Jump to content

Talk:Worship of heavenly bodies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article title

[edit]

article should probably reside at astrolatry, which is the unambiguous term. I had a hard time figuring out what "astro-theology" is supposed to mean, as the term is thrown around in various and partly confused contexts of the "religion vs science" debate in the 18th century. --dab (𒁳) 12:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic, as it is not a neutral term. Skyerise (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manly P. Hall

[edit]

Can someone familiar with his work cite this? Or on second thought, wasn't he just a great compiler of such details? Has the comparison been drawn by others? Do we even need that paragraph? Skyerise (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary magic

[edit]

A section should be added about the relationship with the planetary magic of Hermetic Qabala, along with other systems (eg. John Dee, other non-qabalistic systems of planetary magic). Thompson's book in Further reading addresses this, though mostly from the POV of James Lees so other sources would be needed. Iirc, Dennings & Phillips also covered this in their ogdoadic system. Skyerise (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Technical Writing

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 October 2023 and 24 October 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dp20032003 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Dp20032003 (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Astrotheology"

[edit]

It seems that the academic use of "astrotheology" is unrelated to the way it is used here, as the worship of the stars (individually or together as the night sky), the planets, and other heavenly bodies as deities, or the association of deities with heavenly bodies. It is allegedly a WP:NPOV version of astrolatry, which now redirects here. However the actual use of this term in academic literature, including literature included on the page, seems to be very different, see:

  • "Astrotheology". The Routledge Companion to Modern Christian Thought. Routledge. 2013-10-28. doi:10.4324/9780203387856-78. ISBN 978-0-203-38785-6.
  • Peters, Ted F.; Hewlett, Martinez; Moritz, Joshua M.; Russell, Robert John (2018-07-12). Astrotheology. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 978-1-5326-0639-7.
  • Losch, Andreas (2016-05-05). "Astrotheology: on exoplanets, Christian concerns, and human hopes". Zygon. 51 (2). Wiley: 405–413. doi:10.1111/zygo.12252. ISSN 0591-2385.
  • Pryor, Adam (2018). "It's a great big universe: Astrobiology and future trends for an astrotheology". Dialog. 57 (1). Wiley: 5–11. doi:10.1111/dial.12370. ISSN 0012-2033.
  • Harrison, Albert A. (2014-01-02). "Astrotheology and Spaceflight: Prophecy, Transcendence and Salvation on the High Frontier". Theology and Science. 12 (1). Informa UK Limited: 30–48. doi:10.1080/14746700.2013.868118. ISSN 1474-6700.
  • Pieterse, A.C. (2021-12-15). "Astrotheology: A proactive contextualization of novelty within space exploration". Acta Theologica. 41 (2): 156–175. doi:10.4314/actat.v41i2.. ISSN 2309-9089. Retrieved 2023-11-15. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help)
  • Chon-Torres, Octavio A.; Szocik, Konrad (2021-12-15). "A brief epistemological discussion of astrotheology in the light of astrobiology". International Journal of Astrobiology. 21 (1). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 1–8. doi:10.1017/s1473550421000367. ISSN 1473-5504.
  • Arnould, Jacques (2018-10-02). "Astrotheology, Astroethics, and the New Challenges". Theology and Science. 16 (4). Informa UK Limited: 380–381. doi:10.1080/14746700.2018.1522730. ISSN 1474-6700.
  • Waltemathe, Michael (2017-09-12). A match made for heaven. Astrosociological and astrotheological aspects of spaceflight and religion. Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. doi:10.2514/6.2017-5157.

...and plenty of others, I found all of these just doing a quick search for "astrotheology" on Google Scholar. These all discuss the intersections of modern spaceflight and theology "to identify elements of religion and myth in discussions of space science and to prepare people for possible future developments" as Harrison puts it. It is not a term for "the worship of stars" or other heavenly bodies. The term appears to refer to a much narrower idea which really only encompasses what is covered here at Astrotheology#Connections with other fields. Indeed, the earliest use of the term is by William Derham, who argued the "demonstration of sacred truths" from "a survey of heavenly bodies" according to the original version of the page. The idea that astrotheology refers to the worship of astral bodies seems to originate with an unreliable source: Irvin, Jan; Rutajit, Andrew (2006-01-01). Astrotheology and Shamanism. ISBN 978-1-58509-107-2. This books argues that Christianity is a pagan cult originally based on star-worship and the use of psychedelics, and knowledge of these hidden roots are "concealed behind a campaign to prohibit access to entheogenic sacraments through a Pharmacratic Inquisition."

