Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Thoughts and prayers


Ridiculously liberal bias

As usual, it’s hard to take Wikipedia seriously when an entire article about a phrase used by millions across the political spectrum is almost completely a dig at Trump and conservatives. Most people I know who use this empty phrase are liberals. Alexandermoir (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this article is hilarious for this reason. I don't want it deleted, and I don't want anyone "fixing" this. It should remain up and show how ridiculous wikipedia is with their bias. 47.219.81.65 (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of could perhaps help improve the article by adding properly sourced examples of the use of the expression by people from what you call the "liberal" side of politics. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Properly sourced" when most of non-liberal sources are on "not proper sources" list... 185.216.51.132 (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermoir I took it upon myself to edit the article into a more neutral stance, reducing the bias substantially. There's probably some merit in the existence of the article, but it's true that sources showing its use by non-conservatives would be appropriate per Wikipedia's neutrality policy.
I added one where President Obama used the phrase in response to a shooting at Fort Hood, but I have no doubt there are many others. The recent assassination attempt on President Trump would likely yield many uses from non-conservatives if someone wants to add to it. 2600:8800:1220:600:70A6:E61B:9E6F:CEA3 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westside shooting

Mitchell Johnson used this phrase in his apology letter after the 1998 Westside Middle School shootingYutsi - Talk/Edits 19:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to us. However, we do not list every instance someone utters the phrase. We need a citation that this was said, that is caused upset that it was said, and that is was significant in the greater scheme of things. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page might as well just be called "Criticism of the phrase 'Thoughts and Prayers'"

Every part of this article is just criticism. I read the entire section about its use in music. The entire section is exclusively bands who criticized the term. This page should focus more on the actual phrase, origins, and history. Yes, obviously criticism is essential but it should be contained in a single section, not the ENTIRE page. Regardless of your politics, this page should frustrate you because the page fails to do anything more than take jabs on the American right-wing. Like seriously? I understand the phrase can seem blank and empty but how in the world is this page just a giant jab at the American right when the phrase has been used for decades by both sides of the political spectrum? This page uses a video of Nancy Pelosi offering 'thoughts and prayers' to a shooting victim and she is a giant gun control advocate so I seriously don't understand what this page is trying to illustrate. Is Pelosi undermining gun violence?

Of course it's a controversial phrase but it's used for almost anything, and while mass shootings is one of them, it's used after literally any tragedy ever so the page is offering a very skewed perspective on its usage. Somebody who picks this page up might believe this is something only the right does to conserve gun rights but it's come out of every politician's mouth regardless of affiliation. In fact, this page mentions Obama criticizing the term following an October 2015 college shooting saying "our thoughts and prayers are not enough" but there are videos online of him using that exact same phrase that he just criticized after a March 2016 terrorist attack in Brussels. (a fact that Wikipedia even recognizes!) It's just insane anybody can write with such incredible bias and not think there may be a problem with it. - MountainJew6150 (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MountainJew6150 - Please don't think that criticism of the expression is all about the American right. Remember what the first two letters of www.quora stand for and realise that many of us in the rest of the world mock the whole of America for using it whenever they use it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that but this page is not illustrating that. This page implies "thoughts and prayers" originated as a substitute to gun control when that's not even remotely true. It's culturally ingrained into American minds because the phrase has been used for just about anything for centuries. While the exact origins are disputed, it was actually most common in usage during the American Civil War which was fought in the middle of the 19th century. So while the phrase is undeniably American, that doesn't mean it was intended to only be used as a way to express condolences after a mass shooting. It just so happens that the country that uses the phrase the most also gets the most mass shootings and thus that's where the association is from. But of course, the phrase has absolutely nothing to do with originating as a result of Columbine (as some erroneous but surprisingly "reputable" news sources reported after the Parkland shooting). I just think this page needs some actual scholarly research to weigh in on the issue instead of whatever CNN told us to believe. MountainJew6150 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I thought the page should be titled "Thoughts and Prayers controversy" back when it was created. See Talk:Thoughts and prayers/Archive 1#This article needs to be renamed. The article Condolences is about expression of sympathy to someone who is experiencing pain. This article is about politicians being criticized for expressing sympathies (using any phrase) over situations they are perceived as not doing enough to prevent or handle. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just politicians. Conservative media personalities and religious leaders do it too. A change to "Thoughts and Prayers controversy" could be of value, but is it really a controversy, or more just something people are mocked for doing? HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "Thoughts and prayers shaming campaign", but we are not likely to change the name nor scope of the article. When the article was created it was about criticizing use of the phrase. An attempt to move it was made, it was snow opposed claiming the phrase is the primary topic. When I attempted to merge this with the Condolences article, suddenly it was about the "controversy in American politics" not the phrase. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]