Removing expired RFC template. |
|||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
== Article is biased towards western supernaturalism, what can be done to fix this? == |
== Article is biased towards western supernaturalism, what can be done to fix this? == |
||
{{rfc|reli|rfcid=6A9CF94}} |
|||
There are a number of problems with this article as it exists currently, but the most glaring issue is the almost exclusive focus on supernaturalism is western culture/religion, the most blatant example of this being that the section on Catholicism makes up more than a third of the article, and no major or minor religion even gets so much as a sub-section!! The lead states that "Most religions include the supernatural", but why is there only a section on Catholicism? What about all the other religions? Even in the rest of the article, there is no information whatsoever about the supernatural elements of any eastern religions/philosophies, for example. Why have these been omitted, and what can be done to fix this? [[User:Sarr_Cat|<span style="color:#CCFF00;background:#826644">Sarr</span><b style="color: #CC5500;background:#FFD700">Cat</b>]] <b>∑;3</b> 17:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC) |
There are a number of problems with this article as it exists currently, but the most glaring issue is the almost exclusive focus on supernaturalism is western culture/religion, the most blatant example of this being that the section on Catholicism makes up more than a third of the article, and no major or minor religion even gets so much as a sub-section!! The lead states that "Most religions include the supernatural", but why is there only a section on Catholicism? What about all the other religions? Even in the rest of the article, there is no information whatsoever about the supernatural elements of any eastern religions/philosophies, for example. Why have these been omitted, and what can be done to fix this? [[User:Sarr_Cat|<span style="color:#CCFF00;background:#826644">Sarr</span><b style="color: #CC5500;background:#FFD700">Cat</b>]] <b>∑;3</b> 17:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' - Per [[WP:TNT]]. [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 02:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' - Per [[WP:TNT]]. [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 02:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:00, 15 September 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives | |
---|---|
|
||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
NPOV policy and proofs
NPOV says scientific and mathematical proofs are far more universally accepted than supernatural ones, from which it follows that scientific and mathematical proofs are more powerful than supernatural ones (for whatever reason). You and Wesley will agree that the proofs for "Jesus Christ is the son of God" (rejected by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc) are far less universally accepted than the proofs for "pi is irrational" and "the earth is spherical" (accepted by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc). Different people and different cultures find different sorts of proofs convincing. If different people and different cultures find different proofs convincing, then Pythagoras's theorem (as we call it) would not have convinced the very different people and cultures of Europe, India, China, etc for the past 2500+ years. But it has. And I'd still like to see a similarly spectacular modern equivalent of Elijah's miracle. Please add it to the Wikipedia if it isn't already here. Our Lady of Fatima is, but I presume that doesn't convince you either. This is my suggested NPOV addition to the article or one of its offshoots:
Supernaturalism and Proof
- Many supernaturalists assert that it is possible to prove certain facts about the supernatural to a very high degree of certainty or even with perfect certainty. However, different supernaturalist groups have proofs that contradict: even within the single religion of Christianity, although different groups will agree that infallible supernatural proof is possible, they will then use their infallible supernatural proofs to reach contradictory supernatural conclusions. Some Catholics, for example, claim that papal infallibility can be proved beyond doubt; some Protestants and Orthodox Christians that it can be disproved beyond doubt. Within the religious family known as the Abrahamic religions, Muslims, Jews, and Christians all agree that some supernatural facts can be proved beyond doubt, and then disagree about what those supernatural facts are. It is apparent, therefore, that proof within supernaturalism is of a different order to proof within mathematics and naturalistic science. In mathematics, proofs can be established permanently and universally and once established are accepted by all mathematicians throughout the world, regardless of race, ethnicity, and culture (see for example Pythagorean theorem). In science, the strength of a proof is proportional to the strength of the evidence put forward for it, and the strongest proofs are again accepted by all or a vast majority of scientists throughout the world, regardless of race, ethnicity, and culture (see for example the winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics). Because no single supernatural proof has ever been accepted universally across racial, ethnic, and cultural boundaries in the way many thousands of mathematical and scientific proofs have been, many skeptics, some of whom nevertheless accept the existence of the supernatural, would therefore argue that proof is impossible within supernaturalism. Some skeptical supernaturalists, such as Unitarians and adherents of process theology, further argue that God could not allow certain knowledge of his existence, nature, and purposes, because certain knowledge would remove the need for believers to exercise their free will and individual judgment.
