Talk:Religion/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Dharma

I cannot comment on the quality of the article, and I have not read it fully. It does seem that a lot of points have been covered. Due to the nature of the article, it is possible that there can be a few inadvertent inadequacies.

I noticed this line: 'For example, the Sanskrit word dharma, sometimes translated as "religion", also means law.'

Even though I am not good in Sanskrit, due to the fact that this word 'Dharma' is much used in most Indian languages, I think I should say that this word does not really mean religion or law or even justice.

It more or less means what is right or righteous in terms of the social code connected to the precedence of hierarchical levels of what is right as encoded in the feudal languages of India. Even though, in ancient times, it may have been connected to caste hierarchy and associated precedences, in current times, it may be more in association with social position. In short, what is a right or rightful for the superior, would not be the same if claimed by the inferior. Dharma is different for different levels of people --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Supernatural

Belief in the supernatural is not an essential element of the definition or religion. There are religions which do not require belief in the supernatural, and it is possible to be deeply religious while at the same time vigorously rejecting all semblance of belief in the supernatural. This is common among Buddhists and Taoists, and also among the religions of ancient Greece. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes but segments of buddhism, taoism have supernatural elements. Ancient greek religion certainly had supernatural elements. Please provide a source saying that religions do not require supernatural elements. I have reworded it to make it less absolute. Pass a Method talk 13:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And other segments of Buddhism and Taoism don't, but are still religion. Also, when you've been challenged, propose your changes with sources here on the talk page and get consensus first. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If you say you want sources, but still object when it's given that makes you a liar. Also, segments of buddhism and taoism without supernatural beliefs are not usually described as religion. It may be described as a discipline or philosophy. Also, you insincere response makes me feel like you're trolling. Pass a Method talk 13:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Judaism

The article seems to imply that Judaism as a religion was created in 1,400BC even though most documented sources are dated around 1000BC-500BC. Taking examples from the Torah or other people on the dating of sacred texts is stupid for obvious reasons.

Also it seems that a date for Hinduism is not included in the article. If someone could update it for future reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.82.13 (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good point. Could you direct me/us to some sources that we could use for that? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

to set one date for Moses is a hard job because there are many and different suggestions. I suggest simply to delete the "1400BC" in the short summary of Judaism, which shall be simply a short summary, in order that the reader go to the relevant article (or to the Article about Moses) for further information. Please let's keep these summaries of each religion quite slim. A ntv (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea, and I've done it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the worst articles I have seen

Pretty much every aspect of this article is bad. From the definition of religion to most of the individual sections. for example the section on religious beliief and judiasm claims that "a belief in God is not a requirement expressed by God anywhere in the Tanakh" which is totoally ridiculous. It the literally the most repeated thing in the torah, the main book of the tanakh. And its actually in the ten commandments (the crib notes version of judiasm) several times. And I couldn't believe there is no history section at all. which is what I came to the page looking for. As far as most of this page is concerned Judiasm is the first religion. Its really terrible. Obviously its locked so I'm not going to research all the edits and do it myself but it really needs a lot of work 68.188.25.170 (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to how you feel, but alas, the way things work around here involves a lot of compromise and negotiation. If, perhaps, you become interested in doing so, it would be very nice if you decide to stay around and create a registered account so that you can help make the page better. And in the mean time, I hope that you can find the information you are looking for at History of religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with OP. Terrible Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.120.45 (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Polly want a cracker? Because, it's not like actually suggesting improvements would be more helpful that just saying "I agree" or anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree terrible article. The negative perspective of religion is half or more the text if the list of religions is omitted. Positive perspectives are loosely and arbitrarily described in a few sentences. Thus, someone could easily come to the conclusion that religion must be definitely a bad thing. Also definition must be reedited and should contain more views as a complex subject that is, not only etymology. Also, the Christian concept has more space here than it should.--Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no doubt that this is a dreadful article, and many appear to agree. Part of the problem is that we have so many different ideas of what is "religion". Therefore, it's possible that this article will never get anywhere until we come to grips with the many egregious definitions of the word. I would think that the first paragraph should at least have a workable definition of "religion", perhaps contrasted with the definition of "cult". Without a solid definition in principle, this article will never get anywhere. At the very least, it should be recognized that a religion is an organized method of teaching something, whether Christianity - or engineering. Then the rest of the article would flow effortlessly. But by starting out with wooly, half-baked, statements like "[Religions] tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature", well, the article is doomed to fail. Santamoly (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I came here looking for a definition of religion. I agree that that might be a difficult thing to arrive at, but the definition presented isn't even grammatically correct. I'd attempt to fix that, but I'm not sure what the intended meaning is. Which is why I came here.... Tsingi (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, according to this definition ideologies like communism are also a religion. They have their symbols (Hammer and Sickle), worldviews and dogmas, even 'holy' books ("Das Kapital") and their leaders are worshipped like saints. Although science and history have proven most of their dogmas as wrong, critics are being prosecuted and punished, so they even have their own form of inquisition! So, what is missing? That most religions come from revelations of higher beings who reveal themselves to select people showing them that there are other, higher worlds that are free of suffering and that can be reached by a certain conduct after death. This aspect is completely missing in the definition, isn't it?178.9.170.87 (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

My Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary has a plausible-sounding definition of religion that is much more concise than the one in this article: 1) belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship 2) the expression of this in worship 3) a particular system of faith and worship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.173.6.51 (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Oxford definition sounds overly English to me, and not very useful. I can see a brouhaha developing over the definition of "superhuman", "worship", and on and on. Except for the "a particular system of faith" #3 part of the definition. That bit might be useful. Santamoly (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

religious movements section

the religious movements section seems to leave out all of the religions before judiasm. Egypt, Mesopotamia, Babylon, Greeks, ect. These were quite important. 97.91.177.226 (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. I thought that we were mostly focusing here on religions that are still practiced today. Should we also cover extinct ones? If so, there are of course many others beyond that geographic area. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I think we should have better coverage of historic religious belief and practice, because at the moment this article (and related articles) seems to focus mostly on current-day religion, which seems incomplete to me. However, the "Religious movements" section is already a bit unwieldy and trying to encompass a much wider range of belief and practice would make that worse. Maybe retitle the section and give readers a stronger pointer to other articles such as History of religions? bobrayner (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This list is already introduced by the statement (a few lines above): "The list of religious movements given here is therefore an attempt to summarize the most important regional and philosophical influences on local communities ...". So it is clear that this list includes only still-active religions. Perhaps we could state it better, or add a small section for historical-only religions (which however are difficult to summarize). However this section "Religious movements" is well done so I suggest not to touch it.A ntv (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

How about this: after the Origins section and before the Religious movements one, add a brief new section about the early religions, in WP:Summary style, with a "main article" link at the beginning, going to History of religions? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good. bobrayner (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that those are not the early origins. These are highly organized religions by this point in history. The early origins of religion involve much simpler beliefs such as buriul of the dead. The reason the religions mentioned are important is because they are direct influences on the later ones. The idea of a patriachal man-like god didn't just happen, it evolved over many phases. You have to understand Zeus and Herculues in order to understand Jehova and Jesus from a historical standpoint 97.91.177.226 (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the deletion of my insertion made from A ntv without discussion. The short sentence inserted by me on Ananda Marga was quoted and with references. If we want to delete we have to discuss on the talk page!--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not how WP works. The burden is on YOU to discuss on the talk page and to get consensus before you can re-add reverted material per WP:BRD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote when I partially reverted the good faith addition about the Ananda Marga: "The Religious movements section is not a list of religions, but simply an overview. Due to his Vedic and Tantric origin, this little movement is better located among the minors Indian religions", and so I simply added it among the new religious movements within Indian religions. Please keep this section lean: it is not a list of religions, for that see List of religions and spiritual traditions. A ntv (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

We have to define what you call "an overview" is. Actually the Religious movements section is made as a list. My add was only a short quoted one in a list with very few quotations (and, again, a list is there although you say that there isn't). And if we have a list, is an incomplete one, with arbitrary insertions (f.e. why Scientology is there but Ananda Marga is not mentioned with equal dignity?). I find that if you delete my insertion we have to completely change the section deleting many things. We need to have an encyclopedic and rational approach: we cannot say "little movement" without quoting where our information come from. Otherwise this section is the rapresentation of the editor's opinion. In a few word isn't a NPOV one.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"Actually the Religious movements section is made as a list." It's not meant to be a list, but rather to summarize major philosophical divisions among religious groups. I don't see your group being particularly separate from Indian reform movements. Shii (tock) 03:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I ask to Dominus Vobisdu: do you mean that I can delete a part of the article (f.e. a part that is without quotation or that I consider a POV...) and after, if the original editor want to reinsert it, he/she have to discuss all on the talk page? In this way I can delete many things that are not quoted and after we have to discuss before the reinsertion! Sorry but I have some doubts about that..--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad question, and one that reveals that you need to take some time off to read up on policy and evaluate whether editing WP is really for you. Read WP:V, WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, and, of course, WP:POINT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Your links does not answer my question. Please refrain from offensive phrases (like this: "Bad question, and one that reveals that you need to take some time off to read up on policy..") and keep respect for others' point of views 'couse this is the first rule in WP. You deleted something quoted without any consensus in a section with very few quotations. And you claim that there is not any list of religions in this section: while instead a list is there!--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Answer to Shii. "I don't see your group being particularly separate from Indian reform movements". First of all: this is not my group!.. I'm an editor like you and I was only editing an article. Ananda Marga is not properly an indian religion and we can discuss a lot about it. My point of view is that to speak of "Chinese folk religion", "Japanese religion" "Kurdish religion" and so on, as it's written on this section it's also not correct we have to speak about the religion (the right name, the origin..). Also (again): if there is a list why we have to delete a group and live another group like Scientology?--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Is Scientology on there? It certainly shouldn't be. It's much too small to be listed alongside, e.g. Mahayana Buddhism Shii (tock) 11:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Religion and the theory of evolution"

I didn't realize I had stepped onto the Christianity page. Please help me out why American disputes with specific sects of Protestant Christianity should be included here. Shii (tock) 14:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not limited to Americans or protestantism; indeed, it's not limited to christianity. See, for example, pages 39-45 of Damian Thompson's "Counterknowledge"; which discusses muslims, "the largest body of creationists in the world". Of course, there have also been Jewish and Hindu objections to the theory of evolution. And so on. bobrayner (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Still rather a fringe view, and on the broader topic:

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both."[1] (OtOOS)

We don't seem to cover that aspect of the relationship between religion and science. . . dave souza, talk 18:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... this should be a subtopic of Religion and science or something. It's not one of the primary aspects of religion. Shii (tock) 23:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been feeling amibivalently about this issue, but I'm leaning towards agreeing with Shii that it may be WP:UNDUE to devote this much attention to it here. I'd like to see more sourcing to indicate that it's a major issue in Islam or other non-Christian religions, in order for it to stay. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Religious adherents table

The table in the religious movements section giving stats on religions by number of adherents is very far out of line with Wikipedia verifiability standards. Firstly all the numbers cited claim to be taken from other wikipedia articles - which is not an appropriate source. I attempted to fix the table by replacing the citation to wikipedia articles with the original citations of the sources used in those articles - however many of these articles simply do not contain the numbers presented in this table. Additionally the "Total" row which adds the numbers of adherents from the above columns represents an egregious form of original research - as the actual numbers presented have no reputable sources claiming them. You cannot simply add numbers from different sources that no doubt utilized vastly different methods in generating data in pursuit of answers to their own specific questions and expect it to represent a legitimate answer to a broader question, the resulting numbers are statistically meaningless. Since none of the data in the table meets standards for verifiable I have elected to delete this table. If anyone would like to reconstruct a new one that is appropriately cited and meets verifiable standards by all means do - but this one should not be restored until then Solid State Survivor (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the deletion of such a table. The aim of this table is not to give exact figures, but to have the reader to overview the sizes of the main religion by numbers of the faithfuls. The table itself is quite clear in this topic, giving simply a range for each religion. This issue has been already discussed in the past and it was decided to maintain the table.

