Talk:Spirituality/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Spirituality. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've added a simple definition referenced to Merriam-Webster. The previous first sentence was poorly worded and not helpful. I moved the first sentence to the end of the paragraph and changed the wording to better reflect the Koenig reference. The actual quote from page 17 of the Koenig book [[1]] is it was difficult to find definitions of religion and spirituality that were acceptable to everyone. Bhny (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a simple definition indeed, and inaccurate. Here's what Koenig and Cobb say:

• Koenig e.a.: "There is no widely agreed on definition of spirituality today". (Koenig 2012, p.36)
• Cobb e.a.: "The spiritual dimension is deeply subjective and there is no authoritative definition of spirituality". (Cobb 2012, p.213)

The Merriam-Webster definition that you gave, "Spirituality is a concern with religion or religious matters ", has a very broad range. Any social scientist or theologist, or even atheist and/or agnostic like Dawkins, is "spiritual" by this definition. Also, there are a lot of people nowadays who call themselves spiritual but not religious. Read the Religion and spirituality in that article for an explanantion of the differences between these two "constructs". So, the MW-"definition" won't do at all. See also the following sources just for an impression of the wide range of definitions:

• Caroll, O'Connor, Meakes (2005), Assessing plurality in Spirituality Definitions. In: Meier et al, "Spirituality and Health: Multidisciplinary Explorations", pp. 44-59
• C. Cook, The Concept Of Spirituality As Understood And Applied In Addictions Research And Treatment
• CAN SPIRITUALITY BE DEFINED?
• Definitions and Discussion of Spirituality and Religion

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The term "spirituality" lacks a definitive definition is about the worst possible way to begin an article. Why not just state the definition[s] as most articles do and then mention the lack of agreement. The article is about "Spirituality" the topic, so it should not start with The term (see WP:REFERS). No word has a "definitive definition"- that is just bad prose. Bhny (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it's accurate. It reflects the scholarly and professional status quo. If scholars and professionals widely agree that there is no definite definition of the term "spirituality", then you cannot say "spirituality is [fill in]". That's WP:OR, by definition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd added the references since the point (the lack of precise definitions) was in dispute. I've added Waaijman's definition to the lead; the "social scientists-definition" is less precise than Waaijman's definition. "The search for the sacred" is already a modern interpretation, where-as (that's not correct English, is it?) "re-formation" points at the embodyment of the sacred here in the concrete world, i.e. "immanence", as "opposed" to "transcendence". Hmm, sorry for these words; I don't know if they clarify the issue, but it's an imprortant point. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: "precious", from the edit-summary, had to be "precise", of course. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead now OK - but not many readers will be able to verify sources in main text if not on line, not in English and not quoted. And what is "saucier" in note 2? Qexigator (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Gerard Saucier"; sorry, I've corrected it, and moved it back into the main text. I've also found the source, and added the url. I'll go through it, see what they say on the topic. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've read the article by Gerard Saucier and Katarzyna Skrzypinska; it appears that they quoted another article, and did not give an overview of definitions. Their emphais is on the modern notion of spirituality, and its emphasis on subjective experience. I've changed the lead & article according to this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. It is better now. One point about defining topics- there is nothing wrong with using the "modern interpretation". Topics are defined with current usage, unless the topic is specifically about historic interpretations. Bhny (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The "traditional" "interpretation" is still in use. It's more correct to say that the modern understanding is a modern "interpretation" of a centuries-old tradition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As it stands in the text this passage:

Spirituality can also be sought through movements such as liberalism, feminist theology, and green politics. Spirituality is also now associated with mental health, managing substance abuse, marital functioning, parenting, and coping. It has been suggested that spirituality also leads to finding purpose and meaning in life.

