Talk:Soul

The caption says that the red-figure vase shows the Greek Charon, but it actually shows the Etruscan figure Charun, who is very different 93.22.135.170 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

{{Archive top |result = There is no traction here for a merge. Closed "no merge" per STATUS QUO. (This discussion was also started at the wrong article, but I'm leaving it here since it's now closed). Non-Administrative closure-- GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC) |status = closed}}

These topics WP:OVERLAP, are WP:REDUNDANT, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. These two articles are extremely closely related if not the same topic. Both articles outline similarities. While there is some attempt at differentiation, it seems to come from a specific (possibly wp:undue) Christian focus. By contrast the Egyptian, Shamanic, and other multi-part souls are accepted as part of this single topic and specifics are addressed under their own article.

I acknowledge that there is a length concern for the merged article. However, some material between the two articles is repeated and the better, more general, version can be kept. The main expansion in length (assuming the better Soul article is used as the base) would be an improved lead and overview that could be brought from the Spirit article. Some material in the Spirit article, specifically about ghosts, djinn, etc needs to be moved to other appropriate articles with relevant aspects used to link through context. (ie; some believe ghosts to be some or all of the soul which has remained in the physical world.) If further length mitigation is needed, the content of the Christianity sub-sections can be split/moved into a separate article, bringing it into line with the coverage of other religious traditions.

I believe Soul would be the better final location for a merged article due to the term's common use in English. Darker Dreams (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

:Oppose. Admittedly, the Spirit article has some WP:NOTDICT-related problems (I just tried improving it a little), but I'm pretty sure that many different religions and philosophical systems do distinguish between the soul and the spirit. For example, in Ancient Greece, the difference between psyche and pneuma was considered to be meaningful. As you say, the Soul article is already quite long, so merging related concepts into this article is probably a bad idea unless they really do describe the exact same thing, which I think is not the case here. (By the way, the same merge suggestion was discussed and rejected in 2012 at Talk:Spirit (vital essence)#Merging with Soul.) Jhvx (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attha&redirect=no Attha] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 17#Attha}} until a consensus is reached. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

im surprised "shirikodama" isn't mentioned in regard to our souls! Hiway134 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=True_death&redirect=no True death] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 1#True death}} until a consensus is reached. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Would it be fitting to add information about the the Corruptionism vs Survivalism debate to this article? This is the debate in (perhaps not exclusively) Catholic theology on whether the soul, separated from the body after death, is still a person. Survivalism (life after death) redirects to Parapsychology which is different. I'm talking about philosophical distinctions, not ghost hunting. Not sure if this needs to be its own article or would fit better somewhere else. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia has no information on this subject. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:I am not familiar with the debate, but why not as a sub-section for the Catholic viewpoint? If WP:RS covers this issue, its WP:NOTE is established and can be added. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::I put the section under Christianity, partly because it is more of a Thomist debate rather than a Catholic debate and that Venn diagram is not quite a circle. It also just seems to fit better after presenting the debates about the origin of the soul and the trichotomic view. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@PRH, let's chat about this here. I think it is tricky—though we try to do it most of the time, even with non-empirical phenomena—to affirm out of the gate that the soul {{xt|is}}. It is qualified in that sentence, but given how universal or visceral such a statement potentially comes off to readers (i.e. implying to a reader who may not feel that they "have a soul" that they do, somewhat), I do think our indirect approach is best as far as that goes.

Secondly, I don't find it necessary to attribute the "ordinary people" remark to Goetz. Remsense ‥ 论 18:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, that's the problem – it is a blanket statement about pretty much all of humanity, and we all know how much people disagree about whether souls even exist to begin with, or what they are. And I do think it is necessary to attribute "ordinary people" to Goetz because Goetz uses those very words himself (it's right there in the citation), and "ordinary people" can mean pretty much anything the writer wants (what are the criteria for being "ordinary"?) The term is also very easy to abuse (You didn't believe in souls as a child? Then you're not an ordinary person!)

:Since Wikipedia doesn't allow original research and must follow the NPOV policy, we should probably look for other citations and synthesize the definition from them.