It seems that Astrotheology was previously merged into Astrolatry by @Klbrain in 2018, see here. @Liz appears to have moved Astrolatry to Astrotheology under the presumption that "astrolatry" does not reflect a WP:NPOV.

@Liz: why is "astrolatry" not neutral? It seems to be used widely and there's a number of people who use it as a self-descriptor. Furthermore, it seems this alternative is not an improvement. Tryin to make a change :-/ 10:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a WP:BOLD move and moved Astrotheology to Worship of heavenly bodies. This is a more general title which retains the WP:NPOV of "Astrotheology" while avoiding the issue of how this word is actually used in practically all scholarship today -- a way that is decidedly different and perhaps unrelated to Derham's 18th century coinage. Tryin to make a change :-/ 10:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For interested parties: I have been re-writing the Astrotheology page from scratch to conform with WP:RSs. I have yet to find any source for the claim that "astrotheology" as a word means the worship of heavenly bodies -- it seems the only places using this definition are crank conspiracy websites, Christian apologist publications responding to said conspiracy websites, and the fringe mythicist Richard Carrier. For example:
...and plenty of others, but still no RS for this usage.Webster's gives Astrotheology as "Theology founded on observation or knowledge of the celestial bodies", and the OED gives "that part of theology which may be deduced from the study of the stars; a religious system founded upon the observation of the heavens", both of which are subtely but acutely different from the usage initially given. Both accord with Derham who talks very little of pre-Christian belief. In regards to WP:NPOV: I don't think "astrotheology" is neutral as some think it to be, as today "theology" generally encompasses the Abrahamic faiths and it is not really appropriate to apply it to, e.g. the Lakota or pole-star worship or what have you. Tryin to make a change :-/ 10:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this article in 2021 based on a CSD tagged move request by Skyerise. I didn't realize that a previous article under this page title had already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrotheology). And now there is a new article at this title. Skyerise would like to move this article again to Astral religion and I asked that the subject be brought up here since there has been a difference of opinion on the article title in the past. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on "Astral religion" vs. "Worship of heavenly bodies", personally. A quick search of scholarly literature shows both, the former might be less clunky. Tryin to make a change :-/ 05:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, note Brill's Religion Past and Present, which states that "astral religion" is the "cultic worship of heavenly bodies or deities associated with them." This implies that "worship of heavenly bodies" is a more general term which can encompass things outside of organized cults. Tryin to make a change :-/ 06:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no examples in the article which are practiced outside of such organized groups, nor are there likely to be since sources would not cover an individual's idiosyncratic religious practice. Skyerise (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 December 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus against the original rationale, evidence has been provided for the "worship of heavenly bodies" as a widely used term, independent of "astral religion". This negates the primary move rationale. The discussion suggests that the worship of heavenly bodies is a wider phenomenon than astral religion, and as such the current title is appropriate. (closed by non-admin page mover) Polyamorph (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worship of heavenly bodies → Astral religion – the correct term for this is "astral religion", the current title is ad-hoc and made up by an editor who failed to follow process and open a proper move request. Skyerise (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for "astral religion" being the "correct term"? Also, WP:BOLD moves are not "failing to follow process" -- it is fix[ing] it yourself instead of just talking about it. That is irrelevant, though. Tryin to make a change :-/ 12:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You provided a reference above (Religion Past and Present). All astral religions are astral cults, a technical term which does not equate to the popular meaning of the word "cult". Skyerise (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[A]stral religions are astral cults but not all worship of heavenly bodies can properly be called cultic (which as you note is not the same as the popular meaning of the word "cult" but a technical term that does not encompass the entirety of religious phenomena.) As I noted about the source, it implies that the worship of heavenly bodies is the wider phenomenon being discussed. You know, looking at the page, this page borders on WP:SYNTH or even WP:OR -- I don't actually think that there is a "proper name" to be discussed here since it is mostly pieced together mentions of star and planet worship in various religions rather than something that is studied as a phenomenon in its own right. Tryin to make a change :-/ 18:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Astral religion or astral cult are the terms most widely used in the archeological and anthropological literature. The term applies to every single one of the worldwide examples described in the article. Nobody uses "worship of heavenly bodies" - which itself shows a bias and "heavenly" should be replaced with "astronomical" in any case. Clearly I'll have to go to the relevant projects to find knowledgable editors in the field. Skyerise (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm sort of convinced on the evidence presented above, and otherwise most other articles refer to things in space as astronomical objects, and the name of this article should be consistent with that usage. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Worship of heavenly bodies" is widely used as such. Srnec (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, in definitions of "astral religion", primarily. Skyerise (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. This surprised me too. Srnec (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, despite claims to the contrary Worship of heavenly bodies is not an ad hoc coining but something I came across scouring scholarly literature for astrotheology. Tryin to make a change :-/ 13:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speaking of Giordano Bruno