(first seen 4 June 2009[2]) may be trying to be all-roundly non-judgmental, but in effect reduces the term, and with it the concept and the article, to logical and descriptive absurdity. What does the source actually say? Propose leave out, unless there is an editor willing to attempt revising to let the article be something more meaningful here? Qexigator (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a whole book! It's called "Positive psychology". Pages 261-262 "define" spirituality, as a "search for the sacred". According to these authors, there's a scholarly greement on the definition of "spirituality". Positive indeed. No objection at all to leave it out. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

In some contexts (but not all) "search for the sacred" would be well enough in tune with common usage and general experience among peoples everywhere and always, so far as any reasonably well-informed person can tell, but there may be uncertainty about whether a searcher's object is for something other than sacred, and, colloquially, some may be regarded as "making a religion" of activities such as those now named in footnote 4. The source you mention, p.262, confirms my sceptical remark above. As usual, putting something in print does not make it so. Qexigator (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

In Dutch, there is this beautiful word "zingeving", something like "meaning-giving", "giving it making sense". It's a very broad term; "spirituality" seems to have acquired this broad meaning. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Something like it but not the same. This article, and English Wikipedia's readers, could be well served if someone fluent in Dutch creates an article on "Sense of purpose" based on Zingeving[3], but not forgetting to disambig "Sense of Purpose". --Qexigator (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"The search for the sacred" refers to Rudolf Otto's "das Heilige", of course. And that makes clear the direction of Snyder's definition: "religious experience", as inflated by William James, that is, almost any kind of blissful experience. Ha! It's dawning on me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the lead again, to do justice to both the tarditional and the modern interpretation. So, Bhny, your insistence did help after all. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! It is looking much better now. Bhny (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As you have mentioned it, if his article can be relied on Otto was one of those who had not yet caught up with Die Rätsel der Philosophie (1914) or Von Seelenrätselnl (1917), to name but two. The present version of the lead seems to identify "spirituality" with vagueness at best, tending to deism or atheism. Is that the information which the article as a whole is meant to communicate, or is it reflecting editorial state of mind, or the state of mind of the authors of the selected sources? In particular: throughout the ages - what ages, beginning as at? And In modern times - as from when? Qexigator (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Good points. I'll have to think it over, and look up some sources. I'll come back to it! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a problem with the wording, as it leads readers to believe that there is consensus among neuroscientists and/or the scientific community at large in regards to what causes the benefits often associated with spiritual experiences, with the alleged consensus being that the behaviors often associated with spirituality are the causal factors in the observed positive effects of persons who are more spiritual. Furthermore, there is no citation in the final paragraph, which leads me to believe that this may be an original conclusion made by the author and not necessarily an accurate statement on the consensus of the scientific community on this matter (if there is any). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.205.145.10 (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I've added some more links and text to this section based on spending much of the past year reading about this stuff from a science point of view. Someone reverted it -- if you want to revert then please explain why? It does need more citations but I hope people will help to add them as we go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.6.72 (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Because it was unsourced, and because you conflate "spirituality" and "spiritual experience". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits such as this by 124.161.163.189 lacks sources in many parts, and changes to the sourced text appears to be engaging in WP:GEVAL or WP:SYNTH. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup. I reviewed the IPs edits and most of them look very commentary-like to me, except maybe the addition of (the green part of) the following: "However, these results should be viewed with some caution as a recent study found spirituality's correlation with social support is better explained by the prosocial personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness.[127]" (Find it here, middle of first paragraph of that section.) I didn't add it back as I haven't read the source myself (found a summary here now) and the grammar could maybe use some tweaking. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Under the heading Definition. Who is "Waaijman"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbechard (talk • contribs) 02:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Spirituality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150721212544/http://www.rissc.jo/index.php/english-publications.html to http://rissc.jo/index.php/english-publications.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that this page is controlled by users who are antagonistic towards Spirituality. Anything that is positive about it - even a coherent definition ! - is not allowed.

( I expect there is a Wikipedia term for this state of affairs ? )

The reason for this is that Spirituality is the original "disruptive technology". It calls into question everything else.

So, since people base their sense of personal identity on their chosen belief systems (as is easily discovered by engaging in a political discussion), just about everyone's sense of personal identity is challenged by spirituality, and thus it is opposed by most people.

