Talk:Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] Requested move
| Rationale : | The actual article is about something much more specific. I have no idea how it should be renamed, though. |
| Proposer : | The Famous Movie Director 01:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] Discussion
- Suggest Religious pareidolia – or perhaps merge this article with Pareidolia? David Kernow 01:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've moved as you suggested; you can still merge, of course. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 06:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] (Further source)
A further source: http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/08/Neighborhoodtimes/An_image_of_Jesus__Al.shtml
[edit] Pareidola in Islam?
such as characters for the word Allah being seen on the body pattern of oscars (the fish) etc.
- Yes, worth mentioning. I've added this to the intro, and will dig out some news references. There's a nice compilation at Miracle Pictures of Islam. Tearlach 15:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it worth pointing out that the word "Allah", written in the Arabic script, is *really* easy to find in a bunch of random squiggles with a vertical tendency? Three vertical strokes and something roundish, connected at the bottom except for the first stroke. That's all you need to claim that Allah signed the tsunami or whatever.
- Is it worth pointing out?
- Reckon so. With only slight exaggeration, it's as if God in English were called "OOO" or "III". There's probably a more formal way of expressing this. General simplicity of letter forms in the Arabic alphabet (especially in the everyday Riq'a); a tradition of massive typographical flexibility (see Islamic calligraphy); and the particular shape of the word Allah. Tearlach 08:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, some decoration of Muslim pottery consists of simply three vertical strokes that are interpreted as some religious word. --Error 01:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, I hate these "vege-miracles" (as I call them). Armyrifle 21:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pictures
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. |
This article needs many pictures. --Error 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rename
As this is basically a list, I propose renaming it "list of religious pareidolia". Λυδαcιτγ 21:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent work Shirahadasha. It is still a list, though, so "List of perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena"? Λυδαcιτγ 18:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move and WP:NPOV problems
This entire page, including the title, seems written in a completely POV fashion. The claim that religious patterns are seen "where none intended" is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The article needs to characterize and describe the various claims of seeing religious visions and patterns in a neutral way. This article doesn't do that. I'd suggest a title change to "religious patterns" or similar, with pareidolia being one theory -- among others -- offered to explain them. Suggest revisting the RfM, seems to have died out for lack of interest in discussing rather than concensus. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:OR problems
Many of the items in the list are completely unsourced. For items that are sourced, in most cases the source describes the phenomena and fails to contain any claim that the particular incident involves pareidolia. The basic thrust of this list seems to be essentially WP:OR. Editors seem to be presenting their own personal belief and opinion about the nature of these phenomena, without bothering to obtain or present any sources for their claims. --Shirahadasha 07:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- As but one example of many, this reference doesn't contain anything even approximating a claim that the phenomenon described is pareidolia. It contains claims that the phenomenon is a legitimately religious one, contrasted with a wait-and-see can't-be-sure skepticism expressed by a Catholic priest. Characterizing this phenomenon as pareidolia in the complete absence of any source supporting such a characterization represents a leap of WP:OR specifically prohibited by Wikipedia polices. Best, --Shirahadasha 07:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved the article, changed intro, attempted to describe phenomena from a completely neutral point of view. Made pareidolia a POV explanation of these phenomena rather than part of their definition. Removed article tags. There problems of sourcing etc. with individual items in the list but believe this addresses the WP:NPOV issue with the article as a whole. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