[edit]

I included the next sourced information in the article: 

The first philosopher and theologian to seriously advocate for life in other planets was [[Giordano Bruno]], who was burned alive for heresy due to this challenging the uniqueness of the Pope as God's sole representative.<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/biography/Giordano-Bruno/ ''Giordano Bruno'' on Britannica]</ref><ref>[The Torture and Murder of Giordano Bruno For Publishing the Universe Is Infinite and There is Life on Other Planets  The Torture and Murder of Giordano Bruno For Publishing the Universe Is Infinite and There is Life on Other Planets] by R. Gabriel Joseph in Cosmology.com</ref>

However, the user User:Skyerise (who previously accused me of editing just to "promote Islam", which as you can see, is patently false), keeps reverting the adding of information. The whole paragraph does not speak directly of astrolatry, but rather of changing philosophical and epistemological changes in the cosmology of western man, dethroning the geocentric view and thus the view of stars and planets as simple brilliant dots in the night sky. This is relevant, Giordano Bruno was the immediate predecessor of Gallileo and had a much more developed non-geocentric cosmology. So either add the info, or delete the whole section of "modern views" for """"not being about worship"""" Worship_of_heavenly_bodies#16th_century. 200.127.211.12 (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably belongs under the Astrotheology heading, if not the Astrotheology page itself. wound theology◈ 03:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with user Wound theology. This article is about the worship of heavenly bodies as deities. The material which wasn't about that didn't belong here either, and I've removed it. Please don't add anything unless it is about cultures or religions in which astronomical bodies are worshipped. It's just plain common sense based on the title! Skyerise (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Belongs as in "The whole section"? Because there is no reason all the others would be mentioned (Galilleo, Copernicus, and so forth) and not Giordano Bruno. Well, anyways, the whole part was deleted from here now... yay? ... I added relevant information to *a section which already spoke of that very topic*. You can't just delete the sourced contributions of tens of wikipedians just like that. You don't own this page and your personal opinion isn't an automatic consensus to treat it as your personal property. You need to discuss here *first* (as became evident when your move request failed). Then you complain about process on users that "just do stuff". You are the one violating it... --200.127.211.12 (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wrote the article. Then the article was split. Material that should have been moved to Astrotheology somehow didn't get moved. And yes, I can remove it - I wrote it. And even if I hadn't, it's a general rule on Wikipedia that offtopic material not only may, but should be removed from an article. Skyerise (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I created/wrote the majority of this article." (implying some kind of right or status exists because of that) is listed as an example statement at WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. DefaultFree (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DefaultFree: There are also rules against stalking and harassment, which you are now engaged in. The material was offtopic, left from when the other editor commenting (Wound theology) moved and split the article in December. Skyerise (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who harassed you? It doesn't matter how much or how little you wrote; also this was originally about removing things you didn't wrote (or claim to write, there are many edits which aren't yours at all.) - Furthermore, by writing in wikipedia, you abide by the CC license, as such you don't have copyright to the extent of censoring the material by "removing" contributions. I'm pinging @Polyamorph:, @Srnec:, @BD2412:, @Liz: as other editors interested in the article, and who may believe the original sections about the context and scholarship (5000 deleted characters) are relevant, and not only the list of religions (which is the only parts you left, adding even more to your dear thelema even though arguably is not an actual religion nor does it worship heavenly bodies). 200.127.211.12 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there you go. You are not assuming good faith. Reliable source say that Thelema is a religion (which is in no way dear to me, I am an historian interested in new religious movements) and the definition at the beginning of the article (based on sources) includes worship of the whole sky. Skyerise (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" You can't just delete the sourced contributions of tens of wikipedians just like that. " Correction; it is even recommanded to remove false information. This is not a forum where we just exchange ideas for the sake of it. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Life on other planets has nothing to do with worship of heavenly bodies. Those who worship heavenly bodies usually believed the planets themselves are endowed with life-force since people back then lacked a proper understanding how they could move if they were mere stones. As stated above, it is something for Astrotheology. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islam section