NPOV says scientific and mathematical proofs are far more universally accepted than supernatural ones, — J. Jacquerie, You continue to say this as though it means something important, but it it's not a clear statement. By trying to use this article (and a few others) to explain yourself, you are risking turning this into even more about you and your views. The paragraph you are proposing is more puff. Mkmcconn 14:10 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Ah, you illustrate your articles! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum). This is an ad populum fallacy. Because everyone agrees apon a premise, it must be true and the more people agree upon the premise, the truer it is. It leads to absurdity of course (if everyone agreed that the world was flat, it would becomes so). teggers 080207
Most people believe in some form of supernaturalism
Most people and cultures believe in some form of supernaturalism; it is far more universally accepted than atheism and materialism. Your statements about papal infallibility reflect a deep misunderstanding of this debate; that question is not something Christians try to prove or disprove, it is a dispute about the tradition of the Church has always been; it's primarily an historical and doctrinal question. Mathematicians and scientists also disagree with each other about specific questions. Someone makes a new discovery or proposes a new formula or theorem, and it takes a while before everyone or most people accept it. I still remember when my high school physics teacher announced that a recent discovery made on a space shuttle mission meant that all the high school physics textbooks would need to be rewritten. I also recall an astronomer vigorously disputing the distance of quasars from us, though he was in the minority. Things aren't as cut and dry as you suggest. Wesley 16:21 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Your statements about papal infallibility reflect a deep misunderstanding of this debate; that question is not something Christians try to prove or disprove, it is a dispute about the tradition of the Church has always been; it's primarily an historical and doctrinal question. A dispute between churches that is primarily an historical and doctrinal question. There's a rara avis. Try these simple steps: 1) follow the link you provided to papal infallibility and find External Links; 2) Follow the external link "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility - historical treatment"; 3) Scroll down the page till you come to the heading: "PROOF OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE", where you'll read:
- From Holy Scripture, as already stated, the special proof of the pope's infallibility is, if anything, stronger and clearer than the general proof of the infallibility of the Church as a whole, just as the proof of his primacy is stronger and clearer than any proof that can be advanced independently for the Apostolic authority of the episcopate.
- 4) Finally, scroll down the page a little more until you come to the heading "PROOF OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY FROM TRADITION". But according to you "that question is not something Christians try to prove or disprove". And your statements about atheism and materialism reflect a deep misunderstanding of this debate: science entails neither atheism or materialism, but I understand why you introduced them ex nihilo. I won't bother responding to the rest. Jacquerie27 22:32 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing out the Roman Catholic proof of papal infallibility; clearly I was mistaken in that point. The reason I introduced atheism and materialism is that they both appear to be very natural and direct consequences of your POV, that science can make no allowance for anything supernatural. Perhaps I should have used the word "naturalism" instead. The point is that many people the world over do accept a number of scientific and mathematical axioms as being true, while also believing in some kind of supernatural being(s) or activities. Wesley 16:18 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Well, if you don't know much about Catholicism it's understandable you hadn't come across that. ...very natural and direct consequences of your POV, that science can make no allowance for anything supernatural. It's not my POV: it's science. Atheism and materialism claim to account for everything; science doesn't (yet). The point is that many people the world over do accept a number of scientific and mathematical axioms as being true, while also believing in some kind of supernatural being(s) or activities. Yes, but my point is that they accept different and contradictory supernatural proofs but the same scientific and mathematical proofs. Science and mathematics are genuinely catholic; Catholicism, like all other forms of supernaturalism, isn't. Jacquerie27 21:53 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Scientists counter that if this is so, then believers in supernaturalism themselves would be utterly incapable of witnessing any supernatural phenomenon or miracles; all human senses are limited by the laws of physics, and can only sense events occuring in the natural, physical world.
- I think this is POV and should be cut: if supernature exists it could interfere or interact with the laws of physics and the natural world, which are not perfectly known and not necessarily fixed; second, supernature wouldn't necessarily have to act thru the human senses in any case: it could affect the brain or mind directly. Jacquerie27 21:53 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Can I change 'Arguments in favour of supernaturality' to 'Arguments in favour of the existance of the supernatural', as the same for against?
Many scientists and mathematicians
I keep on bumping into scientists who particularly suffer from the preconception that science reveals objective truth. Never mind. If you think it is defensive or offensive, remove the comment. (20040302 13:36, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC))
Removed paragraphs
I just removed the following paragraphs, because they are about the social causes of religious persecution. They are quite off-topic for an article on the supernatural. Most books on the Christian religion don't discuss the supernatural in general, and most books on the supernatural never even allude to this topic. This discussion's presence here is more a cause of the personal interests of contributors, but probably not a good editorial placing. If you want, we can move these paragraphs to an appropriate article. We can always mention this subject within this article, and link to the article where this topic is more appropriately discussed. RK
- Because the truth of supernatural claims cannot be objectively tested, disputes about them often lead to schism and persecution. The philosopher Bertrand Russell pointed this out in his essay "An outline of Intellectual Rubbish":
- The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants.
