for which I can not think of a good title at the moment. But those two viewpoints are best gathered together in a section for they makes a point that is valid from a religious stance, and may have been a confounder in some experimenst as well from a scientific stance. The subsection should point to references that mechanical prayer is not viewed as real prayer by some people, etc. and it can be a variable in experiments.

Please add suggestions here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Generalizing statements

We need to be careful not to get to bogged down in the nitty gritty of the scientific studies and start with a broad approach to the topic. I would include an introduction the state of understanding of prayer, providing a bit of a background, without jumping straight into scientific studies. I would include: understanding of the mechanisms, some obvious examples of where prayer is not effective (so much so that they are not the subject of published scientific research and/or things that people don't bother praying for and why), the increase in published research in recent years. I think also it is correct and appropriate to say that "Efficacy of prayer is not proven". Barrylb (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that Wikipedia can make any claim about "understanding of the mechanisms" or any general statements other than the existence of controversy. All we can do is identify the individal studies and what individual investigators have done and claimed. In particular, any claim that prayer is subject to scientific analysis requires making a great many assumptions that are disputed and although what specific scientists have said and done can be reported, generalizations from their actions and findings represent WP:OR. For example, claims such as that prayer is susceptible to experimental designs or statistical analysis require sourcing and cannot be asserted as fact -- they are people's opinions, nothing more. Such claims depend on assumptions that e.g. prayer must be answered after it occurs or that a thousand prayers are statistically different from one. Such assumptions about the nature of prayer are assertions of religious belief, not of fact. Religion generally deals with unique, uncontrollable events; statistics, and science generally, deal with recurring phenomena which are possible to sample or control and are susceptible to general laws. An assertion that prayer has not been shown to have a mechanism-based efficacy is not the thing as an assertion that it lacks efficacy. Great care is needed in reaching conclusions, and conclusions need to be carefully sourced. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Well I think be can go a bit further than stating the existence of controversy. We can say what is known and what is unknown and it will not be original research if we are quoting what other people have said on that topic. An article from the Medical Journal of Australia, for example, says "One common criticism of prayer research is that prayer has become a popular therapeutic method for which there is no known plausible mechanism." [2] And yes we definitely need to include points about whether prayer is even susceptible to testing experimentally. And in no way did I mean that just because we don't understand the mechanism then prayer is therefore ineffective -- clearly that would be an invalid conclusion. However, a lack of understanding of mechanism, in any field of science, is a strong indicator of the state of understanding in that field. Barrylb (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Describing scientific sources vs. philosophical/theological sources in religion articles

A general comment on describing of scientific sources in religion articles:

1. We are on the safest ground when we attribute ("according to..." type language) and directly quote or closely paraphrase. When we say "Scientist X said 'A', philosopher 'Y' said 'B', and Theologian Z said 'C'", we are maintaining neutrality among these different methods of making sense out of realty, yet every reader clearly understands what method and worldview was used to arrive at each statement.

2. When we use scientific material without attribution, we can describe what scientists did and what observed as fact. But difficulties arise in reporting conclusions drawn from those activities and observations as fact, because those conclusions depend on assumptions. The assumptions are often questionable/controversial even in mundane scientific tasks (the demographics of people who participate in clinical trials is often different from the general population; abrupt economic discontinuities often render regression models invalid, etc.), and particularly so when the subject is religion. Religious believers often claim the typical assumptions made about ordinary phenomena do not apply to religious phenomena.

3. While assumptions are often allowed to be unstated in general scientific work -- in many fields there's no controversy at all, in others the controversies are well-known and form a sort of background boilerplate (every clinician understands clinical trial volunteers are different from the general population, every economist knows abrupt changes can invalidate regression models) -- this is not the case when multiple worldviews make different assumptions about a subject which are all significant from the viewpoint of WP:NPOV, so that scientists' assumptions represent controversial assertions rather than simply background understandings.

4. For these reasons, while I believe that while there is no reason to use "according to scientist X" language when describing experimental designs and findings, I believe that "according to scientist X" or "scientist X said" language is needed when describing scientific conclusions about issues like religion, just as "according to Philosopher/Theologian Y/Z" is needed when describing philosophical or theological positions. Conclusions are not really facts. To the extent the assumptions involved are in the nature of opinion (and when they are assumptions about religious phenomena, religious opinon), conclusions are to that degree (religious) opinion as well.

Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! the solution here is simply attribution, sourcing conclusions and using "according to" or "X concluded that" language to describe them. This is hardly a tall barrier. The issue is common to many subjects. I believe WP:AGF addresses your other concerns regarding motivation etc. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for a New Page on Efficacy of Prayer

Well, you turned up a good link and a valid point in that reference Barrylb. I think the point that prayer is now viewed by some people as a form of remedy needs to be mentioned.