[edit]

The Islam section is (once again) in a pretty bad condition and mostly consists of synthesis of material to further the author's own opinion. The sources hadrly speak about the veneration of heavenly bodies at all. There are sources, such as "The Arabic Influences on Early Modern Occult Philosophy" elaborating on the notion of veneration of the Classical planets and their cultural influences. Of course, they do not "worship" them in the direct sense, but did attribute seven planetary spirits to them. The "seven jinn king" in the jinn article may also fall rather into this article, since the seven planets are usually not "jinn" but "ruhaniyya" and inspired by the Hellenistic idea of living planets. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle: I would appreciate your additions. That sounds like just the type of material that section needs. That part of the article is quite old, predating my attention to the article and I simply haven't had the bandwidth or existing knowledge of the sources to improve it. Skyerise (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your encouraging words. When I have the time and leisure, I will probably do it. However, currently I do not feel like going through these sources again. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VenusFeuerFalle: Thankfully, there is no deadline. Skyerise (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however, misinformation bugs me since it can easily spread across the globe as a freely accessable online encyclopedia. Yet, this is just a case of missing information not misinformation. Gladly, there are enough Wikipedians who do great work on keeping Wikipedia as clean as possible and I do thank you for keeping an eye on this article as well. Religion-related articles are unfortunately prone to propaganda and misinterpretation of sources. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I recently found that a historical Tibetan lama was claimed as an ancestor of the 6th Dalai Lama. It's now in a couple tour guides that believed Wikipedia. But when I looked into the details, the actual ancestor of the 6th was the subject's brother. Ooops. Skyerise (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually disappointing to read, but good to know. I want to warn friends taking a tour if they mention the misconception.
I am convinved that Wikipedia does more good than harm, but sometimes it spreads misinformation. Don't get me started about the many misconceptions I see even among some academic circles about Islamic angels and jinn (But it got better over the years by now). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Thelema

[edit]

Resolved: Remove Thelema because of WP:UNDUE.