- Examples:
- The Great Schisms among Christians were the culmination of centuries of disagreement concerning the powers of the Pope to decide doctrine. No objective standard for resolving these differences has been agreed upon, then or since. It may be argued, then, that only the abandonment of the competing supernatural claims can possibly lead to the resolution of differences.
- The Thirty Years War was justified as a defense of inviolable privileges granted by God to the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Emperor, over against the Protestant claims of God's grant of the rights of nations and of self-government according to the Bible.
- For centuries, Christians angered and frustrated by the refusal of Jews to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah have considered the Jews to be especially guilty of the crucifixion of Christ, cursed and deserving of suffering (see decide). Other folk-religious beliefs about alliances between the Jews and Satan, and similar terrifying conspiracy theories, have fueled hatred and cruelty toward the Jewish people, and have produced a special indifference to Jewish suffering.
(Possibly unintentional) Vandalism
Somebody is editing the Supernatural page and insisting on inserting long, unwieldy, opinionated, and misspelled paragraphs about science and its virtues. While science is indeed a wonderful subject to bring into this page, you needn't vent your worship of it here; and if you must, please at least do so concisely and with good spelling. -RSR 11-06-06 02:42 PM MST
Last bullet in the 'Arguments against' section
"Humans in good mental health are capable of simulating perceptions that do not exist. This is commonly known as Hallucinations in the sane."
And then, your definition of 'hallucination':
"A hallucination, in the broadest sense, is a perception in the absence of a stimulus."
So is a hallucination a perception or not, Wikipedia?
I would have to deduce on my own (because Wikipedia fails to explain why this last bullet is an argument against the supernatural), that the only reason this is even in the article is in an attempt to suggest that religious visions can be explained by naturally (i.e. they are just 'hallucinations in the sane'). Considering Wikipedia's unattended bias towards all things secular, it would make sense that there such a specific agenda exists. But since credibility (or what is left of it) is on the line, the agenda is to remain as subtle as possible. It's almost like an art form. Wikipedia is just one giant easel.
Don't you realize that you're not kidding anyone with this site? Anyone with a reasonably developed intellect can quite easily find major philosophical flaws in the majority of content Wikipedia hosts. Is this site meant to appeal only to those who cannot think critically? Those kind of people no one cares about anyway, so what is the point of such a site? What does it matter if you can brainwash the dumb?
Half the article is about Catholicism
Why??? Seriously why??? Of all the hundreds of cultures and religions from human history which incorporated some aspect of supernatural beliefs into their worldview, why should Catholicism get such a disproportionate share of this article dedicated to it? Major NPOV violation here! SarrCat ∑;3 04:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Sarr Cat: - Regardless of whatever biases there may be, this article just seems like a really poor personal interest piece. Suggest deletion per WP:TNT. NickCT (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Before going to that extreme, I think we should have some sort of discussion, but yeah, the article is currently pretty crappy. SarrCat ∑;3 17:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Article is biased towards western supernaturalism, what can be done to fix this?
There are a number of problems with this article as it exists currently, but the most glaring issue is the almost exclusive focus on supernaturalism is western culture/religion, the most blatant example of this being that the section on Catholicism makes up more than a third of the article, and no major or minor religion even gets so much as a sub-section!! The lead states that "Most religions include the supernatural", but why is there only a section on Catholicism? What about all the other religions? Even in the rest of the article, there is no information whatsoever about the supernatural elements of any eastern religions/philosophies, for example. Why have these been omitted, and what can be done to fix this? SarrCat ∑;3 17:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Per WP:TNT. NickCT (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Add more non-Western material. Editor2020, Talk 02:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Deleting is out of the question per WP:PRESERVE, "As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia." Having too much good information is not a problem. The problem is lack of information. And the solution is to fix it. Lack of information doesn't indicate omission on Wikipedia. It implies neglect. We're a handful of volunteer editors with almost 5 million articles to maintain. Is there anything stopping you from adding material? PraetorianFury (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - remove the catholic bit to stick with delivering the high-level topic of title and lead where it now says "This article is about the philosophical concept". If it's going to cover the general topic of Supernatural then it needs to avoid the detail level, and start covering WP:WPP things and having See Also point to examples of supernatural like Angels, Ghosts, Ifrit, Jinn, Vampires, and List of supernatural beings in Chinese folklore. An alternative to cutting would be to move the article to 'Supernatural (Catholicism)'. Markbassett (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete In Catholicism.' section' / Add a new section: something like "Supernatural in religions" where the supernatural examples of all religions should be discussed. Also contrast section was a bit confusing, not really contrasting but generally supportive views in there too.