This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aishawithers.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
78.69.42.11 ( talk) 19:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I am wondering if someone would know how this would be interpreted [1]:
I am uncertain if the native american viewpoint of spirit (which would also apply to non-living things such as rocks and water) is represented here, and how it could be interpreted. Tyciol 17:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
On the distinction between fact and belief (as it goes to stating the spirit explains conciousness, but it applies in general):
Although one might hold the personal belief that the existence of an entity is fact, this does not imply that it is. Remember that however severely convinced one's belief in the existence of entity is, this still does NOT imply it's existence in reality. One's extreme conviction might surely be stated as fact, but history has well shown that people are often mistaken in what is fact or fiction. Therefore, when we speak of a theory, one at best may state that it has been confirmed to such a degree, that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. That is, when there is such a undeniable SHITLOAD of evidence to support it, that any sane person would do so. This, is certainly not the case with the statement that the spirit is the explanation for conciousness. Many think it is at best an historic, primitive, outdated, alternative explanation. I see how at the dawn of man one might jump to the hasty conclusion that there must be a spirit, but nowadays this goes against all neuropsychology. The amount of support for the theory of the spirit as an explanation for conciousness is not just disproportionate to that of modern neuropsychology. There scientific literature leaves little space (to, one might argue to practically no space) for the theory of the spirit as a possible explanation for conciousness, and with our everyday developing understanding of the nervous systems of living things, continues to do so less and less.
Therefore I concider it very misleading and inappropriate to state that the spirit explains the conciousness of living things, without stating that this is a held belief.
Give me one empirical observation that proves the existence of a spirit and we'll talk further (I said a real one, not some balony YT video that you declare as fact, something that has held up to critical inquiry. And yes I am aware of the danger of falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy with such statements, no conclusions have been made part of the premisse here.) FelixAkk
Ghoasts are real. So lets note it. GhoastUser 03:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I did spell it right. In Lu we spell it ghoast. GhoastUser 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)They are so real b couse i own one,from syco
"Ghosts" have not been proven to be real. Theirs no way we can note your opinion.
Randy6767 21:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this article, perhaps temporarily. It may return with some changes. Randy6767 20:58, 19 January 2007
I think 'ruah' (said to be Hebrew 'spirit' in the article) is mind, not spirit. See:
the 7 consciousnesses (or 'spirits before the throne' of God--in the 7 lamps)
English: Hebrew
divinity: Hashem
holy spirit/oversoul: chhaya
spirit: jeshida
soul: neschamah
mind: ruach
emotions: nefesh
life: coach ha guf
Could anyone get the autiots for jeshida?-- Dchmelik ( talk) 23:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Ruach is very often translated as "spirit". See already Genesis 1:2. Gesenius gives the following range of meanings:
Your "seven lamps" are apparently a reference to Revelation 4, but I don't know how you get the list of Hebrew words to go with it, let alone the English translations. -- dab (𒁳) 10:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Animas
The life force spirit found in all substance. A G(g)od. The binding force of all matter that is pro-active in all life forms. Gnostics ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Could somebody please review the following article of mine to see if it qualifies in an 'external links' section, and please insert it there. http://www.two-paths.com/spiritfish.htm Matswin ( talk) 07:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I proposed this article to be merged with Soul. As far as I am concerned, these two words are synonyms. This article is much poorer than Soul, so I think the former's material should be merged with the latter's. -- Λeternus (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the reference to Kalchuri, Meher Prabhu. For discussion, see RS/N and this Talk page. Simon Kidd ( talk) 08:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing in the RSN page you link to that gives you the right to remove referenced text. You are removing valid information from articles acting against consensus. Hoverfish Talk 20:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
You can't unilaterally decide that Lord Meher is not a reliable source. You can't unilaterally decide that it is devotional and not a reliable biography. What is "Devotional"? and who decides. Not You, Mr Kidd. Hoverfish Talk 16:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
"In the Bible, "the Spirit" (with a capital "S"), specifically denotes the Holy Spirit."
It was written in Greek and Hebrew. In these languages there is no capital letters.