:PRH (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::Sometimes blanket statements are correct. It doesn't seem like a fraught or minority claim in the scholarship that humans generally understand themselves as having souls. If other sources disagree then certainly, but it's not our place to dismiss scholarship if the issue is just that we disagree. Remsense ‥ 论 19:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:I do think that @PRH's version does address a couple of issues with the current opening sentence. Firstly, we say next to nothing about the soul in the primary clause of the sentence. If you drop the relative clause, you are left with "The soul is often discussed in the context of religion, theology, psychology and philosophy", which doesn't seem like it should be the first thing we say about the soul. Secondly, it helps the reader understand what "ordinary" means. As far as I am aware, there is no technical anthropological definition of "ordinary person" (if there is, we should be in some way pointing that out). It is also unclear what is meant by "initially believe in". In PRH's version, it is clear that whatever is meant by "ordinary" is whatever Goetz meant and "initially" is replaced with the clearer "naturally inclined".

:Perhaps we go with 'The soul is regarded by many cultures across the world as the immaterial self possessed by humans. According to Stewart Goetz, most "ordinary people" are naturally inclined to believe in souls.' Mr. Squidroot (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'm skeptical about what is an abstract syntactical argument concerning what the emphasis perceived by the reader would be—I don't read the present sentence as having a focus or clarity issue.

::On one hand, I'm sure there's no technical anthropological definition of "ordinary person". On the other, there's not another way I can think of to effectively communicate what would appear to be (at least what Goetz puts forth as) an uncontroversial claim about most people. I read "most ordinary people" more or less as "most people, all else being equal". That is, if one doesn't feel themselves to have a soul, there's probably some specific reason for that. This is wishy-washier than I'd like, so yes I'm happy to collate other scholarship on this. Remsense ‥ 论 19:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::"At least what Goetz puts forth as" - all the more reason to attribute the whole statement to Goetz, and not leave it unattributed as though it's some universally agreed-on truth. Using citations and attributions is good practice on Wikipedia, so I fail to see how attributing the words to the person who actually used those words is a bad idea. PRH (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::We should only attribute views to particular scholars if the statement is somehow particular to them. If it's a well-established view in the field, and we're not quoting somebody as a wordsmith or susperstar in their field, we should not explicitly attribute the view to them. Remsense ‥ 论 19:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Then you can change it back if you prove that it's a well-established view in the field by finding other citations - in particular by pointing out how "ordinary person" is a commonly used term and not just lazy vague language. PRH (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It's for the reason I just said. Whenever an editor puts all the epistemological responsibility onto someone else on a point they ostensibly care a lot about, it's a bit disappointing, and it seems more like maintaining the version that is most comfortable rather than actually finding out and reproducing what scholarship has to say. Remsense ‥ 论 20:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's also worth reiterating that one can't prove a negative. Goetz isn't a crackpot, and he's being quoted for his entry in a perfectly mainstream reference work, in which he as a philosopher defers to the consensus of anthropologists and psychologists. It is unclear what issue comes from the "vagueness" here. It one wants detail, it is provided in the actual article, as listing of various people groups who conceive of the soul, doing nothing but affirming (if not proving) the basic merits of the statement in the lead. Remsense ‥ 论 20:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Nonetheless, detail would be good here - not necessarily to disprove Goetz' statement here (it may very well be true), but to explain which categories of people he and the scientists he was referring to were talking about. PRH (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::The quote from Goetz, "ordinary human beings at all times and in all places...", is not qualified with "most". No matter what Goetz meant exactly by "ordinary" (something like "not academically trained philosophers", it seems to me), I think it is safe to say he was talking about most people. Given that, I suggest we drop the word "ordinary" and just state what "most people" believe. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Fine by me. Remsense ‥ 论 22:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Hi, @Mr. Squidroot! I know this is a bit off-topic, but since you are already here, would you consider doing a GA review of this article? I would greatly appreciate it! Brent Silby (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I have never done a GA review but there is a first time for everything so I wouldn't mind giving it a try! My biggest hesitation is that I still don't think we are meeting MOS:FIRST here. When we say "A soul, regarded as..., is discussed in the context of..." we are primarily telling the reader where souls are discussed, not what they are. Introducing a subject where both its nature and its existence are contested is always going to difficult, but, to me, a simple improvement would be to make the relative clause the first sentence. For example: "The soul is regarded as the immaterial self. Most people are naturally inclined to believe in it and it is often discussed in the context of..."