The referencse for the estimated figures however are indicated in the linked Articles: you are right, we should add here the references. a tag already exists from Nov 2011. But to request to explicit the sources is different from deleting the table. A ntv (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

May I remind you of WP:BURDEN? If somebody removes unsourced content, restoring it without sources is a Bad Thing. bobrayner (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not "unsourced", it is simply not properly (indirectly) sourced content. However I agree that the table cannot stay as it is now, I can take care of fixing it, adding directly the references, possibly within tomorrow.A ntv (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

As it stands it is unsourced as many of the numbers it claims can be found on other wikipedia articles, are not actually present in those articles. As I mentioned before I tried to fix it by doing what you are proposing to do but was unable to for the aforementioned reason. If you want to build a new table replacing all the numbers here with one's directly attributable to reputable sources by all means do - but as the numbers here have no reference (direct or indirect) this table must remain deleted until such a time. Solid State Survivor (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Added the table of adherents, but modified, simplified and with a unique NPOV external source. Because I looked for homogeneous figures not from any particular religious sources, I've found only the data on Britannica which made reference to 2000 (but used as sources also in more recent text such as the 2008 [2]). IMHO these figures are enough to give an idea to the readers. A ntv (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this data fits the purpose wonderfully; thanks for fixing it up. Solid State Survivor (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This does not solve the problem for me as now we are simply citing another encyclopedia. I am pretty sure Britannica does not cite its sources for these statistics. Shii (tock) 04:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking closely, they do cite at least one source: World Christian Encyclopedia. The plot thickens... Shii (tock) 04:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, check this out: http://www.conradhackett.com/uploads/2/6/7/2/2672974/evaluating_world_christian_database.pdf Shii (tock) 04:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Shii thanks for adding to the discussion. The issue at hand wasnt that an ecnyclopedia was being cited but that wikipedia itself was being cited which violates WP:RELIABLE. Encyclopedia Britanica meets the general criteria layed out there as a reliable source - and in that pages discussion of tertiary sources it explicitely says that other encyclopedias may be cited for the kind of broad summary that this table would represent. Solid State Survivor (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but if we have more information (like what I just introduced here) we should cite that more information, IMHO Shii (tock) 07:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith

I moved the Bahá'í Faith into New religions as it seems the more logical category to me. It may have Abrahamic roots but as it developed in the 19th century it is surely "new"? Alternatively, as it originated in Iran, maybe that's a better location? Either way, grouping it with the old established Abrahamic religions doesn't look right. Vacarme (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bahá'í Faith is defined as part of the Abrahamic religions for example in this source [3]. It is a offspring of Shia Islam and, even if separated from Islam, it maintains the main characheristics of the Abrahamic religions, such as the monoteism and the idea that God reveals himself in the history (by first to Abraham). However I will not again object its placing among the new religions (even if a 19th-century event is not "new") if we find sources that state that Bahism is not an Abrahamic religion. However I do object in placing it among the "Iranian religions" because with this name the reference is made to the ancient religions whose roots predate the Islamization of Greater Iran, which is not the case of Bahai. A ntv (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Abrahamic and 'new' are probably both correct labels. I guess it just depends on which one you think is more important. Currently there isn't a definition of 'new', so there's no clear way of deciding. Note that if 19th century is not "new", then neither is Shinshūkyō, which is "founded in Japan since the 19th century". This is not being consistent. Vacarme (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, both groupings are correct. I tent to give priority to the historical offspring, but this are only my 2 cents. I've no objection to move it to the "new religion" gruop. A ntv (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bahai Faith started in t1844. Its disputable whether that would fit in the new category. Pass a Method talk 14:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetic

In many previous such discussions we usually end up using an alphabetic order rather than a historical order. Historical is also ambiguous since some religions claim their religion to have been the first one on Earth despite coming into prominence later. Pass a Method talk 10:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD, when an editor has reverted your changes asking for the Talk Page, it is better to wait for a consensus to be formed in the Talk page before to revert.

I strongly oppose the alphabetical criteria here, because this section is not a list but simply is an overview of the main world religions. For this reason the religions are divided in main groupings. To have the alphabetical criteria within each grouping is a non sense and a mix of criteria. And to remove the groupings making it a simply list is not the aim of this section (there are other articles for list of religions). There are two remaining criteria: the one for number of adherents, and the one for historical offsprings. Both are possible, but the latter is to be preferred because actually each religion maintains something from the one he split from: so there is no problem for Christianity to acknowledge it derived from Judaism, or for Islam to understand that it completed the previous two religions. The same for Buddhism which is build on Hinduism primitives. So I strongly suggest to return to the previous order.A ntv (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with A ntv that an alphabetic order is not appropriate in this article. Placing the Bahá'í Faith top of the list of Abrahamic religions looks very odd - it has only 0.1% of the world population! (I still think the Bahá'í Faith should be classified as 'new', but I can't be bothered to argue about it.) Vacarme (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly support the alphabetic criteria because it avoids a bias. There have been many accusations of bias before wtith some editors placing their religions on top in lists, and sometimes even in sentences. This has often ended up at AN/I. The consensus i have seen has usually led to a alphabetic order. By using the alphabetic criteria we can avoid any such hassle. As for historical or numerical criteria, both are faulty. For example:

(a) with numerals, you end up with conflicting sources on numbers of adhersnts, so you will keep having a nonstop tussle.

(b) with History, there are sometiemes disagreements within religions as to when a religion started; i.e. some Muslims state their religion started in the 7th century, but others state that it started with Adam and Eve.

In conclusion, the alphabetic criteria is the only feasible option here. Pass a Method talk 13:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right for the lists, but this is not a list. And I don't remember any complain for possible biasm due to this issue in this Article. There is nothing wrong to speak of Moses and of Christ before Islam, because Islam recognize them as prophets. But we shall wait for other editors to reach a consensus. PS on regards of Bahism to be placed among Abrahamic religions or amng new religions, it should be debatedin the above section, and I understood that there was a consensus to place it among new religions. A ntv (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Putting the historical list in alphabetical order is one of the worst editing ideas I've seen in a long time. There's an obvious, sourced, and encyclopedic order to the history of these religions. Alphabetizing them according to some misguided sense of NPOV is simply preposterous. Seeing three editors here opposing the alphabetization, and only one advocating for it, I'm about to revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the fish. Alphabetic makes no sense when we have good sources for historical order. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sentiments toward Religion Historically

And I have a quote to bring: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, Field Marshal and all. He says, "Educate men without religion and you make of them but clever devils." Should we allow it...? (Also noted on to talk page of "Existence for God(s)". I hope you don't mind.) LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Wellesley a renowned source on religion? If not, why should we give much weight to his comments?

Shaka once said "Women that bear children must exist in Zululand only" but we don't add that to the article on childbirth. bobrayner (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've had the thought that they could have frantically religious, having fears toward not believing in God, but you are right, of course, bobrayner. It has just been a thought for input. Thanks. LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some suggested restructuring

The 'Issues in religion' section doesn't seem quite right to me. Neither of the two topics (Interfaith cooperation, Securalism and irreligion) are necessarily or particularly "issues". Instead, I suggest that:

a) 'Interfaith cooperation' to be moved under Origins and development, because it is after all, a development of religion.

b) 'Securalism and irreligion' to become a section on its own, perhaps placed immediately before the Criticism section.

If an Issues section is retained maybe it would make more sense that health, violence, law, science etc are subsections under it?

What do you think? Vacarme (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you make a good point. It's kind of like "issues" is a euphemism for "we don't know where to put this". For (b), yes, I'd put it just before the Criticism section. For (a), I'm less sure where to put it. Would a sub-section under "Types of religion" make better sense? I'm not sure. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Number

Avanu said the religion numbers seem high. Well, it is but thats because thats what reliable sources say; i.e. this ref by Adherents states they have researched into 4,200 religions. And thats only the ones they have researched. Pass a Method talk 15:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The adherents site does NOT say "4,200 religions". It says "over 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, faith groups, tribes, cultures, movements, ultimate concerns, etc." Big difference. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read the preceding sentence it says "adherents statistics" and "religious geography citations". Anyway, this is besides the point because i used a different source in my edit. Do you have a source that disputes the source i used in the article? Do you have a source with different statistics? Pass a Method talk 15:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The 4,200 Adherents.com number is quoted widely: Timothy Samuel Shah et al in Rethinking Religion and World Affairs, page 293; Susan George in Religion And Technology in the 21st Century: Faith in the E-world, page 90; Richard J. Wallace in The Lazy Intellectual: Maximum Knowledge, Minimal Effort, page 237; Sheila Keene-Lund in Heaven Is Not the Last Stop: Exploring A New Revelation, page 456; J. B. Zegalia in Impact: The 7 Undeniable and Often Uncontrollable Powers of Influence; and Claudio Feser in Serial Innovators: Firms That Change the World, page 102. Philosophy professor Kenneth Shouler wrote: "Through the ages It can be asserted with confidence that no one knows exactly how many religions there are, although the best estimate is about 4,200." On the other hand, religion professor Christopher Hugh Partridge wrote, "In 1987 in South Africa, for example, there were over 4,200 distinct Zionist denominations." Max Weber thought that there were hundreds of thousands of religions starting from the dawn of history. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with one sentence saying that there are thousands (although I'd rather not see so much reverting). Obviously, it's a matter of how one defines a single religion. If there are sources that say there are that many, I'm OK with that. However, we might be able to reconcile this discussion by putting "According to some estimates,..." at the beginning of the sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The relevant sentence in the cited (Samovar, Porter and McDaniel) book appears to be "with thousands of religions, cults, movements, philosophies, and worldviews to choose from...." which is a much broader statement than "There are thousands of religions in the world". The latter is therefore highly misleading and in the context of this wiki article, of no real value and potentially confusing. I would recommend removing it. On the subject of "4200 religions", it is true that this figure is cited numerous times (although I suspect re-circulated from a single source) but as shown on the Adherents.com website, 98% of the world population are adherents of the top 22 religions. Vacarme (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Eastern religions and circumsizing religions

Is there any web page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.18.32 (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Eastern religions and History of male circumcision. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Germanic neopaganism

There is a slow edit war going on about the lead image, whether a particular image should represent Germanic neopaganism or Wikka. Whichever the sources indicate it is, please discuss it here on the talk page, and back it up with source material, so we can reach consensus. If the reversions continue, I will ask that the page be full-protected. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Some other relevant conversation may be found at Talk:Wicca#Third opinion. The triple crescent in the file is a triquetra, not a triskelion. The sources presented to say that the triple crescent is part of Germanic Neopaganism (aside from being self published blogs and not WP:RS) discuss triskelions, *NOT* triquetras. Triskelions (which the horn of Odin is) are not the same as triquetras (which the triple crescent figure in this page is).

The file for the image notes that it is a symbol of the triple goddess. As I point out at Talk:Wicca, The Signs and Symbols Bible by Madonna Gauding notes that the Triple Goddess is sometimes "shown as three crescent moons intertwined with each other" (p.103). There's a reliable source in favor of the Wicca identification, only self-published sources discussing a completely different symbol have been presented for the Germanic Neo-pagan identification. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've found a second source. Just because Wicca USES the symbol doesn't mean it's a Wiccan symbol. if someone takes the cross and uses it for a second religion, is the Cross still Christian? --OCCullens (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Symboldictionary.net is a Wordpress blog (that plagiarizes old About.com articles, no less), a self-published site, not a reliable source.

We have one RS and the original file calling that triquetra variant Wiccan. It's not a universal symbol for Wicca, and Diane de Poitiers (who was probably at least nominally Christian) used it before Wiccans did, but the best ID (given what sources have been presented and the original file's page) is "Wiccan."

The sources you presented so far (WP:SPS aside) are about triskelions, not triquetras. This is like getting the Eastern cross and the Tiwaz rune mixed up. Please make sure that future sources meet the reliable sourcing guidelines and are about triquetras, not triskelions. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Triquetra (left) and Triskelion (right)

I've shown the two symbols at the right. I'd say the image on this page resembles a Triquetra to the extent that it is made of three interlocking elements, and it resembles a Triskelion to the degree that the elements are at least somewhat serpentine and open-ended. I've read the sources cited by OCCullens and by Ian.thomson, and I'd say that the reliable sourcing points towards the image on the page being a triple crescent, rather than a triple horn, whereas OCCullens' sourcing seems to be about the triple horn. Thus, I think there is a stronger argument for it being Wikka than it being Neo-pagan, but I don't think the arguments are absolute. Is there a basis for saying that the symbol is used by both religions? Or perhaps this is simply a matter where we should not be using this particular image. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

How about we use both, as in wicca/germanic neopaganism ? Pass a Method talk 01:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a triquetra in that the sides are equal and centered, even if there are fringe bits (remove those and you have a triquetra). The triskelion goes off center (and if you remove the fringe bits on an archetypal triskelion, you have three lines pointing out to where the corners of a triangle would be).

I would accept a general "neopaganism" as a compromise, but no RSs have been presented for Germanic neopaganism, and none of the sources on Germanic neopaganism presented so far discuss the symbol used on the page. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

1. There is such a thing as a goddess symbol that doesn't represent Wicca. There are many goddeses and triple goddesses throughout history, most of them predating the 'Wicca' movement. My point is it doesn't matter if the symbol is a goddess symbol or not; that's not a metric of Wiccan-ness.
2. The emblem of Diane_de_Poitiers is older than the Wicca movement. Obviously, a symbol can be considered one that represents a given movement if usage justifies it - regardless of origin. However if usage is the standard, then Wicca is best represented by a pentagram or triquetra.
3. Looking close to a triquetra doesn't make it one. Many things look like other things.
4. The symbol in question isn't very well attested and doesn't have wide usage from either Germanic or Wiccan neopagans. However, it does seem to get confused for other symbols by both parties.

My opinion is the the symbol should be changed. It's too dubious and isn't a first choice symbol for representing either group. It should either be turned onto a proper Triple Horn of Odin if it's supposed to represent Germanic neopaganism or changed to a pentagram if it's supposed to represent Wicca. The file description would indicate the latter.
—Sowlos (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather see a symbol for all of Contemporary Paganism rather than one for only a single group. ...if we were able to agree on a single symbol.
—Sowlos (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I can see two good options here.