Comments on proposal

A strictly logistical comment: Given the size of the proposal, suggest creating a subpage on your user page and supplying a link. If there is substantial discussion, this will enable people to discuss different versions (a new subpage for each version if there are multiple) without new versions obscuring what previous comment was about. It also makes it easier to revert vandalism and other unwanted edits to the proposal without also reverting useful comments. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


Structure vs Content

Well, it now seems that:

1. An introductory section is a good idea.

2. What goes into that section is subject to debate.

But perhaps we can agree on structure while the debate about content continues. One valid point made by someone above was that whatever goes into these pages must be understandable by the average Wikipedia user. Hence a really detailed discussion on the nature of "scientific proof" is probably not suitable here, but pointers must be provided as to what "X has been proven" means - be X the conjecture that "vitamin E has cardiovascular benefits" or that "prayer is effective". The natural pointer to that would have been a standard text such as Conjectures and Refutations but that has a short write up on Wikipedia, but the basic ideas are discussed here Falsifiability. By the way, the first statement "vitamin E has cardiovascular benefits" has been subject to as much heated debate in some circles as the second statement about prayer. There are always several studies on several sides in these cases, and different people with MD after their names reach different conclusions from these studies. Usually a "meta study" is performed to group the studies together, and often finds the studies to be inconsistent, e.g. the Harvard meta-study on the effects of carbohydrates on cholesterol was by and large inconclusive. I have seen no meta-study on the "studies on prayer". So there is disagreement on these studies, but we should expect debate and disagreement when science and religion come close to each other.

In any case, let us say that there will be some kind of an introductory section with a few simple links to the concepts of Statistical inference and Falsifiability to provide the general user with links to what it may mean to "prove" or "disprove" something then follow that with a few well structured sections on the types of studies performed to date, and their conclusions, without taking sides on any issues ourselves. Then to provide a balance, there is need for a section on the religious objections to measuring prayer in a "mechanical form" and their view that some studies were only measuring mechanical prayer.

Do you guys have suggestions for other subsections?

Thanks History2007 (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Although there is no significant dispute about the statistical falsifiability of the proposition that vitamin E has cardiovascular benefits, there is significant dispute about the falsifiability of the proposition that prayers are answered or that prayer has "efficacy." This makes all the difference. In the vitamin E case all agree the subject is part of the business of scientists because everyone agrees that vitamin E acts, if at all, in a mechanical fashion readily susceptible to scientific inquiry. In this case the dispute is at a much more basic level, starting with an explanation of why some scientists think the subject their business. If general statements are intended, I suggest we begin with the views of reliable sources on that question, including the question of whether or not the subject is falsifiable. The idea that the only issues here are "religious objections to measuring prayer in a 'mechanical form'" represents a gross distortion of the issue. Bertrand Russell for example, one of many modern philosophers who took the position that most religious questions cannot be scientifically determined, was an atheist. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not in a debating mode, so let me just note that the falsifiability issue is often called the Problem of demarcation and one can debate that for years to come in any philosophy department with no end in sight. But my intent is not to get involved in a debate at all. This topic will be debated for years to come and I see no reason for an encyclopedia to do the debating. In the end the "real" debate that influences this issue is between those who "believe" and those who do not. I am not interested in a debate. The main issue is "what is the best way to provide useful information to users". To that end, I just noticed that the links to Washington Post articles etc. are somewhat burried at the end of this article. It may just make sense to state the fact that "This topic has been discussed in the popular media" and add more clear links to those. So what may make sens is to say that:

1. This topic has been written about in the popular media as well as technical journals, as well as religious sources. Links should be provided so users can read up on the discussions all over the place.

2. Something to the effect that "All parties involved often experience elevated blood pressures when they discuss this issue". That seems to be the only science agreed upon here. But jokes aside, we can say that there seems to be "controversy" on this topic. That is clearly a fact, and is to be expected.

3. Debates and personal viewpoints should be avoided. Statements as to whether this topic is "the business of" scientists, the clergy or investment bankers already beg for some demarcation and should just be avoided.

The best way is to say things that point users to a variety of sources, but will not result in unednding debate (pronound re-edits) for 6 months. As is, this page has so much debate and is so short on links to various other sources.

Now, your point about B. Russell, etc. is a valuable angle that has not been presented in this article. As is, the article is short on content and long on debate. My suggestion to you Shirahadasha is to add that as a subsection because it is an interesting point that I had forgotten about - and it will make an interesting sub-section. I am sure you have a few more sub-topics like that in mind that will make interesting sub-sections. Why not just add those? That way, this may become a good article after all. History2007 (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC).

I thought more about your point. I think what you are driving towards with your mention of B. Russell etc. is the existence of both religious and scientific objections to the "very measurement" of the efficacy of prayer, as in the Deuteronomy issue mentioned in the article. Those two issues may well be grouped together in a sub-section and do make sense in the article. I think it will make sense for you to write the religious objections sub-section to present that view, since obviously you have already thought about it. You could also write the sub-section on the scientific objections to it and that will begin to give life to a balanced artcile with both scientific study links and the statement of the objections thereto, with links. Thanks History2007 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC).