The few people who do not oppose it, are often those who have a personal stake in it, because they make their livelihood promoting some particular activity that has adopted "spirituality" as part of its product. New Age groups are the obvious example.

Okay, so here is the real definition of Spirituality:

The personal investigation of who you are.

(By personal investigation, I mean the opposite of accepting the words of others.)

Support for this definition comes from Alan Watts, who named one of his books "The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are". However, I cannot find any place where he defined the word spirituality, otherwise I would just use that.

I have as many qualifications as anyone for making such a definition. So, my understanding of Wikipedia is that if I put this definition on an external web page, then that is a "reference" and I could then post this as the starting sentence of the Wikipedia page. Then, in order to remove my definition, someone would have to prove it false, which they cannot do.

Any objections ?

By the way, the Wikipedia section on "religion" starts with:

"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

which is a very good definition.

So, spirituality is an internal investigation, while religion is a pre-existing philosophical system of humanity's relationship to reality.

162.205.217.211 (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Any sources - other than Alan Watts without a pagenumber?? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This article has been back at the unhelpful "There is no single, widely-agreed definition of spirituality" opening sentence since May, going against the "should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is" of WP:BEGIN. I've restored the "praxis and process" definition that the May edit replaced. --McGeddon (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. WP:BEGIN: "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition." The note gives explanations from Koenig and Cobb on the statement that there is no widely agreed definition. Forcing a definotion disregards those sources, which reflect the scholarly concensus. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

We might not be able to give a single snappy definition of it, but it's still possible tell the reader what the subject of the article they've reached is. Even basically summarising the lede section into an opening sentence of "Spirituality is a concept broadly relating to blissful experiences, transformation and meaningful activity." would be better than the current "welcome to an article about that thing which doesn't have a single definition, keep reading until the second paragraph and you'll get the idea". --McGeddon (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not sure about that. Two considerations here:

• "blissfull experiences" is already problematic; it's a very anrrow and restricted "definition." Imagine someone who's terminally ill with cancer; "spirirtuality" surely won't be about "blissfull experences." Rather about facing the situation and paying attention to the (non-blissfull) experiences;
• Readers who come to this article are not alieans from Mars on an anthropological mission; some, if not all, readers already have a sense of what "spirituality" may refer to. So, given that context, starting with this 'big sigh' from knowledgeable scholars is usefull, I think.

Believe me, I know what I'm writing about; I'm expereinced in both the scholarly study and the professional application of "spirituality," and I can't define what "spirituality" is. At best I can give an overview of sveral definitions which may cover the most widely usages of the term. Any "definite" definition (...) may be misleading in this regard. For your information: Koenig is considered to be one of the leading scholars on "spirituality and health," and even he doesn't know... Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've shortened the lead, though, so the "definitions" come right after the first sentence. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the wording I suggested was just a top-of-my-head definition that probably should have had an "or" instead of an "and". Having the opening sentence as a shrugging overview of several definitions would still help the reader. Even if the reader has a rough idea of what spirituality means and will quickly recognise it, a sentence of "it's that thing with no agreed-upon definition that changes over time" doesn't get them anywhere. It doesn't tell them if they're reading an article about the subject they're expecting, or if there's going to be a rug-pull and the article is actually about a fractious religious sect or a disputed piece of terminology used in the whisky industry.

"The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is." even if we can't provide the luxury of a clear and snappy definition. Juggling the lede around so that we start with the "nowadays" sentence, followed by the "traditional meaning" and ending with "no single definition" would be fine, I think. --McGeddon (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

How do people feel about the following as a starting point? I've taken the existing material and tried to present it in a sensible sequence. Please feel free to rework! HGilbert (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Spirituality may refer to any activity with religiously or personally sacred dimensions. Though there is no single agreed-upon definition of the term^{[1][2][note 1]}, spirituality is often associated with finding purpose and meaning in life,^{[note 2]} achieving significant personal growth, a process of reformation of the personality to live a life according to God's will or in alignment with higher values,^[5] or the attainment of blissful experience.^[6] The term is often used to emphasize the presence of inward experiences, distinguishing it from religion, which may also refer to outward institutional forms.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs) 09:52, 5 August 2015‎