1. One would be to label it in the image legend with both Wikka and Neopaganism.
2. The other would be to stop using this particular image, until someone generates one with a better choice of symbol. We have a group image that used to be in the lead, and is now in the Definitions section, so we could move that one back to the lead until we have a better image to use.

I'd be happy with either of those options. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting stupid. Just because symbols are USED by Wiccans does NOT mean the said symbols are Wiccan. Most, if not all, symbols and beliefs in Wicca are far older than not only Wicca but also most organized religions.--2602:306:C50F:6FE0:3484:FF1C:540E:9DF6 (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note the emerging consensus before ranting. It's not too far off from what you said.
—Sowlos (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Tryptofish, i support your first option, naming both. Pass a Method talk 10:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. Wicca is part of Neopaganism. Do you mean label the symbol "Wicca & Germanic Neopaganism" or simply "Neopaganism"?
—Sowlos (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I mean "Wicca & Germanic neopaganism". We could use a slash as in "wicca/germanic neopaganism". Pass a Method talk 11:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue I have with including Germanic neopaganism is that no RSs have been brought forward to connect that symbol to that religion (the closest those blogs presented was three crescents interlocking in the middle, not the edges, hence "trikelion, not triquetra"). Changing the image to a Horn of Odin and the caption to Germanic Neopaganism would work, as would changing the image to a pentagram and saying "Neopaganism," but so far the RSs only say that symbol has been used by Wiccans. That it is a minority symbol make changing it one of the better options.

Actually, I think the whole chart needs to be redone. We've got three Christian crosses (including the Solar cross which was used by Christians both Gnostic and otherwise, and would not have been used by Jewish Gnostics), and two for Jainism. The use of the Star and crescent for Islam is also questionable (it doesn't appear in the Islam article once because it isn't considered sacred within Islam). The Slavic Neopaganism may also be undue. While that religion is certainly notable, has it really had the same cultural influence that Taoism or Sikhism have had? And what order are the symbols in? They're not in most member to least members, nor alphabetical order. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that if we keep this image, we should label it "Wicca/Neopaganism", leaving out the "Germanic" modifier. But I also think that what Ian says is a good reason to temporarily remove the image, and move the other image back up. Do we really need both of these composites of symbols? I think not. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

'Wicca/Neopaganism' can be taken as an implication that 'Wicca' and 'Neopaganism' are interchangeable. I can easily many future bold edits correcting that.
—Sowlos (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

For clarification, I think one symbol is best, but this seems to be a bit tricky. I think a different symbol + careful wording is advisable.
—Sowlos (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel the same way, Ian. I've had my eye on that chart for a while. (Unfortunately, there'll be little chance of preserving that pretty 4x4 grid.) Multiple symbols for Christianity, Jainism, & Hinduism seem unnecessary; if we're talk about due weight, where's Shenism; and symbols for multiple Neopagan branches is hard to justify. My only problem is that the Neopaganism project can't agree on a single symbol.
A side note: the solar cross is the symbol displayed for {{Gnosticism}}.
—Sowlos (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Vajrayana

Buddhism, sometimes considered a form of Mahayana, was developed in Tibet and is still most prominent there and in surrounding regions. The word 'developed' is rather misleading here. In the terms of taking something and working with it, yes Vajrayana was developed in Tibet. But the primary source (origins) of Vajrayana is India, with a lot of development centred at Nalanda University. See Vajrayana for more details. I have edited the article here accordingly. (20040302 (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC))

I've reversed the new wording because 1) is not enough syntetic and 2) it is unsourced. Please propone in Talk Page a possible (more short) new language, keeping in mind that this is only a list of still-alive religions, not a summary of their history. A ntv (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

What does 'syntetic' mean, and likewise what does 'propone' mean? If you read the article Vajrayana which has plenty of sources, it is quite clear that the currently unsourced content is a total fabrication. WP does not require me to push every edit through the talk page. However, I will provide on-page sources, as I agree that well-sourced material is better suited. (20040302 (talk))

Religion and violence

Some of the passages in the Morality article discuss Religion and violence—specifically the "Empirical Analyses" section. I think empirical analyses of the relationship between religion and violence (e.g., homicide) are more relevant than people's mere opinions. Is there any reason why some of these passages should not be added to the "Religion and violence" section of this article? --Airborne84 (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment.

In addition, the section is also rather biased towards one side of the argument. It includes far more quotes on the in support of the argument that religion is a primary cause of violence than against. Also, the word 'nonetheless' in the sentence "Nonetheless, believers have used..." implies that the opposing opinion is less valid.

If there are no objections, I suggest we remove quotes to leave one for each side on the matter of religion and war. Given the lengthy articles linked to on the specific subject of religious violence, the length of the other sections (such as Religion and health, for example) and taking in to account Airborne84's points that more should be added on other aspects this seems an appropriate length for this specific discussion of religion and war within this article.

TsB23 (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion so far leaves a lot of room for what is in the eye of the beholder. I think it would be helpful, first, to give some specific examples of the proposed changes here in talk. Otherwise, we might not really have consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the already massive size of this article and (what I hope is) our desire to get this article over a C rating, I agree with Tryptofish.
—Sowlos (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Parody religions

I disagree with 'Parody religions' being placed under 'Secularism and irreligion', because it diminishes the importance and worth of the latter. Also, a Parody religion is by definition a form of belief (even if it's not taken seriously by its disciples) whereas Secularism and irreligion are concerned with (seriously-held) unbelief or non-belief. In my view, Parody religion is a form of criticism - it mocks religion - and therefore belongs under the Criticism section or alternatively a section on its own. Vacarme (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sowlos that 'Parody religions' shell be placed under 'Secularism and irreligion'. That is because this article is about Religion, and even if it is right to mention different criticism, their space shall be secondary here. IMHO we could place both the subsections 'Secularism and irreligion' and 'Parody religions' under "Related forms of thought". A ntv (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I see the parody religions as being a part of irreligion. They really aren't a criticism of religion, in any specific way. The main thing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster criticizes is the teaching of creationism, rather than religion per se. I guess we could have some philosophical discussions about whether the "unbelief" of secularism and irreligion is a "belief" in a position, or not, but I don't think that really affects how we classify parodies. However, I'd rather not move them under "Related forms of thought", because they are, arguably, unrelated forms of thought. Anyway, bottom line, I'd keep the parody section as a subsection of "Secularism and irreligion". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

New religious symbols pic

Religion symbols,
row 1: Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Baha'i Faith
row 2: Islam, Gnosticism, Taoism, Shinto
row 3: Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Jainism,
row 4: Ayyavazhi, Wicca, Christian, Slavic neopaganism

I've replaced this 4x4 pic with the 3x3, per above discussion, until if/when we come up with a better 4x4 pic (I think 5x5 might be possible, but it could be hard to see detail). Issues raised with the 4x4 so far:

1. Christian and Jainist symbols were repeated - This is simply a matter of deciding which to remove. The Christian cross on the bottom isn't as archetypal as the first one, so the frilly one seems the obvious one to remove to me. As for the Jainist symbols, the Jainism template uses both of those symbols. I'm inclined to go with the hand instead of the swastika, not simply because of the misuse of that symbol, but because the "backwards" swastika is used by Hindus and Buddhists as well.
2. Images are in no sensible order - Alphabetic order or number of adherents would be reasonable, but alphabetic order by the names of the religions will save us the headache of figuring out which religion has the most adherents, as well as arguments with the inevitable POV-pushers who are upset that their religion doesn't have more followers or that some religion they don't like has too many.
3. Undue weight on individual branches of Neopaganism, compounded by a lack of appropriate symbol for all of Neopaganism - While the Pentagram does not represent all of Neopaganism, isn't it at least featured as a secondary or tertiary symbol in the majority of Neopagan religions? And if not, although Wicca isn't necessarily the oldest Neopagan movement, isn't it a forerunner and influence for many other movements?
4. Star and Crescent may not be the best symbol for Islam - The Arabic name Allah would probably be better, that's what the sidebar for Islam articles uses.
5. Chinese folk religion not represented - While I'd welcome its presence, I'm not sure what symbol would go here. The sign for Tian?

After the removal of the redundant Christian and Jainist symbols and the different Neopagan branches, we're left with three extra slots. If we can find a symbol for Chinese folk religion, that'd be a good one to include. Again, though, I can't find anything representative. I'd also like to suggest the inclusion of Zoroastrianism's Faravahar, because of that religion's influence or possible influence on other world religions. The Tengriist crescent is what comes to my mind to fill the other slot, but I'm open to other suggestions.

If no one has anything else to say and isn't going to revert me, I'll compile this thing in MS Paint if I don't forget and play Minecraft instead:

• First row: Ayyavazhi lotus, Baha'i star, Buddhist wheel, Christian cross (the plain one)
• Second row: Chinese folk religion symbol of some sort, Gnostic Solar cross, Hindu Om, Islamic name "Allah"
• Third row: Jainist hand, Jewish Magen David, Shinto Torii, Sikh Khanda
• Fourth row: Taoist Taijitu, Tengriist Crescent, Wiccan pentagram, Zoroastrian Faravahar

Again, though, would like other people's input. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The Christian cross on the bottom isn't as archetypal as the first one, so the frilly one seems the obvious one to remove to me.
— User:Ian.thomson

Agreed, however I suggest replacing the Equal-Armed Cross with File:Christian cross.svg.

I'm inclined to go with the hand instead of the swastika, not simply because of the misuse of that symbol, but because the "backwards" swastika is used by Hindus and Buddhists as well.
— User:Ian.thomson

Agreed. It's a shame we can't use the main emblem, though.

...alphabetic order by the names of the religions will save us the headache of figuring out which religion has the most adherents, as well as arguments with the inevitable POV-pushers who are upset that their religion doesn't have more followers or that some religion they don't like has too many.
— User:Ian.thomson

Members of high population faiths could still get upset their religions don't come first. Still, I agree this is the most reasonable method available.

While the Pentagram does not represent all of Neopaganism, isn't it at least featured as a secondary or tertiary symbol in the majority of Neopagan religions? And if not, although Wicca isn't necessarily the oldest Neopagan movement, isn't it a forerunner and influence for many other movements?
— User:Ian.thomson

Yes and yes.

Star and Crescent may not be the best symbol for Islam - The Arabic name Allah would probably be better, that's what the sidebar for Islam articles uses.
— User:Ian.thomson

The Star and crescent is more recognizable in anglophone and international settings (both of relevance here) as a symbol of Islam.

Chinese folk religion not represented - While I'd welcome its presence, I'm not sure what symbol would go here. The sign for Tian?
— User:Ian.thomson

A Tian character may be the best. Should we ask for input from a related project, perhaps WikiProject China?
—Sowlos (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If I end up having to make the pic, I'll see if I can fit the whole symbol used in the Jainism template in there. I will/would use the Christian cross file you linked to, and hope that anyone who takes more initiative than me does so as well. I think I will hold off until I or someone who hasn't recently fallen off the Minecraft wagon asks Wikiproject China what they think or we find an RS saying "this is a common symbol for Shenism." Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Religion symbols,
row 1: Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Baha'i Faith
row 2: Islam, Gnosticism, Taoism, Shinto
row 3: Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Jainism,
row 4: Ayyavazhi, Wicca, Christian, Slavic neopaganism

You'll want to use the SVG version of this file as it is vectorized and uses the Latin Cross instead of the Greek Cross . Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I see the improvement in the cross, but it still has the Wicca/Neopaganism symbol in the bottom row, that we discussed above and that was the reason for removing it from the page. If you could replace that symbol according to the discussion above, that would be very helpful. There are also several other requested improvements, that you can see above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There actually wasn't improvement. The new image is simply an alternate that was already present in the article. We still need a new image. <---(Contributed via my phone. Ignore that.) I would pull the SVGs and make it myself, but I'm in the middle of some computer maintenance that will last for the next few days.
If no one has made it by Mon or Tues, I'll make it.
—Sowlos (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked WP:China for help finding a symbol for Shenism. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As many symbols are shared between Confucianism, Taoism, Shenism... there is the pentagram representing the five elements, the trigrams (such as on a geomancy compass)... but those have also filtered into Japanese and Korean culture and used natively. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Pass a Method suggested on my talk page that this Druid symbol might be used to fill the gap, and it'd work in the absence of other options. IIRC, that symbol was associated with (Neo-)Druidry before the 20th century Neopagan movement got underway, which skirts the "influenced by Wicca" issue for the [[Nine Billion Names of God|Nine Billion Names of God Neopagan symbols.

What about religious symbols for some of the various African, American, or Australian religions? Vodoun is arguably a world religion. Traditional Serer religion also uses the pentagram as a religious symbol, should we mention that as well? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the Druid symbol. It is used on this notable website [4] as the last symbol. Druidism is also represented on religious charts of multiple countries. I would avoid mentioning Serer. Pass a Method talk 19:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Serer religion might be undue weight, but I think we should have something from a traditional African religion.