(e.g Newton quote) The article might be salvaged, but I would not object to a rewrite. (Will agree if the result is TNT)Darwinian Ape talk 22:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep(See New Proposed Voting Procedure, below) - Fix it per the prescriptions of WP:BOLD / WP:FIXIT. I concur with the argument presented by PraetorianFury; to remove the quality discussion of the Catholic perspective on Supernaturalism would simply cause for the erasure of information which is informative, well-written, supported by valid citation, and relevant — to TNT the Article goes against the editing guidelines provided in WP:PRESERVE. The article does much need the addition of added viewpoints, such as those indicated by Markbassett: but this requires the work of editors, not the work of Admins with deletion privileges. I believe that the current Distinguish (Paranormal), POV, and Globalize tags allow the collective group of concerned editors sufficient time to gather additional research and contribute new, more expansive, Sections with quality & attention equal to that presently given to Catholicism. UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Editor2020, @PraetorianFury, @Markbassett, @ Darwinian Ape; it seems in each of your statements, though you voted for deletion, you assert that the article could be salvaged without complete re-creation (if I'm wrong, please correct me). I'm wondering if you disagree with the above note on the use of prominent tags as a stop-gap measure while an active push is made to engage editors in the Article's improvement; and should you not disagree, if you would consider changing your stance from a firm Delete, to an alternative according to this tenor? Interested in hearing your thoughts... UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I did not vote for deletion, but said it should be Kept and expanded. Go for it, Sarr Cat. Editor2020, Talk 21:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, what? I said deletion was not even a possibility. To be clear, my vote is always Keep accurate, appropriate material. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think keep the article but move the catholic section to it's own article -- or else relabel teh article Catholic supernaturalism. I just think it infeasible to expand the "Supernatural" to match that depth for all the various religions and possible sub-topics of , and think it best the top-level just start with the meaning in general then point elsewhere. Markbassett (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Editor2020, @PraetorianFury, @Markbassett, @ Darwinian Ape; it seems in each of your statements, though you voted for deletion, you assert that the article could be salvaged without complete re-creation (if I'm wrong, please correct me). I'm wondering if you disagree with the above note on the use of prominent tags as a stop-gap measure while an active push is made to engage editors in the Article's improvement; and should you not disagree, if you would consider changing your stance from a firm Delete, to an alternative according to this tenor? Interested in hearing your thoughts... UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Got it — I think the bulleted comment beneath the initial Delete threw me off. If the consensus is consistent with your comment (which I agree with), I can try and more broadly publicize this to other editors, so that we can get a wide-base of unbiased content added to the article. Thanks! --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, I said it might be salvaged but it really needs a major overhaul, so if anyone would want to start over I'd understand. My initial delete vote was actually for the "In Catholicism" section because it gives Christianity(a sect of Christianity to be precise) an undue weight.(since there was no specific options for the RFC, I offered my opinion on how to make the article balanced. I'll make the comment more clear. Darwinian Ape talk 21:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Good idea. I think if we find consensus to move ahead with major editorial action rather than TNT'ing the Article, this comment should absolutely be adopted by the involved editor(s), in restructuring its contents. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, I said it might be salvaged but it really needs a major overhaul, so if anyone would want to start over I'd understand. My initial delete vote was actually for the "In Catholicism" section because it gives Christianity(a sect of Christianity to be precise) an undue weight.(since there was no specific options for the RFC, I offered my opinion on how to make the article balanced. I'll make the comment more clear. Darwinian Ape talk 21:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Sarr Cat, in view of the above (and any further comment which may subsequently come-in), I propose we modify the RfC you initiated to propose specific voting options that comport with these various alternatives. I will create a 3rd Level Heading below this line with what I see these options as representing (all feel free to comment/edit), and so that any additional comments along the lines above can be contributed to the discussion with a logical flow. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Have given this new RfC Voting Proposal prominence on the To-do Lists of both Spirituality and Religion WikiProjects, in order to encourage greater contribution from the relevant communities of editors. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Proposed Definitive Voting on Topic
A. Keep & Fix:
- Use tags to indicate to Wiki readers that the Article has content problems being addressed by editors. Actively engage community on repairing Article.
B. Keep & Fix with Guidelines:
- Same determination as in option A, however members of Talk Page discussion will formulate provisional guidelines for the repair of the Article based on consensus, and will hold all editors to these "Repair Guidelines" until all major tags are removed.
C. TNT:
- Per WP:TNT, remove all extant Article content and re-create Article in its entirety.