I'm not enthusiastic about your proposal. I find the first sentence unclear, and the nuance of a hsitorical development in its meaning and usage is lost. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems much better than the current, brief opening paragraph of "Spirituality may refer to almost any kind of meaningful activity, personal growth, or blissful experience." --McGeddon (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The section on studies should, in conformance with Wikipedia policy, focus on reviews and other tertiary sources rather than mentioning particular studies. HGilbert (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

These two edits added a definition to the lead, stating

"Currently the most widely accepted definition of Spirituality is 'a dynamic and intrinsic aspect of humanity through which persons seek ultimate meaning, purpose, and transcendence, and experience relationship to self, family, others, community, society, nature, and the significant or sacred...[and] is expressed through beliefs, values, traditions, and practices’’"

This definition comes from the field of palliative care, as published in Puchalski, Christina; Vitillo, Robert; Hull, Sharon; Relle, Nancy (2014). "Spiritual Dimensions of Whole Person Care: Reaching National and International Consensus". JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, Volume 17, Number 6. doi:10.1089/jpm.2014.9427.
It's nice that health care workers try to make their field more compassionate, but one conference does not change the simple fact that there are hundreds of definitions on spirituality. Besides, this 'concencus definition' is so broad and vague that it can include almost anything, including jihadism and hooligans.
Crafting such "definitions" is misleading, as it suggests that there is an such exact thing as "spirituality," whereas the term is used to connote many "things" and ideas. It's more usefull to give a description of what's being meant with the term. In general, this will be "religion," as in going to church et cetera, and "meaning making" (Dutch: "zingeving"), that is, all the "things" that make life worthwhile. For most people, that will be caregiving and relatedness to others, which does not necessarily imply any explicit belief or practice, but 'just happens.' Religious traditions don't capture this in "definitions," but in commands: "love thy neigbor" (Christianity), or not even words, but only a statue or picture (Guanyin).
As for the health care workers, they have a general problem in that they work in a highly protocolised and technical environment, and regret the loss of the human aspect in their work. Ironically, and sadly, the construction of such "definitions" is yet another protocolisation... See also Jürgen Habermas and his The Theory of Communicative Action}, in which he makes a distinction between "the internal subjective viewpoint of the "lifeworld" and the external viewpoint of the "system"." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The definition is a perfectly valid contribution to the conversation and might well be quoted to good purpose, without treating it as a universal consensus. What can be seen as "vagueness" can also be seen as inclusiveness.

In addition, let's try to avoid throwing sweeping statements about whole professions into the discussion. Caregivers have often been at the forefront of recent discussions about spirituality, for many and complex reasons. HGilbert (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

When we start adding definitions, we can add dozens of "definitions," which would be quite useless. I think we have to be very carefull with adding such definitions; it won't be very helpfull. It's not without reason that religions use narratives and commands. The definitions are for the theologians; ah, the wonder of huge libraries with dust-cathing books... Anyway, that's why the article says that there is no concensus. At best, we can say that religious studies and health care professionals have provided different definitions, for different reasons, and provide examples of those definitions. But to say that there is a "most widely accepted definition" is WP:OR. The only concencus is that thee is no widely agreed upon definition of spirituality.