I'm thinking that we may need to go with a some other format besides 4x4, depending on what African symbols we can come up with, and what WP:China finds, if anything. The world religions represented so far tend to be Western or Eastern. Going for something besides 4x4 would also make it easier to use the full size Jainism symbol by having it take up two slots.

If we end up with a 5x5 (which would be the most we could do without getting things too crowded), would anyone be opposed to including Thelema's and Raëlism's hexagrams? They're distinct from each other and the Jewish Magen David. There's also Scientology's ARC and KRC triangles and the Church of Satan's Goat of Mendes pentagram. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps 3, 4, 4, & 3 would work.
—Sowlos (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

We're having enough trouble filling a 4x4 grid. Why would we try for 5x5?
I disagree with adding Thelema, Raëlism, Scientology, et cetera. I think we should stay with broad religious movements (e.g. Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism) and those with notable populations. There are many smaller movements that could be added, but even a 5x5 grid wouldn't accommodate all of them. If we cherry pick a few, we'll have a due weight problem. What makes X movements with populations of +100K more notable than any other grouping of movements at said population?
—Sowlos (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking for a NorthAmericanNative symbol, why not use the Thunderbird? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with African and other ethnic religions is that they tend to be very syncretic. This might provoke doubts about whether it is truly a seperate religion or a denomination. Such doubts already exist among religions such as Druze etc. This could become a slippery slope with people arguing that i.e. Mormonism should be treated as a seperate religion. Pass a Method talk 12:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Symbols from the twelve World religious movements we've agreed on thus far, in alphabetical order, set on a 4x4 grid.
Christianity, Bahá'í Faith
Buddhism, Daoism (Taoism), Hinduism, Islam
Kami-no-michi (Shinto), Jainism, Judaism, Paganism
Shenism (Chinese Folk Tradition), Sikhism

As promised, here's a new grid based on the discussion thus far. Sorry it took me so long. ...also surprised no one else jumped in after User:Richard-of-Earth.
I removed the duplicates, restored Paganism as a single entry (under an encircled pentagram), added an entry for Chinese Folk Tradition, and ordered everything by name. I took some liberties too. I removed Gnosticism; I felt balance more important than a dead religion that only influences some modern traditions. I called CFT by its shorter lable because it's shorter, translating into only two Chinese characters (a single Tian doesn't look suitable).
Thoughts?
—Sowlos (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I almost forget... If we come up with 1 or 2 more solid entries, we can bump it back up to 3x4x4x3. And, anyone with Chinese calligraphy experience should go over my work. As an artist I may be, a Chinese calligrapher I am not.
—Sowlos (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sowlos, good work A ntv (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I was going to add it right now, but I noticed that Shenism and Sikhism are switched. Otherwise, good work. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and fixed. I also increased the element size by a bit.
—Sowlos (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool, added right now. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Good work! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have altered the "pagan" dscription because pagan is more of a blanket umbrella term and religious classification than a religion. Also, I recommend filling the gaps whilst adding Druid Zoroastrianism and Unitarian Universalism then you choose a fourth from here. Pass a Method talk 04:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I can agree to add other symbols, but I suggest to avoid symbols without a clear and historical foundation and use. So it is perfectly ok to add the symbols of Zoroastrianism, Unitarian Universalism, Cao Dai, Mormonism, while I object to the symbol of Druid or other minors symbols.--A ntv (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'clear historical foundation', but I've considered adherence in the millions, presence in many nations around the world, and broad cultural significance as the criteria for what few religions get highlighted. Also, I think sects should be avoided. This is a summary at a glance, not a comprehensive list.
To what Pass a Method (talk · contribs) said, the consensus was that Paganism deserved mention, but not specifically any encompassed movement. It would lend them undue weight. This is also why, I'm reverting the pentagram label from 'Wicca' back to 'Paganism'. Please remember 'Wicca' is just as much an umbrella-term as 'Paganism'. I have no problem with a 'Paganism/Wicca' label if everyone thinks that's warranted.
—Sowlos (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The arrangement of symbols isn't good. The tiny number of followers of the Baha'i Faith are given the most prominence and placed in the top row? I guess placing Islam in the top row besides Christianity will make the arrangement better. Khestwol (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

We went over this earlier: the two arrangements that made the most sense were alphabetical order and by number of adherents, but alphabetical order is the easier of the two. Bahai is not given "more prominence" any more than B is a more prominent letter than I. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

@Sowlos, i disagree with your interpretation of "due weight". In most of human history paganism was the most widely practised form of religion. It is only in the past few centuries/past millenia that non-pagan faiths have gained a plurality in followers. Therefore, it is due weight to mention the two most practised pagan religions, Wicca and Druidry.Pass a Method talk 19:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

1. The grid is not a list of historical and once-major religions. It only represents major contemporary religions - as it always has. If this was an article on religious history or if we were talking about an image for the history section in this article, I'd be more inclined to agree.
2. Almost all Pagan denominations are smaller in terms of population, are present in fewer countries, and are less culturally significant in their primary country than any other religion on that grid. Putting them together implies they're on equal footing, which gives them undue weight. Wicca may be the only Pagan group that can claim otherwise.

To be perfectly clear, I am Pagan. I would love to see several Pagan religions represented on that grid. Previously seeing so many Pagan symbols at the top of Wikipedia's main religion article definitely made me feel good, but this is not about my preferences (nor should it be about yours). Wikipedia articles need to be unbiased, with an international perspective.
—Sowlos (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

To Ian.thomson: No! It's clearly not in alphabetical order when Christianity is preceding Baha'i Faith and Buddhism. Khestwol (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

And if you actually read the thread, and continue reading below, you'll see that that was an accident that is trying to be fixed. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 0

Pass a Method (talk · contribs) just changed the naming for some the religions. This annoyed me a bit; it's been clearly stated above that the order is alphabetic. ...but I realized none of us know the English alphabet, lol. Since there were already a few order errors, I didn't undo his edit. I'll be able to fix it in a few hours, but in the mean time, I thought I'd bring this here. Are people happy with the naming I used? I was trying to err on the side of endonyms.
—Sowlos (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

While endonyms would be nice, I'm kinda leaning towards using whatever the default titles for the articles on those religions (except for Shenism due to spacing issues, which isn't absolutely an endonym either) on the same grounds that we're using the star and crescent for Islam instead of the Arabic word Allah: it's more likely the readership will recognize it. That said, I didn't mind the other arrangement, either. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

...on the same grounds that we're using the star and crescent for Islam instead of the Arabic word Allah: it's more likely the readership will recognize it. Good point.
My plan is to switch from 'Shenism', to 'Chinese Folk Tradition', in the event we get an alternative symbol from WP:China.
—Sowlos (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I discovered why the order was screwy. Inkscape (what I used for this) likes to reorder objects in some cases when auto-aligning in rows & columns.
—Sowlos (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Response at WT:CHINA

The Shou character, Double Happiness, and upside-down Fu character characters have been recommended, with the Shou character actually being used in a similar manner to crosses in Christian churches. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That is fantastic. I responded over there.
Normally that sort of rfc engenders replies on the source thread, but I'll go to them. I'm adversed to making this type of decision without broad input.
—Sowlos (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

So... New design?

Based on input, new discussion, and some concerns Sowlos had, how about this format?

• Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism, Christianity, Chinese folk religion,
• Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism,
• Paganism (contemporary), Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism

Alternately:

• Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism, Christianity,
• Chinese folk religion, Hinduism, Islam,
• Jainism, Judaism, Paganism (contemporary),
• Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism

The second would get in the way less, but could also blend in with the "Religions by country" sidebar. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should keep the original design, but alphabetic:

• Baha'i, Buddhism
• Christianity, Chinese folk relgiion, Hinduism, Islam
• Jainism, Judaism, Paganism/Wicca, Shinto
• Sikhism, Taoism

Like that. Pass a Method talk 06:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'll keep it in the cross layout for now, however I still think it needs some more work.
—Sowlos (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Cross design is also fine. Will we use the Shou character for Chinese folk religion, as that one actually has been used almost as an identifying symbol? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As it stands, yes. The only input we got on WP:China gave that as choice number one. I assume that means everyone else there agrees - or doesn't care. That still counts as consensus. I should have time to draw it later today or tomorrow.
—Sowlos (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Mention Wicca?

Sowlos, what do you think about usig a slash after paganism as in "Paganism/Wicca"? Pass a Method talk 12:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'll agree if that's what most others here vote for.
It's the only Pagan group large enough to even consider. It comprises about half of all self identified Pagans in the US. I don't have number for the rest of the world but that may bring them in at over one million (my minimum requirement). However, I'm skeptical about giving it special mention. We aren't doing the same for sects of other religions and Wicca can be defined as such (especially if we list Paganism as a religion whilst Wicca is one of its components).
—Sowlos (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Symbol for Islam

Star and Crescent may not be the best symbol for Islam - The Arabic name Allah would probably be better, that's what the sidebar for Islam articles uses.
— User:Ian.thomson

The star and crescent sign isn't considered sacred in Islam (on the contrary, it's sacred in Tengriism and some ancient Mesopotamian polytheistic religions) so it's not suitable, I think. Yes, the name Allah in Arabic orthography is better to be used here and it's used in sidebars for Islam in some other Wikipedia articles, too. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't Islam technically have no holy symbol?
—Sowlos (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the star and crescent because firstly its more recognisable. Secondly, the crescent was the symbol of some caliphate coins, Islamic stapmps and the flag of some caliphates. It was also the symbol on the flag of the first Saudi state, plus it is used on the domes/minarets of several notable mosques, including Masjid al-Haram. Furthermore, the moon holds a significant place in Islam due to the splitting of the moon, one of the main miracles of Muhammad. Pass a Method talk 21:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Pass a Method talk 16:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Pass a Method: its use started only during the last caliphate as a state symbol, probably because of influence from other non-Islamic religions because it's known that early Muslims never used it. And, even the mosques that have the crescent mostly do not have the five-pointed star. Nevertheless, the usage of the star and crescent as an Islamic symbol is rejected by many scholars. The Arabic name "Allah" is a non-controversial symbol for Islam. Khestwol (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sowlos: that's correct, Islam doesn't have holy symbols. Early Islamic coins, stamps and flags (during the time of Muhammad and during the Rashidun Caliphate, the Umayyad Caliphate and the Abbasid Caliphate) didn't have geometric symbols; the star and crescent symbol was unknown to Muslims back then, even present-day Muslims don't consider this symbol holy. Early Islamic coins and stamps were covered with Arabic writings instead. Khestwol (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The most acceptable Islamic "symbol" is "green." "Allah" is cognate to "Elohim" and simply means "God" to all Arabs, including Christians. Collect (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Religious groups organization

When one goes to the [Unitarian Universalism] page, one would think it should be placed under the "Abrahamic religions", but oddly enough it is under the "New religions". Why is that? ~Bryan C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.61.159 (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Survey data from Pew Forum

New survey data has been published by Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, which has implications for the tabulated figures under Religious groups. Even though the Pew data is newer, my preference would be to add this data rather than replace the existing figures because it very usefully shows the changes over time, and also highlights some differences in interpretation and perhaps some inconsistencies too. The revised table would then look like this:

Five largest religions	Change in adherents from 2000 to 2010	% of world population	Demographics
Christianity	2.0 – 2.2 billion	33.0% – 31.5%	Christianity by country
Islam	1.2 – 1.6 billion	19.6% – 23.2%	Islam by country
Hinduism	0.8 – 1.0 billion	13.4% – 15.0%	Hinduism by country
Chinese folk religion	385 – 294 million	6.4% – 4.3%	Chinese folk religion
Buddhism	360 – 487 million	5.9% – 7.1 %	Buddhism by country

Alternatively, because in the Pew survey 'Chinese folk religion' is subsumed under Folk Religionists, the table could look like this:

Five largest religions	Change in adherents from 2000 to 2010	% of world population	Demographics
Christianity	2.0 – 2.2 billion	33.0% – 31.5%	Christianity by country
Islam	1.2 – 1.6 billion	19.6% – 23.2%	Islam by country
Hinduism	0.8 – 1.0 billion	13.4% – 15.0%	Hinduism by country
Folk religion	613 – 405 million	10.1% – 5.9%	Folk religion by country
Buddhism	360 – 487 million	5.9% – 7.1 %	Buddhism by country

The dramatic reduction in the number of Folk religionists is, I would suggest, down to how the Pew Forum has interpreted its data, particularly "Unaffiliated". As the survey report notes, China only recognises 5 religions - Buddhism, Catholicism, Daoism, Islam and Protestantism - so everybody else is either Unaffiliated or a Folk religionist depending on who's doing the survey... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vacarme (talk • contribs) 10:08, December 22, 2012‎

If the dramatic reduction in the number of Folk religionists is indeed due to a change in methodology (this must be cited), than the two figures for folk religions are not valid for comparison. "NA – 405 million | NA – 5.9%" with superscripted notes would be the acceptable representation.
—Sowlos 14:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. "Folk religion" should just be "large". Any attempt to count people by the "Volkishness" of their religion is inherently absurd. Shii (tock) 11:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Folk religions section

How to source population data is indeed a significant question, but there are additional significant issues getting co-mingled in recent edits. There are also issues of what sources to use to define types of religion, how to describe those types, and which types to include and which to exclude. I made this edit a while back: [5]. I think that Vacarme's comments at the top of this in the preceding talk section are a good start to responding to those issues. Now, the editor who made a lot of the undiscussed changes did this: [6]. That edit summary is just a repeat of my earlier edit summary, so that's not really an adequate discussion, and I've reverted it again. Is there any reason to base the whole thing on an analysis by Dr J Omosade Awolalu? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The version is/was unfit for purpose; without citation, riddled with allegories; hence, the clean-up. i.e

Folk religion is a term applied loosely and vaguely to less-organized local practices. It is also called paganism, shamanism, animism, ancestor worship, matriarchal religion, or totemism

Opposed to

The term "folk" generally describes its familiarity; a permeation of traditions.

example number 2:-

African traditional religion is a category including any type of religion practiced in Africa before the arrival of Islam and Christianity

The category of "folk religion" can generally include anything that is not part of an organization.