In favor. jps (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per ජපස (talk · contribs). wound theology◈ 07:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed - the primary object of worship in Thelema is Nuit, who is "Infinite Stars and Infinite Space". The worship of the entire sky is included by sources as within the definition of "worship of heavenly bodies". Thelema also worships the Sun, under the name Ra-Hoor-Khuit and others as detailed in Liber Resh vel Helios. There is significant literature about Thelema, esp. since 2010 or so, with multiple academic works reporting on this worship. Skyerise (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are a huge number of NRMs we could potentially include here. Excluding all but Thelema is very problematic. jps (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely support the resolution. I am not opposed to some sort of mention in theory, but as it is, this strikes me as absolutely WP:UNDUE. One citation from a journal of pagan studies does not amount to the same amount of coverage as, say, the academic work on worship of the heavens in ancient Egypt. As such, I will be removing the section per WP:ONUS. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skyerise, additional sources are great, of course, but they are not a substitute for consensus. verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. As such, apologies, but I will be removing again. Please gain something approaching consensus before re-adding the content. Dumuzid (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus comes from letting the discussion continue, not by removing the material and then edit warring over it. Skyerise (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that's not what a plain reading of WP:ONUS says to me. You are certainly within your rights to work on the material and to persuade others to your view. You are not entitled to do that in mainspace when you are on what appears at the moment to be a solitary mission. You may well find others who agree with you. But we should keep the cart before the horse. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original material has been in the article for months and I am not the only editor who has contributed to it. A two to one difference of opinion after barely an hour has passed isn't a consensus. Skyerise (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, per WP:ONUS, it is you who have to demonstrate the consensus. Dumuzid (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nota bene: I quickly weary of editors who spew ALPHABET SOUP all the time, and when I am tired of eating ALPHABET SOUP, I like to remind them that WP:IAR ("ignore all rules" for those who like me dislike SOUP) is policy, while most of the SOUPs being sloshed around are merely guidelines. Skyerise (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the below, now you at least have a better claim of consensus. And if you're not aware, verifiability is, in fact, a Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the material has always been verifiable. WP:ONUS isn't about verifiability. You complained that there was only one academic source. I rewrote the material and added multiple academic sources, but you just reverted that - even though the material was different than what you had removed the first time and your only argument had been addressed. That's edit-warring, regardless of what ALPHABET SOUP you spew to justify such rude editing practices. Skyerise (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd respectfully suggest you do some self-reflection on the topic of rudeness; and WP:ONUS is also known as WP:VNOT and is found on WP:VERIFIABILITY, so I think it is fair to say the concepts are related. Collegiality, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, does not mean you always get your desired outcome. Do what thou wilt is not the whole of the law around here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the one removing material that was clearly cited and verifiable. Skyerise (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, my point about self-reflection stands. Dumuzid (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case you missed the implication, I was suggesting the same to you. Skyerise (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was not missed. Dumuzid (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the proposal. Thus far, the claim that the content was undue was premised on the a statement that One citation from a journal of pagan studies does not amount to the same amount of coverage as, say, the academic work on worship of the heavens in ancient Egypt. This seems like it was letting the perfect be the enemy of the good (that the version at the time cited just one academic source didn't on its own mean that no additional sources can ever be cited) and also seems to not account Skyerise's elaboration that the literature comprises much more than just one citation from an academic journal.

I'd point out that the policy on consensus does state that When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit (in this case the proposal being complete removal of any content about Thelema as it relates to the topic). In the interest keeping the temperature down we may wish to mind the advice of WP:STATUSQUO to not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will you support removing all these additions which more than doubled the size of the "status quo" section? jps (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you can clearly see, the editor above opposes the removal. The increase in size was directly caused by your insistence on removal, which necessitated going into more detail so that more sources could be used to support the material. You could have just left well enough alone. The coverage of Thelema is fairly extensive, much more so than it was 20 years ago, so your "UNDUE" assertion fails. Skyerise (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, Hydrangeans' WP:STATUSQUO rationale would lend itself to at least the possibility that the new additions should be removed pending discussion. I'd also be curious to hear her thoughts. Dumuzid (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline doesn't speak to reverting expansions and improvements; it only speaks to discouraging the removal of the content being discussed. It is completely normal process to improve material that editors are arguing to remove. That's specifically covered right at the end of the guideline under status quo stonewalling (editors favoring an older version should provide substantive reasons). What substantive reasons do you have to revert to a less detailed version with fewer sources? Skyerise (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have made your position abundantly clear. Again, I would be curious to know where Hydrangeans' thoughts are. Dumuzid (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's some interlocking problems that make considering best next steps tricky, I want to be transparent with my thoughts. Skyerise states that it's normal for content under discussion to be improved; on some level, I see what Skyerise means, since I've seen AfD discussions where an uncited stub gets turned into a quality, thoroughly cited article. If a discussion like that ends without consensus, the article doesn't usually get hewn back into a stub. This isn't exactly the same, though; this is about including some content in an article. I don't think I personally would've expanded the section while it was under discussion (since there remained/remains the possibility of the section being trimmed entirely). But I stop short of saying 'yes, go back to the most vigorous version of status quo ante' because 1) Wikipedia isn't necessarily static and there could be good reasons for the section to change going forward; and 2) that would just reintroduce one of Dumuzid's concerns about the earlier version.
Dumuzid expressed two concerns. One was that the material was cited to only one source. Removing Skyerise's additions would reintroduce the first problem, since the earlier version was only cited to one secondary source. However, Dumuzid also expressed a concern that the inclusion of material on Thelema was out of proportion compared to the coverage of the topic in Egyptian culture. There are ways it can be due to include Thelema at all but still undue to include X amount of content about it.
So that's the second issue: would retaining the added content cause issues with the related problem? I think some amount of content about Thelema seems warranted in light of the academic coverage. I'm not currently committed to an exact amount—though to be clear I think some hypothetical version that made the article majority Thelema would be extremely difficult to defend, and I think the same would be the case for a hypothetical version that reduced the section to a few sentences. I'd point out that there are also ways to resolve the question of proportion in the other direction, so to speak. Rather than trim a section, could other sections be expanded? With there being so much academic work on worship of the heavens in ancient Egypt, the section on Egypt seems surprisingly sparse. Couldn't more be said about religious devotion to celestial objects in ancient Egypt, and, for that matter, in ancient China, among peoples indigenous to the Americas, etc.?
Adjacent to Dumuzid's concern about proportion was JPS's concern was that content about other new religious movements was not included in the article. Since Wikipedia is not paper, we aren't presently faced with a tight, unbreachable page limit (our guideline on article size suggests splitting at 10,000 words, and the article at the time of writing is about 4,000 words). I think the solution to NRM representation would be for content about the worship of heavenly bodies in other new religious movements, if it's deemed due to include on account of coverage in reliable sources, to be added to this article, rather than for content to be removed.
I guess that I think an ideal scenario would involve managing the length of the Thelema content relative to other sections of the article, adding content to other sections by citing more of the relevant literatures, and expanding the article's coverage of the topic in other religions if it's due, all in due time, without unnecessarily rushing. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That all seems totally reasonable to me... Skyerise (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I've gone ahead and removed the section since it is entirely WP:UNDUE. jps (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the right course of action. The section as written does seem to be far out of proportion, at the very least. XOR'easter (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's name all the NRMs that worship heavenly bodies