Regarding the health care, I've been working there myself, and I know which discussions are going on there. The main point for health care professionals is the humanisation of the health care profession. "Spirituality" may not be the best instrument to reach this goal; it's too vague and ill-defined (sic). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been scrolling through the Puchalski; it contains a long list of recommendations which read as a 'colonisation' (Habermas) and medicalisation of "spirituality"... Anyway, I've added some info on health care and "spiritual care." NB: Google scholar gives 5,45o hits for 2012-2016 alone when searching for "health care" "spiritual care". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm reading Puchalsky now. There's something odd about that publication: it starts to talk (sic) about "spirituality" right away, wittout making claer what's being meant with it. That's an important omissions for a scholarly publication. Compassion appears to be a central element, though, according to this author. At page 643 we get to know more about what spirituality is:

"Clinicians, by being aware of their own spirituality — including a sense of transcendence, meaning and purpose, call to service, connectedness to others, and transformation — are more able to be compassionate with their patients."

Yech! Sounds very prescriptive and normative. Yet, at second thought, we may also call it "intrinsically motivated," or "self-actualisers." Hmmm, the same old stuff in another bottle.
Anyway, what surprises me about this publication is that "spirituality" is presented as a self-evident token, without any critical consideration or some self-reflection on the way the term is being used. The "definition" that's being given is only a vocalisation of this self-evident token. Compared to what chaplains, theologians, religious studies scholars, and psychologists of religions have to say about, it's very meager, almost naive. Where is social constructionism, to name only one important strand of thought, the idea that we construct our reality by giving meaning to our experience (see Ann Taves)- what's more, that we even create the "experiences" that "validate" our worldview. Or the cognitive science of religion, an important new development in the psychology of religion? All missing; only a "concensus 'definition'" which merely reiterates the preconceptions of the participants... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

One citation in the lead (to reformation of the personality) failed verification, but the cited page provides a different, useful definition. I have replaced the unverifiable text with the verifiable one.

I am also moving the large footnote explaining some of the aspects of spirituality to the article's text, but outside the lead. HGilbert (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have the book in my persoanl library; how did it fail verification? Lead is fine so, though; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad this works for you, too. Sometimes simplicity is better!

Failed verification because there was nothing relating to the sentence on the cited page. It may have come from somewhere else in the work? HGilbert (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

To be spiritual means to be of influence. Anything or any person can be spiritual. It is all in the eye of the beholder Or the person that is being influenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.76.92 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake: I presumed that "Sheldrake" referred to Rupert. Nevertheless, Sheldrake's definition, "deepest values and meanings by which people live", is just one of many definitions; it's arbitrary to present this one definition as "the" definition of spirituality; and it bypasses the fundamental finding that there is bewildering variety in definitions. At best, we can give an overview of definitions as presented by reliable sources. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sheldrake notes this breadth but suggests that "despite the fuzziness, it is possible to suggest that the word ‘‘spirituality’’ refers to the deepest values and meanings by which people seek to live.” This text from Blackwell Publishing, an academic press, is one of the best tertiary sources. Compare "spiritual development is about becoming a whole person, someone who stands for something that defines and gives meaning to being human" (Dowling and Scarlett, Encyclopedia of Religious and Spiritual Development, p. xxiii). These tertiary sources should take priority over the secondary sources that disagree on this point. (Similarly, David Ray Griffin defines spirituality: "to refer to the ultimate values and meanings in terms of which we live" in his Spirituality and Society)

Furthermore, it is perhaps unhelpful to start an article by declaring that the word is difficult to define. It seems to me that it would be better to start with an approximate definition such as Sheldrake's, and then note that there is considerable divergence around this. Clean Copy^talk 20:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sheldrake's definition is given in a section on modern spirituality, and that's indeed what it's typical for. But I'll take a closer look at that source; it looks interesting. But, at second thought, given this definition, Nazism is also spirituality... Just like IS, for another example. So, actually, it's a non-definition. No, it's not satisfying. Those definitions are about 'meaning-making' ("zingeving", a Dutch word); that may be a broader concept than 'spirituality' (which is a contradictory statement of course, in this context, since it implies an 'exact' definition of spirituality). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

PS: Dowling and Scarlett's definition of spiritual development comes closer, I think. Compare Waaijman. It's got to do with not just any "deepest values and meanings," but a more specific set, this "image of God." "Deepest values and meanings" seems to be secularized, a modern, broader understanding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

PS2: LIndsay Jones, MacMillan Encyclopedia of Religion (2005), p.8718:

"SPIRITUALITY is the concern of human beings with their appropriate relationships to the cosmos. How the cosmic whole is conceived and what is considered appropriate in interacting with it differ according to worldviews of individuals and communities. Spirituality is also construed as an orientation toward the spiritual as distinguished from the exclusively material."