Opposed to

"traditions" in this context means indigenous, that which is foundational, handed down from generation to generation.

Morevover, the works of Dr Awolalu are purely academic, if you have issues with then i suggest you divert your challenge through to the right sources.

Otelemuyen 22:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I notice that the current version of the article says, under Religion#Folk_religions:

According to Dr J Omosade Awolalu, "traditions" in this context means indigenous, that which is foundational, handed down from generation to generation...^[7] ...

The use of italics implies a quotation, but the words in italics are not a verbatim quote of the source, which actually says (in the third paragraph):

We need to explain the word "traditional". This word means indigenous, that which is aboriginal or foundational, handed down from generation to generation, ...

We need to get rid of the italics with its implication of a direct quote, and quote directly (in quotation marks, not italics, per MOS:QUOTE#Italics_and_quotations), using ellipses (per MOS:QUOTE) if appropriate to remove unnecessary words (without changing the meaning). Or reword it so it's not pretending to be a quote when it is not.

Normally I would just fix this myself (changing it to a direct quote) immediately, but that section is apparently the subject of a current edit-war in which I do not wish to get involved. I'll leave it to whoever favours the current version to fix the quotation. (I make no comment as to which version is correct or even better - merely that the italics are clearly wrong.) Mitch Ames (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. I cannot make sense of what Otelemuyen is saying, but I thank them for, at last, coming to the talk page. What they did was the B in WP:BRD. I did the R, (met with an excess R, but whatever) and now it's time for the D. If other editors are satisfied with the way it's been written on the page, I won't push the point, but it looks like WP:COMPETENCE to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The pseudo-quote was changed, but it was still in italics, and still not verbatim. So I've fixed it myself. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, for me it is ok as it is now.A ntv (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Although that fixes the attributional issue, there's still a writing issue arising from a sentence that does not really sound like the introduction to a section, more like an explanation of word usage instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish that recent edits (by Otelemuyen) to the Folk religions section have not improved the article. A useful reference (the paper by Awolalu) has been added, but other text has been rather arbitrarily deleted or inappropriately moved. For example, the grouping of the Aztec, Australian Aboriginal, Native American, Inca and Maya religions in the same paragraph as the African religions is unhelpful and potentially confusing. Also, the opening sentence (The term "folk" generally describes its familiarity; a permeation of traditions) is too abstruse. I recommend reverting to the original text and enhancing the bullet point on African traditional religion with the Awolalu reference (and maybe the image). The Awolalu paper cites many other sources about African traditional religion and also draws attention to the religions of the Ashanti and Nupe people that could be mentioned as well. Vacarme (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Vacarme, thanks. You did a good job of fleshing out the things I was thinking about, and I would support following that approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree in part and not so much the other.

Yes, the opening statement may need improving upon, however the previous statement

Folk religion is a term applied loosely and vaguely to less-organized local practices. It is also called paganism, shamanism, animism, ancestor worship, matriarchal religion, or totemism

Is untrue and misleading.

The grouping of the ancient religions are indeed because they have certain ideologies in common plus symbolically some have been said to be relative to one or the other.

I also agree on the elaboration of Ashanti and Nupe in reference to present discussions.

Otelemuyen 20:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Summary of differences

Here is a combined diff of the recent changes, as they stand now: [8].

The old introduction to the Folk section was:

Folk religion is a term applied loosely and vaguely to less-organized local practices. It is also called paganism, shamanism, animism, ancestor worship, matriarchal religion, or totemism, although not all of these elements are necessarily present in local belief systems. The category of "folk religion" can generally include anything that is not part of an organization. Modern neopagan movement draws on folk religion for inspiration to varying degrees.

The new introduction is:

The term "folk" generally describes its familiarity; a permeation of traditions, where "traditional" in this context means "indigenous, that which is aboriginal or foundational, handed down from generation to generation..."[cite] such as Yoruba religion, San religion, Santería, Candomblé, Umbanda, Vodou, Oyotunji, Australian Aboriginal religion, Native American religion, Maya religion, Virgin of Guadalupe.

Going down the list in the old version:

1. The first item, about African traditional religion is gone, with a small amount of it moved into the introductory paragraph.
2. The second item, about folk religions of the Americas, has been moved down. It used to include Aztec religion and Inca religion, but both have now been removed. Maya religion remains, and is repeated twice, in the introduction and also here.
3. The third item, about Australian Aboriginal culture, has been moved down and re-worded.
4. The fourth item, about Chinese folk religion, is unchanged, except that the bold font format of the main subject is removed, as it is in all the items.
5. The fifth item, about Korean religion, has had the following text deleted: "Unlike Japanese Shinto, Korean shamanism was never codified and Buddhism was never made a social necessity. In some areas these traditions remain prevalent, but Korean-influenced Christianity is also influential in society and politics in South Korea."
6. The sixth item, about Japanese religion, has been considerably abbreviated.
7. The last item, about Spiritualism has been deleted entirely (which may be OK, although it probably merits discussion, and each of the other changes almost certainly needs to be discussed).

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I point out that this article's list shall include only still-alive religions, as it is clearly specified above in the article. So I do not understand why Aztec religion and Inca religion have been re-introduced. If we decide to list all religions even dead, there are Lots of other religions to add such as Roman Rleigions, Egyptian religions ect. But this article's list shall simply remain an overview, not a complete list (for which there is another article). So I strongly suggest to remove all not-still-alive religions such as Atzec and Inca ones. A ntv (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. But as I said, the page now lists Mayan religion twice. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Woops, in addition to Maya twice, I see that Aztec and Inca have now been put back. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I would like to propose the following. The main thing I'm proposing is to revert the recent changes to the Folk Religions section per the diff at the top of the talk section just above, including restoring the bold font formats to be consistent with everything else on the page. However, that reversion would be subject to the following exceptions:

1. We keep the new image.
2. We keep the new introductory sentence, about "folk" and "traditional", up to the place where the citation is (ie, leaving out the long list that follows the citation, most of which will have been restored to the bullet list below it). We make that new sentence the fourth sentence of the introductory section, coming just before what had been the sentence about modern neopaganism. (Maybe we do some copyediting of the new sentence and the neopaganism sentence.)
3. We delete any religions from the section that are no longer in existence.
4. We consider deleting the bullet point about spiritualism.

--Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Rather than us trying to parse all the exceptions, it might be easier if you type up your proposed wording - here, or in a sandbox - for review.

I suggest that for compliance with MOS:BOLD, we remove the bold from all of the bullet point entries in the article. We are not "defining" the terms per se, so I don't believe that "Description (definition, association) lists (example: Glossary of the American trucking industry)" applies here. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Both of your suggestions are good ones. I see below that other editors are way ahead of me, and have, in effect, parsed what I suggested, so I'm happy to work with what they have started. As for the bold font, my main concern is just that we need to be consistent. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggested text...

A broad category of traditional religions that includes shamanism and elements of animism and ancestor worship, where 'traditional' means "indigenous, that which is aboriginal or foundational, handed down from generation to generation…". These are religions that are closely associated with a particular group of people, ethnicity or tribe; they often have no formal creeds or sacred texts. Some faiths are syncretic, fusing diverse religious beliefs and practices.

• African traditional religions: Yoruba, Khoisan, Akan, Nupe
• Chinese folk religion is primarily a social practice including popular elements of Confucianism and Taoism with some remnants of Mahayana Buddhism. New religious movements include Falun Gong and I-Kuan Tao.
• Other folk religions in Asia-Pacific region: Korean (e.g. Cheondoism)...Japanese....Vietnamese (Cao Dai)...Micronesia (Modekngei)
• Australian Aboriginal mythology....
• Folk religions of the Americas: Native American religion, Santería, Vodou, Rastafari movement, Brazil (Candomblé, Umbanda)

Folk religions are often omitted as a category in surveys even in countries where they are widely practiced, e.g. in China.

ok for me.A ntv (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Happy New Year. Vacarme (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments on suggested text (this version) :

• The first "sentence" is not a grammatically complete sentence. Possibly it should start "The term 'folk' refers to a broad category..."
• The word "syncretic" should not be italicised, but it should probably be wiki-linked.
• For stylistic reasons, each bullet point should generally be the same part of speech (or whole sentence), or general form. Currently we have a mixture of:
  • Class/category: instance, instance, instance
  • Complete sentence.
  • Australian Aboriginal mythology....

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggested text, version2

The term 'folk' refers to a broad category of traditional religions that includes shamanism and elements of animism and ancestor worship, where 'traditional' means "indigenous, that which is aboriginal or foundational, handed down from generation to generation…". These are religions that are closely associated with a particular group of people, ethnicity or tribe; they often have no formal creeds or sacred texts. Some faiths are syncretic, fusing diverse religious beliefs and practices.

• African traditional religions, e.g: Yoruba, Khoisan, Akan, Nupe and Badimo.
• Chinese folk religion, e.g.: Confucianism and Taoism with some remnants of Mahayana Buddhism. New religious movements include Falun Gong and I-Kuan Tao.
• Other folk religions in Asia-Pacific region, e.g.: Cheondoism, Korean shamanism, Shinbutsu-shūgō, Cao Dai and Modekngei.
• Australian Aboriginal mythology.
• Folk religions of the Americas, e.g.: Native American religion, Santería, Vodou, Rastafari movement, Candomblé and Umbanda.

Folk religions are often omitted as a category in surveys even in countries where they are widely practiced, e.g. in China.

References

Vacarme (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Version 2 reads better than Version 1, and I think it goes in the right direction. We may want to consider expanding some of the bullet points, but I think it's a good start. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The single quoted 'folk' and 'traditional' should probably be in italics (and not in quotes) per WP:WORDSASWORDS. If not italics then double-quotes for consistency. Otherwise it looks OK to me. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I recently added a 20 symbol image (diff), but this was reverted to a 12 symbol. Do you prefer a Twenty symbol or Twelve symbol image?Pass a Method talk 20:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Update Sowlos has suggested a compromise image by creating a 16 symbols image as an intermediate number. Pass a Method talk 13:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

As you should have noticed, John Carter (talk · contribs) reopened the RfC. His reasons are bellow. As such, I have delayed implementing Ian.thomson (talk · contribs)'s compromise per further discussion.
—Sowlos 20:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: Refactored into multiple sections for clarity and readability.
—Sowlos 18:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

12

4x5=20

1. The twelve vs twenty 2. Alternative choices 3. Suggestions and notices

The twelve vs twenty

• Twenty symbol for me, because this article is titled "religion" not "largest religions". This article also has a sub-section about new religious movements, and NRM's are usually smaller. Also the 20 symbol image does not include any symbols for religions numbering in the dozens, hndreds or even couple thousands. The 12 symbol image furthermore does not cover any Japanese religions. This is problematic because there are arond a hundred of Japanese religions and we should at least cover the largest. NRM's are further a major topic in academic discussions about religion hence to leave NRM's out would be undue in regards to reliable sources. Finally i think that the twelve image symbol is more appropriate for the an article which focuses on only the classical world religions, unlike this article which has a broader scope. 20:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Twenty symbol is ok. The issue of have only the "more prominent" religion included is not conclusive, because it is a POV to choose 3, 6, 12 or 20. So it is better for 20, which is graphically more clean.A ntv (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• The current Twelve symbol version has the religions: Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism, Christianity, Chinese folk religion, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Paganism, Shinto, Sikhism, and Taoism. The top twelve religions on http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html (that have symbols) are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Chineese traditional, Buddhism, Sikhism, Juche, Spiritism, Judaism, Baha'i, Jainism, Shinto. There's a good deal of overlap, as there should be. Ranking religions by number of adherents is fairly common practice, and though it's an impefect way of looking at things, it works better than any alternatives I've seen suggested. (Of course, some prominence should be given to historically important religions that have largely died out, such as Zoroastrianism.)