D. AfD:
- Remove Article from Wikipedia without specific recourse or design to re-create the Article.
E. Pure Keep:
- Keep Article on Wikipedia without specific recourse or design to ensure proper editing of the Article; allow editors to naturally contribute pursuant to WP Standard & Policies and MoS.
- B. Keep & Fix with Guidelines. My position is stated in the above discussion. I would note that I would be happy to review comments at the end of this process and draft these "Repair Guidelines" (such as the recommendations given by Darwinian Ape) for the community's review, revision, and/or approval. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- A, B, or E - Fixing is always nice. But if we deleted every article that wasn't perfect, there wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia left. Thus perfection is not required. So keep it, and fix it if people are so inclined. I don't have a vested interest in this, just I thought I'd chime in for the RFC. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- B. But the article in it's current state needs lots of work, so option C. might be easier and painless. Darwinian Ape talk 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- →Agreed on the amount of work it'll need —but it seems this Article touches (or should touch) on a lot of subject areas. I think that fact will help get a fair amount of editor engagement, once we can publicize our consensus to them. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- B - think cannot keep up the level of detail and cover the whole topic, so suggest split to an overview article and then sub-topic article(s). Markbassett (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- A or B, not too fussed between free-for-all editing and guided editing. I'll keep an eye out for grammar, spelling and readable syntax (also known as readability), though I would also like to suggest that if a religion section is put in, that it is kept to a summary style and links to the main articles for each religion. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- →I think that your suggestion of Summary Sections with clear links to extant Articles, as opposed to new Sub-topic Articles (in the strict sense) will lead us to a quicker editorial process. Thus far B seems to be aligned with the discussion's consensus. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- By strict sense, I assume you are meaning a separate topic section that relates to the religion but not summarising it. To be clearer though for other editors, it would be a brief sub-heading section containing a summary, providing context of the supernatural themes and ideas presented in each religion. E.g. for Christianity;
- ==Religion and Supernatural Concepts==
- ===Christianity===
- Main article ...
- See also (insert denominations)
- Summary of Christianity as a religion and discussion of supernatural themes and ideas
- By strict sense, I assume you are meaning a separate topic section that relates to the religion but not summarising it. To be clearer though for other editors, it would be a brief sub-heading section containing a summary, providing context of the supernatural themes and ideas presented in each religion. E.g. for Christianity;
- Just as a rough draft design, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- →By "strict sense" in regards to Sub-topic Articles, I was envisaging a more complex division of Topics for every category of Article that could exist with the broad group of the Supernatural. But a concept such as you propose would be aligned with the general tone of WP Articles, as well as my own opinion on the matter — i.e., an arrangement of both Subsections and Links, such as:
- 2nd Degree Heading : General Discussion.
- 3rd Degree Heading(s) : (Topic in the Context of a Specific Denomination/School of Thought).
- Clearly linked Direction to Specific Article Regarding the Denomination/School.
- Continued etc., etc. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- →I think that your suggestion of Summary Sections with clear links to extant Articles, as opposed to new Sub-topic Articles (in the strict sense) will lead us to a quicker editorial process. Thus far B seems to be aligned with the discussion's consensus. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you guys are going to have to do most of the work here without me, I started this RFC back in summer, but school has started for me now, so I won't be able to pay attention to any wikipedia related things for a while, at least, not at the level I would have during summer. I hope you can get this sorted out without me though! SarrCat ∑;3 20:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- B or C - As it stands, the article is offensively one sided and is really just an article about supernaturalism in Christianity. Other religions should have equal coverage but it would be nice if the article, since it is not called Supernaturalism in Religion, also covered supernatural themes in folklore, urban legends and such. It would also be nice if it addressed some of the natural origins for these supernatural ideas. I also agree with the idea of one main article with many sub articles. Louieoddie (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- A. or E. - B. seems overly bureaucratic, I don't think blowing it up per C. is necessary, and I strongly disagree with putting the article up for deletion per D. looking at the current state of the article. The article could use expansion, and maybe some of the content could be split off to its own more aptly titled article, but most of the content seems reasonable after a quick review.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 11:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- C or D - Just don't see much value in this article at the moment. NickCT (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Blow it up and start over
Maybe it would have been easier. This article is a mess. Editor2020, Talk 02:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- So for the purposes of the effort to gather consensus (above), one would be correct in assessing your vote as "C. TNT: → Per WP:TNT, remove all extant Article content and re-create Article in its entirety. "? --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, I think we've moved beyond that now. I think that I may have blown it up, but in slow motion. Editor2020, Talk
- p.s. But I'm open to rewrites or reorganization. Editor2020, Talk 00:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)