Hi: Suggest taking a look at my comment Talk:Prayer#Describing scientific sources vs. philosophical/theological sources in religion articles above. On reflection, I think that almost all the problems involved can be addressed simply by being careful with attribution -- being careful to say "Scientist X concluded A from experiment n <source>" or similar (so that the referenced facts are who said what and whether who is notable, not the underlying truth of what was said) rather than saying "Experiment n showed A" "science proves A", "A", or similar. This is what is generally done in religion and philosophy articles where there are highly divergent worldviews and basic assumptions are questioned. Although it might seem a little picky, being careful about attribution solves WP:NPOV problems and can be done without unduly disrupting article flow, preventing any relevant information from being presented, or getting bogged down in philosophical swamps. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


Copy of the peer review

This is a copy of the peer review I requested for the article. Please strike-through the issues as they are dealt with. Thank you.

Prayer

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel the shortcomings that were pointed out during a "Good Article" nomination review last year have now been corrected.


Thanks,

Blanchardb 12:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 02:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:BirgitteSB

  • Lead Way to short. See WP:LEAD. Orisons should be bold synom here.
  • Forms of prayer Aviod phrases like "The great spiritual traditions", that is an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. Bullet points need to be converted to prose. Also avoid weseal words like "Some anthropologists believe . . ."
  • The act of prayer No references. Lots of weseal words.
  • Prayer in Abrahamic religions The various subsections here should be summaries of the main article. For example look at Prayer in Christianity: main topics are The Early Church; Liturgical; Vocal; Meditative; Prayer of recollection; Contemplative prayer; Physical posture; Charismatic prayer: Speaking in tongues; A Christian philosophy of prayer; Christian Science Prayer; and Epistemological issues. Less than half of these topics are summarized. Your summary of Christian prayer in this article should only need small additions and tweaking to be the lead over at Prayer in Christianity. The same issue needs looking into throughout this section. No references for this section.
    • How is neopaganism an Abrahamic religion
  • Prayer in Eastern religions Same issues as last section. Also I am noticing the lack of animist traditions. Having only an Eastern section and a Abrahmic section means other traditions are left out.
  • Approaches to prayer Needs more references.
  • Experimental evaluation of efficacy of prayer This is slighty out of context without an introduction to the whole idea of Prayer healing. BTW Prayer healing is a redirect to this article and probably should be addressed directly and bolded.
  • Historical polytheistic prayer This is the first the first mention of scrafice related to prayer. Despite the earlier section of "Prayer in the Bible" The whole section seem out of place. Why leave out the Aztecs or the Vikings? And what about non-historical polytheistic prayer? No references
  • Etymology I would think this section would be first rather than last. No references
  • Misc For some reason Prayer Warrior and Prayer group redirect here they should probably go to Prayer in Christianity but they are not really dealt with there either.--BirgitteSB 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has little on Japan. I've listed some topics related to Japan on the article's talk page. Fg2 11:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

At least about etymology, you're probably right. There should be some etymological reference at the beginning but I don't think they should just move to the top all the detailed reference they give at the end because it would be a little digressive. A small note saying "(from M.E., from Anglo-French priere, from M. L. precaria; for further details see etymology section below)" ...or so should be enough.--Quinceps (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dummy entry to prevent archiving. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-theological meaning and use

Prayer in English has the general sense of petition with no theological context necessarily implied. This general, nontheological sense is still in use, particularly in the law, in phrases such as the "prayer for relief" that litigants provide to courts. From this point of view, theology is simply one application of the more general concept of "prayer", although the one that's in the most common use today. (The legal meaning, though still in wide legal use, would be considered somewhat archaic for general English). Should the article say anything about this non-theological meaning and its uses? Should it let the reader know that the word has a larger scope but the article will be focusing exclusively on theological applications? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. If no one has any objections, I'll put something in. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, do you have any references or useful information on this? Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C —Preceding comment was added at 21:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

God vs. god

I have noticed that this article sometimes capitalizes the word "God" and sometimes it doesn't. I think we should do one or the other, not be inconsistant through the article. Honestly, it doesn't matter to me which one we use, I have a slight preference toward the capitalized version, but what do you guys think? J.delanoygabsadds 12:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you check throughout the article, the majority of the times the word "God" is used it is speaking of a deity specific to the religion being discussed. If the word is in small caps, it is usually preceded by an adjective article, e.g. "a god." This is the correct way to do it, at least by American English grammar rules (I have no idea which way is correct in England and other places). Therefore, I don't think we should change all instances of the word, but rather make sure that the way it is used is consistent. It is not correct to say "a God" or to refrain from capitalizing the title of a specific religion's deity. Let's just make sure it's consistent throughout. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 03:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)