::::::::@Remsense I understand you didn't think there was a problem with the first sentence but would something like I am suggesting be at least equally acceptable? Also looking for opinions of @Brent Silby and @PRH. If the current version is the best we can reach consensus on, I can accept this is a "me problem" and ignore it for the sake of the GA review. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::"The soul is regarded as the immaterial self. Most people are naturally inclined to believe in it and it is often discussed in the context of..."

:::::::::That sounds good to me! Brent Silby (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I actually had a thought that the topic of whether people are naturally inclined to believe in souls is best left out of the lead altogether and addressed in a separate section of the article. That section would also explore why such beliefs exist. PRH (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm fine with it! Remsense ‥ 论 01:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Mr. Squidroot I did change the first sentence as per your request. I believe that the article is definitely looking ready for a GA review now. Brent Silby (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Talk:Soul/GA1}}

Hi, @VenusFeuerFalle! I am afraid I have to disagree with you about adding that last paragraph in the lead section. I have specifically reworked the lead section to be citationless, so I am very much opposed to adding that last paragraph with citations. Also, I believe that according to MOS, the ideal lead section is between 250 and 400 words and the new lead section (with the addition of the last paragraph is over 500) Brent Silby (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:As per WP:LEAD, you can remove all citations as long as the citations are mentioned in the body of text. Citations are also welcomed for controversial statements and definitions as per MOS:CITELEAD. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::I have reworked the lead section to include the insights from the philosophy of mind, while staying below 400 words. Very happy with how it is currently looking. Brent Silby (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh yes, I agree. It turned out nicely. Very much appreciated

:::with kind regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Brent Silby, thank you for your work, but you really made too many mistakes regarding style to be able to correct them all. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, @JacktheBrown! I appreciate your improvements. I am not particularly knowledgeable about using itallics or hyperlinks, so I would be really grateful if you fix all the italics/hyperlink related issues in this article. Brent Silby (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Brent Silby}} check if anything is missing. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Brent Silby I worked on the Islam and Buddhisms section to my best ability by now and think it qualifies for a GA . However, @Mr. Squidroot will need to check it (again) forGA criteria (Manual of Style, Images, etc.)

Additionally, the Christianity section needs a similar treatment and I am afraid that I do not know enough about the Christian soul to deal with it, neither do I have much more time to make extensive research as required for a GA nomination. I recommand to check out how the Buddhism and Islam sections are structued, how sources are used, and how verification of the sources worked. For example, it is helpful to use one source as a guide and add a second one for more detailed or in-depth analysis of the claim mentioned by the former.

I am also afraid, that even if you declared that you do not want to do denominations, you, at least, need to sketch out the ideas before and after the Protestant revolution. From what I learned about Christian history by working on the Devil in Christianity article, there seems to have been major shifts in theological and philosophical ideas. I doubt that the concept of the soul has not been affected by that. This reminds me, maybe I can find a User who would be able to make the Christianity review. But I cannot promise. Best thing would be to rewrite the Christianity section on your own. Also remember that another User, as far as I know, is still working on the Judaism section. I cannot fathom that such an old tradition has not more to say about the soul than a few references to the Kabbalah. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hey, @VenusFeuerFalle! Sorry for inactivity. I have been recently hospitalized. I am currently not in a condition to browse the materials necessary to rework the Christianity section. However, a lot of effort from multiple people were put into getting that article to GA level, so I will try finding someone able to finish off that Christianity section (as well as the section on Judaism). Brent Silby (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Oh, my most sincere sympathies. Thanks for making the effort to inform us. Even if the article will not manage to become GAsoon, you definately prompted an amazing community work and massive improvement of a very important article.

::I wish you all the best recovery. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the kind words!

:::I have been able to find a person, who is (afaik) willing to rework the section about Christian views on soul. His username is @FarmerUpbeat.

:::Do you know if anyone is working on the Judaism section currently? I can try finding someone willing to finish it as well. Brent Silby (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Sinclairian declared that they would like to improve the section, if I recall recorrectly. Maybe they still need to do their research?

::::It would be nice, Sinclarian, if you inform us if still want to work on that section. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)