Regarding "to start an article by declaring that the word is difficult to define": that's exactly what you will learn when you follow a class on religion, be it theology, psychology of religion or whatever. It's also what you will find yourself when you dive into it. So, to suggest that there is an "approximate definition," when there is not, is misleading. Better to give a "fuzzy" short list of definitions which give an approximate description of the range of definitions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I've re-added Sheldrake. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

PS3: Sheldrake is not a general overview, but only about western Christian spirituality. At the first page of his introduction he already mentions four different paradigma's in the study of spirituality. At page 2 he also gives a more specific, Christian definition, which seems to be the proper starting point for his book. And in the second edition (2013), this single-line definition is replaced by an overview spanning 2-3 pages, in which he lists several aspects of "spirituality," without even "suggesting" an all-inclusive definition. So, the single-line definition from 2007 seems to have had some limitations... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The lead is improving. The first sentence is awkward and repetitious, however. Can we condense it to say once, what it is now saying twice?Clean Copy^talk 13:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Clean Copy: I've rephrased the first sentence, and added a "bridge" to the following sentences (and taken the liberty to move this comment downward, for chronological order). Better (the sentence)? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Nice work. I've continued to work on flow and clarity; I hope these changes work for you. (I appreciate the collaboration!) Clean Copy^talk 13:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Clean Copy: nice phrasing. Not being a native speaker comes with limitations, no matter how much you learn... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:LEADSENTENCE here. ("If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist.") Is it worth cutting the existing first sentence ("Spirituality has developed many meanings over time.", which gives no definition or context) and going straight into "Traditionally, spirituality referred to a religious process of re-formation..."? --McGeddon (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I've considered that too. But the simple point is: there is not one single, concise definition, but at least two. The context is the problem as I'd first phrased it, and is essential in understanding the complexity and multiple meanings and usages of this term:

"Spirituality is defined in many ways,[1][2][3][note 1] due to the development and changes of its meaning over time."

When we remove that context altogether, giving two definitions is still faithfull to the complexities and development of the term "spirituality," but not very clear. I've just expanded the first sentence again, but not as a 'definitive' first sentence, because it re-introduces the sentence "no single definition is universally accepted." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I've rephrased it again (editing by trial, so to speak):

"The meaning of spirituality has developed and expanded over time, and various connotations can be found alongside each other."

I've also shifted the bold writing of spirituality to the second instance of the term, since that is where the first definition appears. I hope that that may help as a compromise: noticing that various definitions exist, and focussing the quick reader to the definitions instead of the introductory context. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If it's not possible to write a single sentence summarising the range of these definitions, I think we'd be fine with a three-sentence lede paragraph where the framing of the first sentence ("Traditionally...") made it clear that we'd be following it with alternative definitions. The current "various meanings ahead" opener just seems like filler, and flat-out fails "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." --McGeddon (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The policy contains a lot of "if's"; it should not push the subject into a format which does not represent or describe the subject correctly. See, among others:

• "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence."
• "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible."

The first sentence now contains the context. This context matters. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right, and an attempt to wrangle multiple definitions into a single sentence might be too much, but WP:LEADSENTENCE opens with an ifless "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is". Starting the article at "Traditionally, spirituality referred to a religious process of..." (which tells the reader about the traditional religious meaning and implies the existence of other meanings) would do a much better job of setting out our stall than "developed and expanded over time, and various connotations can be found alongside each other" (which tells the reader that they're about to read multiple definitions of the subject, but gives no clue as to what that subject might be). --McGeddon (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence should lead the reader into the topic rather than putting up warning signs. JJ: can you possibly let go of this and allow some creative thinking around how to forge a positively worded introductory sentence (or two)? Clean Copy^talk 17:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spirituality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921054734/http://archive.uua.org/re/other/andrews.html to http://archive.uua.org/re/other/andrews.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spirituality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821022754/http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality to http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