  The new list adds 10 new religions to the list: Cao Dai, Druidism, Eckankar, Raelism, Satanism, Tenrikyo, Thelema, Unitarian Universalism, Wicca, and Zoroastrianism, and inexplicably drops Chinese folk religion (the 5th largest religion) and Paganism. I'm fine with adding Cao Dai and Zoroastrianism to the list, but the rest give an incredible amount of weight to tiny new religious movements. Many of these religions have just a few thousand members, compared with the millions (or billions) needed to make it into the top 20. So if it's POV we're worried about, then we should be careful to stick close to the sources, instead of just adding religions according to our own whims. Adherents.com is a good source, and I propose that we stick close to that. I challenge anyone to find a good reputable source about world religions that lists Raelism side by side with Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Adjwilley, is there asny wikipedia guideline that says religions with more adherents are more notable than religions with fewer adherents? Pass a Method talk 07:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Also the reason i dropped paganism and chinese folk religions ie because those are not single religions, but rather umbrella terms. Pass a Method talk 07:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Adjwilley, adherents.com as well as wikipedia takes geographic scope into consideration, see WP:NONPROFIT Pass a Method talk 08:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made a new proposal below that takes geographic scope and history into consideration. As for "umbrella terms", Christianity is also an umbrella term, so perhaps you should have dropped that as well. :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Adjwilley, i meant to say "blanket term". Paganism groups together religions with completely different origins. CFR groups together religions of completely different origins. Catholicism, Protestantism etc. have similar origins. Pass a Method talk 22:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Even Christianity draws pieces of it's belief and tradition from multiple sources. The question is whether they have formed into a mostly contiguous body of belief and tradition (within reason, as many religions have sects). It can be argued that Chinese Folk Religion and "Paganism" meet this requirement. (I quote the latter, because "contemporary Paganism" often refers to European traditions, which do share common heritage, instead all religions which can be termed "pagan". Many sources on the matter discuss and take an opinion on this issue.) Of course, it is not for us to make this determination. It is for the sources to decide whether a label represents a "religion" or other category.
—Sowlos 07:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• No preference between 20 or 12 symbols, but I would put them in order of number of adherents rather than alphabetical order. This will give greater prominence to larger religions. — goethean ॐ 15:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Current 12 symbols

1. The 20 symbol image by Pass a Method (talk · contribs) haphazardly adds several groups, most of them obscure.
2. Pass a Method has shown a preference to giving several of those religions weight (such as at Religion#New religions). This is beginning to look like POV pushing.
3. The said 20 symbol image senselessly removes Chinese folk religion.
4. It is not a matter of covering "religion" not "largest religions". It is a matter of giving due weight. We cannot possibly fit all religious groups in one image, so we need an objective standard. Previous consensus appeared to be for size.

—Sowlos 17:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• 12 symbol image looks best to me. Having a multi-symbol image at the top of the article gives deserved weight to idea that religions come in all shapes and sizes. I like the 12 symbol picture because the symbols are larger and closer, it has more impact. Even if the 20 symbol image was made this way, it would seem too crouded, too busy. I do oppose creating a list of religions in this article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Twelve symbols - I think the symbols are fine, but we do have to be selective. The current selection seems reasonable. There is nothing wrong in looking at statistics to make the determination. StAnselm (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• 12 symbols (or less). This looks like a reasonable set. The more we open it up, the more arguments we're going to have in the future. Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Twelve (third choice, weak support), Eight (first choice, weak support), No Symbols (first choice, strong support). Strong oppose anything larger. Twenty is ridiculous - it adds unnecessary small religions and sects, is too "busy", and the trees are lost for the forest. Some point a determination has to be made, symbols of all religions would be dozens of pages of jpegs (per StAnselm) - and removes one necessary large one. "Paganism", "Traditional Chinese religion", etc. are not religions but are groupings, like "Abrahamic religions".

If one is going to get in to non-large religions, there is no symbol for "paganism" in general, and if there are multiple kinds of paganism represented, so should be multiple sects of larger religions that have unique symbols (Ismaili [stylized lion in Arabic script], Sunni Islam; Catholic [cross with corpus], Orthodox [Byzantine cross], and Protestant [plain cross] Christianity, etc.) - each sect of Christianity is in the top five religions - larger than anything but Islam and Hinduism, and, for EO, Buddhism - in its own right; the list would be something like Catholicism (1.1 bil), Protestantism (750 mil), E Orthodoxy (300 mil). Too many symbols get lost in the mix when it gets even as large as it is; it should have been six or eight at max.

If the twelve-symbol is not adopted, I do, however, believe that Zoroastrianism (one of the great religions, even if much reduced today) should be added, along with one, and max one, symbol each, for general "New Age" and general "(Neo-)Paganism" - not multiple symbols for different sects of each (see above). My choice for "Eight" would be: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Shinto. Bahai'ism is tiny and new, but it would be an acceptable ninth. I reiterate that all of the above is provisional, if my first choice, no symbols, gains no traction. Some religions don't have a symbol, and some don't like being identified by one, either, in addition to all of the other excellent arguments (adds nothing of value to the article, is unnecessarily cluttered, etc.) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 12:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Twelve I am also fine with twelve Pass a Method talk 22:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Twelve Looks less busy. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternative choices

• Largest sixteen in alphabetical order - Looking at the 12 and 20 symbol versions side by side, I'd like some combination of the two. Shenism shouldn't be dropped, but there are more followers of Cao Dai, Tenrikyo, and Zoroastrianism then there are neo-pagans. Going with the largest number of adherents for X number of religions might be a good way to decide what symbols should be included. Although ordering them by number of adherents is more of a pain than alphabetical order, figuring out if religions are within the top 10 or 20 shouldn't cause as much trouble. While Eckenkar, Raelianism, and Satanism are interesting additions, they're not in the top 20. Ignoring belief systems that we cannot find any sort of symbol for, we're left with the following list:

• 1 Christianity: 2.1 billion
• 2 Islam: 1.5 billion
• 3 Hinduism: 900 million
• 4 Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
• 5 Buddhism: 376 million
• 6 Sikhism: 23 million
• 7 Judaism: 14 million
• 8 Baha'i: 7 million
• 9 Jainism: 4.2 million
• 10 Shinto: 4 million
• 11 Cao Dai: 4 million
• 12 Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
• 13 Tenrikyo: 2 million
• 14 Neo-Paganism: 1 million
• 15 Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
• 16 Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
• 17 Scientology: 500 thousand

This site (which is the Encyclopedia Britannica according to Adherents.com) gives roughly the same order.

Since 17 doesn't play well with others, 16 would be the way to go, with a 4x4 grid like so:

• Bahai, Buddhism, Cao Dai, Christianity,
• Chinese folk religion, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism,
• Judaism, Paganism, Rastafarianism, Sikhism,
• Shinto, Tenrikyo, Unitarian-Universalism, Zoroastrianism

Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I would be willing to create the 16 image but i am unable to produce the Rastafari symbol because that one is difficult. Pass a Method talk 18:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with this. However, are we sure about the Zoroastrian number. Most estimates I've seen come under 200 thousand.

I can make the SVG if needed.
—Sowlos 18:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing that on the EB link, but they're only counting Parsis specifically. This New York Times article from 2006 also says somewhere in the 124-190 thousand range. That could knock it down and have Scientology take its place, but other estimates give them a 100-200 thousand range. 127-190 thousand averages to 157 thousand, while 100-200 thousand averages to 150. While I hate to break away from the numbers reasoning alone, Zoroastrianism is also more influential and does not have the German government claiming it's not a religion, and (on more practical grounds) its religious symbol would be more distinct from the Christian cross. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will have time to update the 4x4 tomorrow.
—Sowlos 18:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections. Pass a Method talk 19:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• A 16-symbol image is a good compromise, with Zoroastrianism instead of Scientology; numbers of adherents to a religion are notoriously soft. While Zoroastrianism has influenced a number of religions with millions of adherents each, in my view the Church of Scientology is a religion of convenience (primarily for tax purposes). Miniapolis (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• 16 symbol image proposed by ian thompson as a compromise. Pass a Method talk 12:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions and notices

• Suggestion Perhaps we should create more 12 symbol images with different religions on them and change it every once in a while. I don't think it should matter what religions are shown on the image, but there should always be some easily recognized symbols. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Notice I withdraw the rfc on the basis of a compromise by Sowlos to create a new image. Pass a Method talk 20:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• And I have reinstated the RfC because so far as I can see the alleged "consensus" was with only one person, and an agreement between only two people, possibly ignoring those of the other editors, in a discussion which has involved as many as have been involved here is hard not to see as problematic in that it seems to be "cherry-picking" for a consensus, rather than seeking or acting in accord with an actual consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS. Also, I believe that the proposed changes themselves are seriously problematic, and very possibly a rather obvious violation of WP:RECENTISM. The agreement seems to be show a definite bias toward the modern era, and that sort of bias is still a bias. Having reviewed the most highly regarded of the most recent reference books on the broad subject of "religion" in general, the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religions, it includes separate sections in its "synoptic outline"/table of contents regarding each of the following groups or types of groups, and if we are seeking true NPOV, I cannot see any valid reason to not believe that each of them should be included, provided they have separate images which would be able to be included. However, I do acknowledge that I may be in error restoring the original RfC. In retrospect, that one seems, honestly, to itself contain several flaws in thinking, including the fairly obvious implication that only the two choices supplied by one individual editor could reasonably be considered. I am asking nother admin to review that, and see whether it would be more appropriate to restart my concerns as a separate RfC. In any event, the most significant religious groups, based on the separate headings in the encyclopedia mentioned above, include:
• African-American religions; African religions; Altaic religions; Ancient Near Eastern religions; Arctic religions; Australian indigenous religions; Baltic religion; Buddhism; Caribbean religions; Celtic religion; Chinese religion; Christianity; Egyptian religion; European religions; Germanic religion; Greek religion; Hellenistic religions; Hinduism; Indian religions; Indo-European religions; Inner Asian religions; Iranian religions; Islam; Israelite religion; Jainism; Japanese religions; Judaism; Korean religion; Mandaean religion; Mesoamerican religions; Mesopotamian religions; North American Indian religions; Oceanic religions; Prehistoric religions; Roman religion; Sikhism; Slavic religion; South American Indian religions; Southeast Asian religions; Thracian religion; Tibetan religions; Uralic religions; Zoroastrianism.

• At least some of those mentioned above, which, as I said, have multiple articles in an encyclopedia as well as a separate heading, I think probably do have images which could reasonably be included. I'm thinking in particular of Zoroastianism, the Mandaean religion, Greco-Roman religion (which, while not having an "official" image, has several readily identifiable well known images), possibly Tibetan Buddhism (which most of the articles in "Tibetan religions" relate to), and also think it would not be unreasonable to include the specific images of any new religious movements which relate to the older faiths which have separate sections in that work. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There is now an objection, so I have refrained from making any changes to the image.

Unless, I can think of a significant reason to object to a tabled compromise or other proposal, I do not consensus block and will defer to the direction of consensus. My specific preferences have already been described above. Under them, I would actually be inclined to disagree with Ian.thomson's comprise.

so far as I can see the alleged "consensus" was with only one person

Two people supported Pass a Method's twenty symbol image, three the current twelve, two no image at all, and two with no specific preference. Under Ian.thomson's compromise it is conceivable for most the aforementioned to agree or at least acquiesce. No voiced opposition can be interoperated as such. Of course this now moot, as you have raised several strong issues.

The agreement seems to be show a definite bias toward the modern era

Previously, the top image has been constructed based upon the World's current major religions, but you have a point. This is supposed to be the article on Religion, not Modern religion. (Unfortunately, many pre-modern religions have more dubious visual representation, something an image index depends on.) However, this makes me notice that the whole article has bias towards the modern era.

I cannot see any valid reason to not believe that each of them should be included, provided they have separate images which would be able to be included.

Do you mean to do away with the main index image, giving each religion its own, or add several other category based indexes?
—Sowlos 09:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for misrepresenting the two supports as only one. And I guess, regarding adding images, I was suggesting adding individual images of those specific groups. A 'group image" should also probably include, if possible, an image relating to Yoruba religion, because at least a few recent works on religion have declared it a major religion, based on the fact that Voodoo, Santeria, and other "Afro-(x)" religions are seen by academics as substantively deriving from it.

I would also, maybe, consider replacing the images with one single image, from one of the variations of the Parliament of the World's Religions which have been held over the years, preferably showing as many variant types of leaders as possible. I tend to think that such an image, showing religious leaders, is probably preferable because it tends to both indicate the diversity more clearly, as a group image would probably also include people from traditions that are much less well known than the big ones, and it would also emphasize the "human" aspect of religion, which I think important because despite their various diverse claims to the contrary, so far as can be absolutely objectively determined, they are all some form of human construct. Alternately, maybe an image of the Temple of All Religions might be broadly acceptable. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree adding adding individual images of ... specific groups if they are located in relevant sections. I believe the Religious groups subsections do this within reason, but could do better.

I (like others here) have no objections to including other groups in the leading index image if done so according to a pre-established and impartial criteria. This is fairly easy for contemporary religion, but not so much for past religions.

Replacing the current lead image with one of major religious figures gathered from around the world is a fantastic idea. After all, religion is a human activity. However, is that doable? Isn't the "Parliament of the World's Religions" an irregularly occurring event organized by a fairly low profile Chicagoan trust?