Please take note that this is only about translation of Bible into English not about Bible itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorPorton ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The first reference to Newton via "Burtt, Edwin A. (2003)" is actually not good, as it refers to a certain paper edition of a book that most people don't have, although it originally dates from 1925 and is fully accessible, e.g. on the Internet Archive. I would look it up there but I'm not sure which place in the text is referred here. So, if anyone has the exact edition at hand, please record the citation so it can be cited by an accessible source. -- Oop ( talk) 11:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
This article needs to be rewritten to be about the concept and not about the term "spirit". Editor2020 ( talk) 17:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I've now added a hatnote to the article for a third time, after seeing it removed twice as a "spam" link. It isn't. The term "Waldgeist", if typed into the search box, brings a reader here via redirect. A racehorse of that name, Waldgeist (horse), won a major race on Sunday, the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe. It's quite reasonable to put a hatnote on an article where a disambiguated article of a redirected title exists, so can the hatnote be left in please. -- Bcp67 ( talk) 17:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 21:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
– This is not a proper WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "Spirit" could refer to a soul, a ghost, a supernatural being such as an angel or demon, a mood or disposition, an amount of passion or energy or enthusiasm such as community spirit or school spirit, or an alcoholic beverage, and that's just a few of the meanings. Liquor has a higher average number of page views than this article, and it opens with a phrase that makes it clear that distilled beverages are known as spirits: "Liquor or spirit (also distilled alcohol) is an alcoholic drink produced by ...". The alcoholic drink article says that "Alcoholic drinks are typically divided into three classes—beers, wines, and spirits". The extensive lead section of Spirit (disambiguation) illustrates the general confusion and lists about 50 topics known as "spirit". The Wikt:spirit entry contains 13 distinct noun meanings and 2 verb uses. The lead section of the Spirit article is partly written as an acknowledgement and explanation of some of the various different meanings. — BarrelProof ( talk) 19:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Most of this article concerns the word "spirit" and not the concept. Wkipedia is not a dictionary.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Vaulter 19:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Spirit (animating force) →
Spirit (vital principle) – Clarify scope of article and follow the wording of most dictionaries.
fiveby(
zero) 14:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.
Adumbrativus (
talk) 02:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Spirit has a number of senses and meanings, and I think in the prior moves and merges the content and links to this article have been kicked around, making this a dictdef and no clear concept for scope. I have been trying to clean up the incoming links to this article and send to more specific targets per MOS:SPECIFICLINK and MOS:EGG. Most of the problem is around ( "Spirit", Merriam-Webster):
and some:
Most of the time when Spirit (animating force) is linked, the reader is already seeing the content that is the most specific definition of 'spirit' and the link provides more generalized information, for instance in Ancient Egyptian conception of the soul. Vitalism is a bad link in this context per MOS:EGG as that article discusses as a theory rather than a belief. Not every dictionary has an entry corresponding to MW's #1, but when they do the wording is "vital principle" and i think "animating force" is something of a WP:OR invention and there are some objections. The proposal is to move to that title, set the scope as definition #1, and fix all the links and disambig pages. Links that were used in the sense of definition #2 i have been sending to Supernatural#Spirit for now, but those could go to a Spirit (supernatural entity) or some such article. fiveby( zero) 14:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aishawithers.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
78.69.42.11 ( talk) 19:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I am wondering if someone would know how this would be interpreted [1]:
I am uncertain if the native american viewpoint of spirit (which would also apply to non-living things such as rocks and water) is represented here, and how it could be interpreted. Tyciol 17:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
On the distinction between fact and belief (as it goes to stating the spirit explains conciousness, but it applies in general):
Although one might hold the personal belief that the existence of an entity is fact, this does not imply that it is. Remember that however severely convinced one's belief in the existence of entity is, this still does NOT imply it's existence in reality. One's extreme conviction might surely be stated as fact, but history has well shown that people are often mistaken in what is fact or fiction. Therefore, when we speak of a theory, one at best may state that it has been confirmed to such a degree, that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. That is, when there is such a undeniable SHITLOAD of evidence to support it, that any sane person would do so. This, is certainly not the case with the statement that the spirit is the explanation for conciousness. Many think it is at best an historic, primitive, outdated, alternative explanation. I see how at the dawn of man one might jump to the hasty conclusion that there must be a spirit, but nowadays this goes against all neuropsychology. The amount of support for the theory of the spirit as an explanation for conciousness is not just disproportionate to that of modern neuropsychology. There scientific literature leaves little space (to, one might argue to practically no space) for the theory of the spirit as a possible explanation for conciousness, and with our everyday developing understanding of the nervous systems of living things, continues to do so less and less.
Therefore I concider it very misleading and inappropriate to state that the spirit explains the conciousness of living things, without stating that this is a held belief.
Give me one empirical observation that proves the existence of a spirit and we'll talk further (I said a real one, not some balony YT video that you declare as fact, something that has held up to critical inquiry. And yes I am aware of the danger of falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy with such statements, no conclusions have been made part of the premisse here.) FelixAkk
Ghoasts are real. So lets note it. GhoastUser 03:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I did spell it right. In Lu we spell it ghoast. GhoastUser 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)They are so real b couse i own one,from syco
"Ghosts" have not been proven to be real. Theirs no way we can note your opinion.