A brief section on spirituality and health care (2-3 paragraphs?) would be welcome. What @Ewr925: is adding is effectively an entire article (>15,000bytes). It's just too much here. Clean Copy^talk 04:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ewr925, Eguthier, and Richardjames444: you can disuss those edits here, per WP:BRD. You don't just remove a big chunk of well-sourced text. You also don't operate as a WP:TAGTEAM. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If I understand the situation rightly, several students had a class project to write a substantial section of text with the intention of adding this to a Wikipedia article.. as a teacher myself, i find this simultaneously interesting and problematic. In any case, it sounds like they were not adequately informed that their contribution would be subject to review by the other editors, nor was the contribution adequately pre-vetted by the instructor to ensure that it confirmed with basic WP guidelines in its style (e.g. heading capitalization), content (e.g. maintaining neutral POV), or manner of presentation (e.g. removing a large body of existing, well-sourced text). The entry should have been clearly flagged as a class project.

If I were to make a summary recommendation for a future project, it would be to either

1. have the students research a deserving topic that has no article, or
2. ensure that they create a draft page and request user input before inserting a fully worked-out essay into an existing article, simply because new users inevitably have a lot to learn.

Above all, I am sorry that these individuals have had a difficult experience on entry. I hope that they will return and, taking it more slowly, find their way to be contributors in significant ways, should they wish to do so. Clean Copy^talk 12:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Clean_Copy. That was helpful and instructive. I did suggest that the students might do better creating a new page and linking from this article's final subsection, given your comments about length. Next semester, I'll recommend setting up the page as a draft prior to final review and publication. I do discuss the peer review concept in wikipedia, but the students were stunned and upset by the blocking and vandalism flags, which went beyond the expectation that they would be ruthlessly edited. As a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine participant I see this kind of response to newbies as a huge limitation on the encyclopedia's future. Perfect is the enemy of the good in medicine and editing. Richardjames444 (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

New editors better start with small edits, to learn how to edit. See my first edits. Please note the fact that my sixth edit was a talkpage-edit, to explain my previous three edits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

NB: did you know this page: Wikipedia:School and university projects? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all- I created a new page and flagged it with the "class assignment" label. It's linked from the section here

Someone needs to explain what "sacred" means in this context, especially when spirituality is supposed to be different from religion. As far as I understand, "sacred" is a man-made concept, declaring something to be worth of worship. Otherwise I suggest to remove the words "sacred" from the introduction. Any opinions? Thanks. Peteruetz (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the following passage, which was not supported at all by the originally given citations (these were left over from a reference to Tolstoy specifically). I also have questions about the wording ("reinvigorated religious faith"?, for example, and the three factors listed). If sources can be found that support something of this nature, and the tet can be revised tor reflect those sources, it would be possible to put the resulting text back in.

This trend led to an international movement that considered the world's religions as manifestations of common and universal spiritual and ethical principles and which has reinvigorated religious faith in the face of increasing rationalism, scientism, and materialism. Clean Copytalk 12:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought I would raise this here, because I thought members of this WikiProject might be interest. At Wikipedia: WikiProject Council, I have put in a proposal for a new WikiProject - WikiProject Mysticism. If you are interested, you may like to express your support at Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals/Mysticism. Vorbee (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The term "spiritual" is used in social media to create a topic that is shared with other individuals who believe in spirituality as well. There are many social media pages that are devoted to spirituality and relaxation. Spirituality is also a way of thinking which brings positive energy into your life. It is being able to connect with different souls and higher consciousness. Being spiritual is being able to live in your truth and feeling the energy of the universe.