The Kazan Temple of All Religions is another great suggestion, but that is the product of one man and does not represent human religion, rather his attempt at constructing an interfaith monument. I think that may have a place in the interfaith section, not the lead.
—Sowlos 12:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There was at least one image from a recent meeting of the Parliament included as the cover of a book I owned a few years back by the Dalai Lama, which showed him and a number of other attendees at one of the sessions. I'm not sure if that image was PD or not, but there might be others that are. Alternately, the black and white image of the meeting from the 1800s might not be the best possible image, but it is almost certainly PD and available for use in this way. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fewer, rather than more. I don't have an opinion as to the exact best number, or the exact best choices to include, but I think that we have to start from the fact that we can never incorporate every religion (unless the image becomes bigger than the text of the page!), and therefore we have to consider WP:DUE in determining what to include or exclude. I think that John Carter makes an important point, that we should not skew it towards recentism. I'm not persuaded that we should omit such an image entirely, and I had no problem with the current image, but I'd be fine with making a few substitutions and/or a few additions, so long as we don't add a large number – 20 probably being too many. In any case, I prefer listing them alphabetically. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Update: I like Shii's idea of a collage of rituals, instead of symbols, described in the "no symbols" section of this talk. I think that's an idea that should be pursued. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Depictions of ritual dose seem to represent religion (essentially an activity) better than "logos". Logos for several notable religious groups also border on OR.

I support this so long as we represent the same groups. The result of this RfC's core question appears to be keep the current cross-section of religious groups as is.
—Sowlos 17:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Proposal for guideline - I like Ian Tompson's suggestion above, suggesting that we go by size with a few exceptions, but I don't think size is the only thing that matters. Therefore I propose this set of guidelines for choosing religions for the image.
  • Preference should be given to larger religions over smaller religions.
  • It is preferable that religions have a significant international following.
  • When choosing between "traditional" or "new" religions, preference should be given to the historic, traditional, stable religions with significant influence in society, politics, and economic affairs, over the short-lived, novel, charismatic popular faiths. (Robert Ellwood makes this distinction, dividing religions into "Temple" religions vs. "Marketplace" religions.) This means giving Zorastrianism preference over Scientology.
  • A slight preference should be made toward religions that have a sacred text containing their theology vs. those that rely on unorganized customs.
  • No preference should be made between Eastern and Western faiths.

As for the actual religions, I would prefer something that looked like this: Buddhism, Chinese folk religion, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism. Compared to Ian's list of 16, this list omits Bahai (a relatively new religious movement), Cao Dai (also very new), Paganism, Rastafarianism, Tenrikyo, and Unitarian-Universalism (all relatively smaller). Compared to our current list of 12 religions, it drops Bahai and Paganism, and adds Zoroastrianism. It also leaves one spot open that could be filled with something else, perhaps Bahai, Paganism, or another large faith from Ian's list. It could even be rotated between various religions, similar to what Richard-of-Earth suggested. (As a side note, I would favor replacing Chinese folk religion with Confucianism, but since the latter is arguably not a religion but a philosophy that influences religion, I don't expect that to get much traction.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the ideals listed but not sure how it yields to a specific list. Care to actually apply numerical weights and run the math? Or at least some kind of systematic application of the standards chosen. And should the list be alphabetical or follow the priority arrived at? --Smkolins (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No symbols

• No symbols Neither image actually enhances the article, nor provides any "added value" to readers. Nor is the list of major religions remotely complete in any case, nor are the symbols the only (or even primary) symbols associated with each religion. The obvious rational result is to deprecate having any such image. Collect (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• No symbols per Collect. There is no logical way to decide how many religions to 'represent' (or even what constitutes 'a religion'), no way to arrive at an objective method to decide what symbol (if any) should represent a religion, and no reason to have arbitrary and abstract symbols in the infobox anyway.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 16:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• No symbols whatsoever Implying that a "religion" is an organization with a "logo" is original research like nothing else. This article should not have any header image. Shii (tock) 09:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There seems to be too much voting here and too little discussion. I would love to hear any evidence that the use of "logos" improves the reader's understanding of religion and adds to the encyclopedic merit of the article. People do not seem to be responding to the "no symbols" faction at all. For a closing administrator to decide this merely on the number of votes rather than the quality of argument would be very annoying. Shii (tock) 23:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with you that consensus should be determined by the quality of argument, and not by the quantity of !votes, for sure. I think this question verges too much into WP:DECORATIVE. One can always imagine an argument why the symbols image doesn't tell readers enough about what those symbols represent. But one can make analogous arguments about images of an incense burner, or any of the other images that are on the page. Many of the images on the page arise from individual religions. A desirable characteristic of a composite of symbols is that it succinctly draws attention to the diversity of religious experiences. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
      • If we want real, non-decorative information, the top image should be a collage of notable religious rituals, like the Jews, African-Americans, etc. pages. That would be very satisfying to me.
        At the very least, instead of "logos" the corner should have photographic examples of common symbols. Like, a cross for Christianity is fine, but Jews don't define themselves by the Star of David; there are much more important markers. And the torii is a common architectural element, not a "logo". Shii (tock) 19:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
        • That's a very good idea! I could certainly support that approach. I think the main thing to be careful about would be not to make the collage too busy. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support for no symbols based on Collect and the rationale I give above in my ordered-by-preference !vote. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 12:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• No symbols - they don't add any particular value to the article. Mitch Ames (talk)
• No symbols - I agree with the above comments that overall the symbols image adds nothing of value to the article. Some religions cannot be represented by a single symbol and even if they do have a symbol, it will always be a contentious issue how many symbols to include and exactly which ones. So, lets avoid an unnecessary problem and the tedious editing and reverting and simply delete the image. Vacarme (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible (new) consensus

If you look at the above, and look at multiple !votes in different sections by the same contributors (such as me, voting both for 12 and 8 weakly, and for no symbols strongly), and weight the arguments even slightly (I believe that's not even needed for what I'm proposing, technically, as absolute numbers work out in its favour too, but RfC is not a vote, it's a debate [link to relevant policy/guideline/essay that I forget... maybe WP:NOTVOTE]), there appears to be a consensus forming, or formed, to delete the picture and go with no visual representation. The arguments put forward are good; the number of supporters is great. Another argument is a "top 5" religion (Buddhism) can not be represented visually, and, as was brought up, some of the symbols border on OR, and, as was also brought up, some religions don't want to be visually represented (see Calvinism, and the various Muslims above who argue over crescent and star v. the name Allah in Arabic script). Further, the RfC needs to be refactored so that a new vote/debate can be taken on the new options which have gained traction since it was first called, and so that it is easier to evaluate the consensus. Sorry for the bad grammar. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 11:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

...there appears to be a consensus forming, or formed, to delete the picture and go with no visual representation.

Hardly. Only six voted for no symbols.
—Sowlos 16:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not. Notwithstanding vote-counting, I agree with Sowlos. I'm not exactly sure what has had the greatest strength of argument, but it isn't eliminating any image. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There is no particular reason that the template shouldn't include some image or other, but there does seem to be some sort of indication that the majority of those involved agree that the template would be better if it has at least one. Like I said above, I myself think that, if anyone can find one of the group shots from one of the recent Parliaments of the Worlds Religions, that might be the best option, because the image I remember at least showed some Amerind, African, and other individuals of "indigenous religions," as well as the Dalai Lama and a few others who were clearly associated with some of the major religions. That sort of image, if a good one can be found, might be the best alternative. John Carter (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are a couple of possible images (leaving aside copyright issues): IV Congress and III Congress Vacarme (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I despise editing this page at this point because things are constantly being added with no regard for sourcing or undue weight (most recently, a "parody religions" section). But if there is a consensus to forego deciding an "optimum number" of logos, and to instead find representative images of "world religions" like I suggested above, I will happily find and propose images. Shii (tock) 06:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dawkins - Baynes ref about Hitler

This edit adds the statement that:

Dawkins adds that Hitler in fact, repeatedly affirmed a strong belief in Christianity,^[1] ...

1. Baynes, Norman H., ed. (1969). The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939. New York: Howard Fertig. pp. 19-20, 37, 240, 370, 371, 375, 378, 382, 383, 385-388, 390-392, 398-399, 402, 405-407, 410, 1018, 1544, 1594.

I suspect the reference cited supports the statement that "Hitler ... repeatedly affirmed a strong belief in Christianity". but I doubt it supports the claim that "Dawkins adds that Hitler ...", which is the essence of the phrase preceding the ref tag. Thus the cite as it stands is misleading. Probably the ref should be to (quoting the edit comment) "R.Dawkins ref, page 309". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

the influence of health on religion

This edit says "... the influence of health on religion is ...". Should it be "the influence of religion on health ...", which would appear more consistent with the preceding text? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I changed it. The way the title of the cited source is worded, it's pretty clear that this is what the source is saying, and the switch is a pretty easy typo for any editor to have made. Good catch, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed "group shot" images

Having noticed the conversation has died down a little, I want to call attention to these images of the Fourth Congress of World Religions and the Third Congress of World religions which Vacarme was so kind to search for and find earlier . I do think that, perhaps, one or more of these images, possibly cropped or edited a bit if necessary, might be the among the best possible "neutral" images of religion out there. Are there any opinions about possibly using one of them, in some form, in the template? John Carter (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that this is a better option than a collection of symbols for the lead image. I like it. I don't see any need to combine both images, because they each illustrate pretty much the same thing. I think the main thing might just be the shape/geometry of the image, so that it fits well on the page. For that reason, I'd be inclined to use the one from the Third Congress, cropped so that it's more square. There's no need for the floor and ceiling, just the people and some of the backdrop behind them. That's a pretty easy crop to make. I assume the images are freely licensed? If so, we could do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I oppose to these pictures because 1) there is a overweight of Islam and Christianity over the other religions, and 2) a symbol can be a better representation of what a religion teaches rather than an images of ministers, and 3) these pics don't seem to be copyright free. A ntv (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it, points 1 and 3 are compelling, and might well make me change my mind. About copyright, that's not the issue for file use. Every image has some sort of copyright. The important question is whether they are freely licensed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is an "overweight" of Islamic and Christian representatives but they reflect the world as it is, surely? Look at the table under Religious groups. At the Third Congress there were also delegations representing Buddhism, Judaism, Taoism, Shintoism, Hinduism and even Zoroastrianism (see http://www.religions-congress.org/content/view/214/34/lang,english/) whom it is reasonable to assume are also in the photograph. In my view this is as good as it gets. If you're hoping for equal numbers for every religion, it ain't gonna happen. Vacarme (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"a symbol can be a better representation of what a religion teaches" - For the most part I fail to see how the current symbols "represent what a religion teaches"; perhaps you could explain? I went to a Christian school, so I know that Jesus died on a cross, hence the symbol - although I do recall being taught that there was much more to Christianity (and Jesus' own teachings) than his death. But I'm curious as to how the other symbols represent what each religion teaches - and how their inclusion helps the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that an image of "religion" should be people doing religious actions, rather than a bunch of religious leaders whom no one will recognize or a bunch of symbols which communicate very little, especially to those who do not know what they symbolize. If there were a single image, I would choose a person praying. A collage could make use of other widely characteristically religious actions such as sacrificing an animal, meditating, singing, or conducting some kind of ritual. A collage would also allow the use of people of different religions. --JFH (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Commons:Category:Ceremonies by religion, Commons:Category:Praying men, and Commons:Category:Praying women contain images that might be worth considering. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

How about something like this? Vacarme (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

collage of religious images

I like that approach. My only concern is that the collage is rather busy, so it either needs to be made sufficiently large, or it would need to have fewer parts. Also, could it be made so that the individual parts do not cut into (overlap) one another, so that it is easier to see the boundaries between them? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The collage is indeed busy but I think it's unavoidable if one wants to capture the breadth of "people doing religious actions" which means including: men and women, children and adults, Eastern and Western, 'blacks' and 'whites', who individually or in groups are praying, venerating, sacrificing animals, etc etc (and maybe meditating which is currently not shown.) The original images are large so it's not a problem to enlarge the collage. Anyway, just a suggestion. Vacarme (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I endorse this collage wholeheartedly. Any objection to using it now, until a better image is found? Shii (tock) 01:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. A collage of practice is probably the best visual representation of religion itself — better than collections of leaders or symbols — and it this one is composed from some very good images. As an editors of the logo grids, I think the current image is great and should stay. However, this doesn't solve the representation/coverage topic.

—Sowlos 14:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

one of the images in the collage is a little violent, I mean right-lower one, can we change that one?.Kiatdd (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Animal sacrifice is not an uncommon religious practice.

—Sowlos 20:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

this is not a matter of being common or not common, that particular image is gruesome. Kiatdd (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is. It is a matter of reflecting common instances of religious practice.

That is your opinion and calling others' religious practices 'gruesome' is quite rude.