Randy6767 21:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this article, perhaps temporarily. It may return with some changes. Randy6767 20:58, 19 January 2007
I think 'ruah' (said to be Hebrew 'spirit' in the article) is mind, not spirit. See:
the 7 consciousnesses (or 'spirits before the throne' of God--in the 7 lamps)
English: Hebrew
divinity: Hashem
holy spirit/oversoul: chhaya
spirit: jeshida
soul: neschamah
mind: ruach
emotions: nefesh
life: coach ha guf
Could anyone get the autiots for jeshida?-- Dchmelik ( talk) 23:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Ruach is very often translated as "spirit". See already Genesis 1:2. Gesenius gives the following range of meanings:
Your "seven lamps" are apparently a reference to Revelation 4, but I don't know how you get the list of Hebrew words to go with it, let alone the English translations. -- dab (𒁳) 10:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Animas
The life force spirit found in all substance. A G(g)od. The binding force of all matter that is pro-active in all life forms. Gnostics ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Could somebody please review the following article of mine to see if it qualifies in an 'external links' section, and please insert it there. http://www.two-paths.com/spiritfish.htm Matswin ( talk) 07:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I proposed this article to be merged with Soul. As far as I am concerned, these two words are synonyms. This article is much poorer than Soul, so I think the former's material should be merged with the latter's. -- Λeternus (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the reference to Kalchuri, Meher Prabhu. For discussion, see RS/N and this Talk page. Simon Kidd ( talk) 08:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing in the RSN page you link to that gives you the right to remove referenced text. You are removing valid information from articles acting against consensus. Hoverfish Talk 20:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
You can't unilaterally decide that Lord Meher is not a reliable source. You can't unilaterally decide that it is devotional and not a reliable biography. What is "Devotional"? and who decides. Not You, Mr Kidd. Hoverfish Talk 16:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
"In the Bible, "the Spirit" (with a capital "S"), specifically denotes the Holy Spirit."
It was written in Greek and Hebrew. In these languages there is no capital letters.
Please take note that this is only about translation of Bible into English not about Bible itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorPorton ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The first reference to Newton via "Burtt, Edwin A. (2003)" is actually not good, as it refers to a certain paper edition of a book that most people don't have, although it originally dates from 1925 and is fully accessible, e.g. on the Internet Archive. I would look it up there but I'm not sure which place in the text is referred here. So, if anyone has the exact edition at hand, please record the citation so it can be cited by an accessible source. -- Oop ( talk) 11:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
This article needs to be rewritten to be about the concept and not about the term "spirit". Editor2020 ( talk) 17:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I've now added a hatnote to the article for a third time, after seeing it removed twice as a "spam" link. It isn't. The term "Waldgeist", if typed into the search box, brings a reader here via redirect. A racehorse of that name, Waldgeist (horse), won a major race on Sunday, the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe. It's quite reasonable to put a hatnote on an article where a disambiguated article of a redirected title exists, so can the hatnote be left in please. -- Bcp67 ( talk) 17:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 21:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
– This is not a proper WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "Spirit" could refer to a soul, a ghost, a supernatural being such as an angel or demon, a mood or disposition, an amount of passion or energy or enthusiasm such as community spirit or school spirit, or an alcoholic beverage, and that's just a few of the meanings. Liquor has a higher average number of page views than this article, and it opens with a phrase that makes it clear that distilled beverages are known as spirits: "Liquor or spirit (also distilled alcohol) is an alcoholic drink produced by ...". The alcoholic drink article says that "Alcoholic drinks are typically divided into three classes—beers, wines, and spirits". The extensive lead section of Spirit (disambiguation) illustrates the general confusion and lists about 50 topics known as "spirit". The Wikt:spirit entry contains 13 distinct noun meanings and 2 verb uses. The lead section of the Spirit article is partly written as an acknowledgement and explanation of some of the various different meanings. — BarrelProof ( talk) 19:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Most of this article concerns the word "spirit" and not the concept. Wkipedia is not a dictionary.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Vaulter 19:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Spirit (animating force) →
Spirit (vital principle) – Clarify scope of article and follow the wording of most dictionaries.
fiveby(
zero) 14:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.
Adumbrativus (
talk) 02:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Spirit has a number of senses and meanings, and I think in the prior moves and merges the content and links to this article have been kicked around, making this a dictdef and no clear concept for scope. I have been trying to clean up the incoming links to this article and send to more specific targets per MOS:SPECIFICLINK and MOS:EGG. Most of the problem is around ( "Spirit", Merriam-Webster):
and some:
Most of the time when Spirit (animating force) is linked, the reader is already seeing the content that is the most specific definition of 'spirit' and the link provides more generalized information, for instance in Ancient Egyptian conception of the soul. Vitalism is a bad link in this context per MOS:EGG as that article discusses as a theory rather than a belief. Not every dictionary has an entry corresponding to MW's #1, but when they do the wording is "vital principle" and i think "animating force" is something of a WP:OR invention and there are some objections. The proposal is to move to that title, set the scope as definition #1, and fix all the links and disambig pages. Links that were used in the sense of definition #2 i have been sending to Supernatural#Spirit for now, but those could go to a Spirit (supernatural entity) or some such article. fiveby( zero) 14:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)