I added the above paragraph to the article "Spirituality" because it gives it a more broad meaning. There were many great points on spirituality and the different views on it. One thing I did not notice was the term used in social media. I believe "spirituality" is growing more and more everyday and people are learning about it through social media pages that are based on spirituality alone. These pages are inspiring and give insight on some of the ways to tap into your own spirituality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxy25 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

https://www.instagram.com/spiritualthoughts/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxy25 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I want to edit more.

Princy Deva kumar (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anybody should be allowed to coin new definitions of spirituality. It must be according to written authentic text book of specific religion. Nothing to do with general perception at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.240.133 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Except that no historical religious text uses the English word "spirituality," so it would only be the translator's interpretation that a word in there should be translated as such. Likewise, very few that use a word that could be translated as the English word "spirituality" actually give a concrete definition -- usually some ephemeral language meant to guide a believer to the subjective experience rather than explain the concept to all. This last idea (explaining the concept to anybody) is what people are trying to do when they "coin new definitions" -- they are trying to explain the older concepts in clearer language to non-initiates. Those are the sort of sources this site uses because this site would be a useless mess otherwise (and I say that as someone who is into mysticism and believes that some concepts cannot be adequately explained to those who do not share beliefs). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The term 'Spirituality' is not found in either linked source. This is a tricky term to define, so exact examples (using the '-ity' form of the word) is important. It is not clear to me that the term "Spirituality" means anything at all, but is only a series of connotations: I was hoping the Wikipedia article would clarify this, currently there are problems with these citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.247.109 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

روح, transliteration Ruh, is the generally accepted Arabic term for spirit. Probably there is no term for "spirituality" in the Koran, but it occurs in modern discussions with Islam, for example in the works of Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Clean Copy^talk 12:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

As a recent edit (not by me) of this article reminds us, the term "man," used to refer to any person, is not well-suited to today's world. There are numerous quotes using this older form; is there an easy solution to this? Perhaps there is a relevant Wikipedia style recommendation? Otherwise, some possibilities occur to me:

• substituting alternate language (bracketed to show this is not the original wording), e.g. [person], [human being], [one], [humanity], etc., as appropriate
• using alternate language outside the quote, e.g.: "to recover the original shape of" humanity
• using [sic] to indicate that we are aware that this is no longer appropriate language Clean Copy^talk 12:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Dutch/German has the word mens/Mensch; the German term also refers to a full-grown person as in Jewish thought and Jungian psychology. Unfortunately, the English word, while referring to "Mensch," is also the masculine form. I don't see a quick fix to this, as it would alter the original texts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

- my feeling is that, in writing before the mid-twentieth century, it is commonly understood that "man" in a general sense refers to "mankind", as in the American Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal" - "men" can be changed to people or humankind in paraphrases, but quotes should be verbatim - because the usage is so common, I think adding [sic] to "man" or "men" is more confusing than clarifying - Wikipedia:Quotations says, "Unexpected errors, imperfections and styles can be marked with "[sic]" using the template [sic] to identify an error in the original source that has not been introduced by a Wikipedia editor." - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Never mind; I just found MOS:GNL which advises leaving direct quotations be in such cases. Clean Copy^talk 17:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have tried to develop the Judaism section, which was very heavy on ancient, medieval, and Orthodox ideas and had no citations. I added citations to appropriate literature and added discussion of trends in Reform and Conservative Judaism, large movements that were otherwise missing from the short section. This could use some further work but I think that the request for "additional citations for verification" has now been met, and I removed that header from the section. Falafelwalker (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Spirituality can also be believed as support structure of a living thing. Human beings need a belief system to live. Car,house, clothes etc need human beings to take care of them so they don't have short existence. Tree,grass, crops need soil,sun and rain to live. Spirituality can be believed as a food chain system for one to exist or perish. Also can be believed as communication created by God for all living beings to live or die. 41.115.86.128 (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

- statements like this need reliable sources to back them up, see WP:ATT, WP:VERIFY, WP:RS etc., otherwise it is original research, see WP:NOR - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thaissalima9078.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).