[edit]

This is only a start. Should we create a section for each? Some might be combinable.

jps (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that any of them actually involve the worship of heavenly bodies. Please provide citations for each so we can judge the depth and breadth of coverage of your claims about each. Skyerise (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any of them? You really think the only NRM that worships heavenly bodies is Thelema? jps (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the WP:ONUS is on you to show that your claim is true. If you think that the worship of heavenly bodies is central enough to any of them and that there are sufficient sources to do so, but all means add them. Or are you only disrupting the talk page to to make some WP:POINT? Skyerise (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the TOC certainly looks ridiculous enough. The four religions given a section of their own, and headlined on the same level, are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Thelema. The four big ones, are they..? Taking this discussion as an extension of the section above, I strongly support removing the Thelema section from the article, possibly in its place adding a new section which offers an overview of the minor religious star-related cosmologies listed by jps, including perhaps Thelema, and, less obscurely, something about William Blake's cosmology. I'm not up for creating such a new section, but perhaps some fan of completeness is? Seriously, an article as lopsided as this one currently is, is a bit of an embarrassment. As for disrupting the talkpage, Skyerise, I would say your wikilawyering ("Sorry, the WP:ONUS is on you to show that your claim is true") and rudeness does just that. If you use the word "spew" about others' arguments again, you should be worried about a sanction for personal attacks. Bishonen | tålk 03:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
In all fairness, I will point out that I began the WP:ONUS arguments. That said, very much agree that thelema should go. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: Frankly, the Judaism and Christianity sections should be removed, since both prohibit the worship of heavenly bodies as idolatry. And the inclusion of Islam is also questionable. None of the Abrahamic religions really belong in this article at all. Skyerise (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that we have only one contemporary religion on this page? Thelema? jps (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you would get that idea. You are of course welcome to add whatever contemporary religions in which worship of heavenly bodies is primary and for which you can provide sources. Skyerise (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think there are any other contemporary religions which worship heavenly bodies? jps (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Missouri, the "show me" state. Skyerise (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As-is, the section is incredibly confusing: it lists religions essentially to state something completely unrelated to the topic, like "Crucifixion darkness is an episode described in three of the canonical gospels" or outright denials of the practice ("Pope Leo the Great also denounced astrolatry"), all using either the primary sources or no sources at all. So, the titles of the article and sections create a false impression: Worship of heavenly bodies > In contemporary religions > Christianity implies that contemporary Christianity embraces astrolatry, while the text says - at best - the opposite. This is not WP:encyclopedic style. IMHO, the whole "In contemporary religions" section should be deleted and written anew using secondary, modern, review sources. Викидим (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Worship_of_heavenly_bodies&oldid=1243482933"