—Sowlos 17:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible rudeness notwithstanding, I think it's quite reasonable to look at it in terms of due or undue weight. I'm ambivalent. I somewhat agree with Sowlos that, in effect, WP:NOTCENSORED applies. On the other hand, I'm unconvinced that it is really due weight to give it this much prominence in the lead image (I don't think that animal sacrifice really gets much text on this page, for instance), and it would really be a pretty simple matter to swap it out for another image. I'd like to hear what more editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If animal sacrifice is too gruesome, we should also remove the top left picture, which includes (in the top half) a depiction of an even more gruesome event.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Ames (talk • contribs) 09:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

we can just wait to get more feedback, if there were more negative comments then we can follow Tryptofish's advice.Kiatdd (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as the lead image is inclusive/exclusive a neverending discussion follows, because after a while some religion will appear and want to be represented in that image, the best possible image is something that does not belong to any religion(s), such as 1 and 2, the second image is in dutch but somebody can change the captions. the composite image has problems because somebody is decapitating an animal, why children have covered their eyes? where are zorothastians and jews? etc.. Kiatdd (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

How about this one? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC).

you have included 5 religions and excluded the rest. This means trouble. Kiatdd (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Kiatdd, I have low enthusiasm for demographic maps or charts, because they really are far-removed from the experience of religion, focusing instead on dry numbers. Any image composite can be nitpicked over what it includes (covered eyes) or excludes (some religions), although we can certainly consider other images to include instead. I think that the discussion about symbols shows that there is some consensus that we don't have to include every religion in a lead figure. Perhaps, instead of trying to start with a composite, we should start by nominating individual figures that could be combined into a composite once we select the individual components? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes a pie chart is not attractive I suggested it as a last solution, so how are you going to select images to make the collage?Kiatdd (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

By listing possible images here in talk, and then discussing which ones to use. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 March 2013

I am hoping to edit the sub-section "New" under the section "Religious groups" to include: Pastafarianism - A relatively new religion ( created in order to worship and pay respect to the invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster who is seen by its followers to be the creator of everything. Minnanen1 (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Pasfarianism/FSM is held by reliable sources to be a parody religion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

PastafarianISM/FSM is already mentioned (and wikilinked) in the Parody religions section.Editor2020 (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Einstein on Science and Religion

Found a gem in an old newsletter from the 1940's by Albert Einstein. He has a lot of meaty things to say about the relationship about Science and Religion, so I've posted an addition to the "Science" section on this article. I thought that such a big figure in the realm of science must be mentioned in such a section.Matipop (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Giordano Bruno

Why is Giordano Bruno, a Renaissance Man, spoken of being in THE MIDDLE AGES. He has nothing to do with the middle ages. I suggest this is changed because the fact that the FACTS are non sequitur shows that the constant attempts to discredit the Middle Ages is still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.225.130 (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made an edit to clarify this point, although I'll point out that there is chronological overlap between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of the word

Also found, a good addition to the "Etymology" section of the article. James Proctor explores the implication of the etymology of "Religion."Matipop (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Informative additions to Wikipedia articles are always welcome, but what reason is there to quote this man over any of the other millions who have written on this topic? Selected quotations from significant figures in the relevant topic are common, but authoritative articles are not generally expanded by simply stringing together assorted quotes. Any opinion could technically be supported that way. As such, I've reverted your addition.
—Sowlos 10:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There's so much to be said about the etymology of “religion” and its non-Enlgish equivalents that someone might as well create a separate article just for that purpose. It's not that uncommon a practice on Wikipedia (see this, this and this). EIN (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the True Definition of "Religion" ?

Here in Wiki, religion define as created human culture...... Refereeing to all holy 'Divine Scriptures and Books' this is not the true definition of term "Religion"...Religion is religion, it is not human religion or belief or thought … it is not human made …..

All the natural people reject Wiki defition but they accept this defintion:

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs" ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion)

Please share to correct and update universal definition of "Religion" as it is inspired to all Holy Prophets and Messengers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eajohali (talk • contribs) 11:16, April 19, 2012‎

One thing that hopefully eveyone can concur with is that religion is a certain type of ideology. One step further, religion is a specifically modern Western concept, used to distinguish superstitious ideologies from non-superstitious ones, traditionally in a cultural/memetic context. In that sense it's similar to the concept of the supernatural, which is used to distinguish imaginary occurrences and beings from actual ones. EIN (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to define teligion. That is why authors use description instead of definition. Every religion consists of two parts; one is the cosmology and the other is the rules of behaviour. Cosmology requires belief and belief makes it easier to accept the rules of behaviour used to govern people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.191.52 (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

All religions

I came across this image and thought it might be appropriate for this article:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/945237_10151593248440155_1527613326_n.jpg

it details all world mythological beliefs and their origin; it maybe more appropriate than focusing only on predominant beliefs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.92.106 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not this image would be permitted under Wikipedia's rules for licensing. Also, I think that it might not be consistent with the majority of source material, because it treats religions as derivatives of geographically-based myths. Thus, for one example, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are presented as having originated completely independently of one another, which is obviously dubious. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Religion vs Philosophy - how does one distinguish?

I was disappointed by the "Definition" section, since it did nothing to clarify for me what tests would establish if a body of thought were a religion or not. Nihilism and Deconstructionism are philosophies. Christianity and Buddhism are religions. "Open Source" is arguably a philosophy, but would not be confused with a religion.

Satanism might fail the test of a philosophy, but how is it a religion? The definition of "religion." isn't clear in the article. Wicca, Santeria, VooDoo, and Kabbalah are examples of Satanisms, as is LaVeyanism. Is "dis-satisfaction guaranteed" satanism? Is "resist no evil?" Are these merely tenets of various ones? Does a religion have to have a written holy book, to qualify? A place of worship?

These questions arise from investigating the enforceability of legislating that Satanism is illegal, by not being a religion at all. Illegal contracts are null and void on their face. It would appear that the 2nd Amendment should protect anything that truly qualifies as "religion." If a religion contradicted other Constitutional rights, would it cease to be a religion, or cease to be protected? Is "law abidingness" part of the definition of religion? If Satanism taught against rule of law, how should it be addressed? Where would one go to meet these adherents, or how should they be informed? 184.76.167.123 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

For future reference, Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion, I will only address the issues in so far as relates to article improvement (the intended purpose of the talk pages), repeat and/or clarify what our articles explain (to see if they remain unclear for the sake of continued article improvement), and correct some misconceptions you've posted (a somewhat accepted practice).

There is no scholarly consensus as to how to define religion (much less any reasonable legal definition), and the article reflects this rather than pushing one view over others. (Also, the second amendment to the US constitution is the right to bear arms, the first amendment covers freedom of religion enough that no city could reasonably attempt to even have a law nominally outlawing Satanism). For how academia has reviewed how Satanists define themselves, see Satanism, which is very much distinct from Wicca, Santeria, Vodou, and especially Kabbalah (and obviously so to anyone who knows anything about these belief systems beyond the names). Atheistic Satanists believe Satan (as depicted by the Christian author John Milton) is merely a literary role model and not an actual spirit. Theistic Satanists vary, but often hold quasi-Gnostic views, such as believing that the real creator of the universe has been vilified under the name Satan while some lesser spirit opposed to the creator pretends to be the god of the fallen world we see. Santeria and Vodou-ists worship the Christian God, but ask Christian saints, ancestor spirits, and other beings that would be called "angels" or "saints" in mainstream Christianity to help them on behalf of the Christian God. Wiccans worship the creator of the universe as God and Goddess (or just Goddess). Common mistakes though. However, that you confuse Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) with Satanism is really offensive. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 June 2013

Not all religions believe in God, the supernatural, or spirits, and even no God at all. Humanist Manifesto I rightfully defines as a RELIGION, with statements in Humanist magazines referring to Humanism as a "faith", with the Humanist bodies in the US enjoying tax exempt religious status. While Buddhism is ultimately atheistic, even though referred to as a religion. I therefore found wiki both inaccurate and inconsistent. 124.183.240.229 (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify what you want changed. The article from what I see doesn't view religion as always being theistic. ~NottNott (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the section on Secularism and irreligion answers your question, but an explicit link to Humanism could be added. Manbooferie (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request July 26, 2013-update to Social Constructionists.

Greetings. There is a reference to an article by Jason Josephson in the notes under the "Social constructionists" subheading. He has a new book "The Invention of Religion in Japan" that has been getting some buzz lately.

Here is a link to a review: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=38984

The exciting thing for me is that Josephson is arguing both that religion is socially constructed, and that non-Europeans had some impact in changing the meaning of the category leading to its eventual disintegration. So Josephson represents a departure or at least a second stage following Fitzgerald and Dubuisson, and with a well-received book from the University of Chicago press he seems to be making some waves in that camp.

So perhaps we might incorporate something about this into the end of the "social constructionists" subheading? Maybe right before "other writers"?

I had something in mind like this (but please edit or add or subtract) whatever you think:

More recently, Jason Ānanda Josephson has argued that before European contact the Japanese had no concept of "religion." Buddhism, Shinto and Confucianism were understood in very different terms and according to very different categories. The Japanese also lacked a fundamental distinction between the sacred and the secular which is a hallmark of the modern concept of religion. In the encounter with global modernity, the Japanese were forced to formulate a category of religion, but it was not was not imposed on them unilaterally. Instead they were able to strategically formulate a meaning for religion that included some Japanese traditions while excluding others (Buddhism became a religion, Confucianism a philosophy, indigenous shamanism a superstition), but this led to the radical transformation of these traditions.

Josephson also argues that "The word “religion” is a fundamentally Eurocentric term that always functions, no matter how well disguised, to describe a perceived similarity to European Christianity."1 Nevertheless, the encounter with non-European traditions (e.g. Buddhism, Confucianism) has put pressure on the meaning of religion, leading to its partial de-christianization. Instead of buttressing the category (or universalizing its definition), because of how heterogenous they are the incorporation of these traditions has forced the definition of religion to become dangerously porous. Basically, he seems to be arguing that the contemporary understand of religion is that of a partially de-Christianized category covering a confused collection of traditions with no possible coherent definition.

1. Josephson, Jason Ānanda. The Invention of Religion in Japan, University of Chicago, p. 9.

Here is work page if that would help: http://religion.williams.edu/faculty/jason-josephson

Anyway just a thought. Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.2.11 (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The Josephson book seems a perfectly good addition to the sources for that section, but perhaps only warrants a couple of sentences rather than two paragraphs - the text on Social constructionists is already too long as it is. Be bold and add it. Manbooferie (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've done my best to make the changes described here. Trimmed a bit from the early part of "Social Constructionists" and then added in a short paragraph about Josephson's book. The book might be notable enough to have its own page, but I'm not sure. Hope that is the edits you wanted. Hosogami (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the social constructionists section is at the top now since this is an extremely influential movement in the 21st century study of religion. Shii (tock) 18:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 September 2013

In the leading line that defines religion please delete "relate humanity to the supernatural" since many religions do not relate humanity to the supernatural and given the consensus by leading authorities that religion need not rely on an appeal to a supernatural. Please insert thereafter: Religion is a world-view belief that nature is governed. Religious assertions are sometimes reinforced by symbolic practices or icons. 65.184.135.88 (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done The note explaining the definition references Geertz. The words "supernatural" and "spirituality" are not found in that source. Changed to a proper Geertzian definition. Shii (tock) 01:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing end quotation mark in Geertz quote under Definition Title on September, 27, 2013

On Definition title there is a quotation of Geertz, but it is missing the end quotation mark, which I assume should be right after "realistic".

Ndvo (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Categories for non-Abrahamic and non-Dharmic religions

I think categorization of religions should be discussed in Wikipedia and some standard categoration should be accepted for use in all Wiki articles. And also that these cateogries should be based on the similarities and common origin, just like the language families. In this article there are abrahamic, indian, iranian, folk and new categories; but those categories should be replaced with something like semitic, indo-european, indian, native american, aboriginal, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.74.8 (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You might want to propose that at WT:WikiProject Religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Grammar in section 5.1 + Whabbabism as separate from Sunni Islam?

In the section on denominations of Islam it says "Other denominations of Islam include Ahmadiyya, Nation of Islam, Ibadi, Sufism, Quranism, non-denominational Muslims and Wahhabism is the dominant Muslim schools of thought in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."

The bit about Wahhabism is kind of confusing. First, its grammar could be fixed up. Second, I'm under the possibly mistaken impression that Wahhabism is simply a school of thought within Sunni Islam. Should it even be considered one of the "other denominations"? Third, even if it is separate, all that extra explanation (which isn't given for the other Islamic denominations) makes the sentence too cluttered. Someone wanting to learn more about Wahhabism can simply click on the link. "Other denominations of Islam include X, Y, Z, and Wahhabism" seems good enough.

Also, should there be a "the" before "Nation of Islam"? Not sure.

69.204.91.53 (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Image of shaman

About these edits: [9], [10], and [11], I'm concerned that deletion of the image runs contrary to the need for this page to provide broad coverage of the topic, and may reflect a POV that certain practices that sources consider to be religious are somehow not "real" religions. It seems to me that shamanistic practices fall within the scope of this page, and I would like to see the image un-deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what the fuss is about the shaman; shamanism is widely considered by anthropologists and scholars to be an important aspect of religion. Shii (tock) 21:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've restored it, but I'm still happy to listen to any opinions to the contrary. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the Shaman image should retained; it absolutely qualifies a religion. However, it looks odd located in the Definitions section and yes, it perhaps also looked misleading placed in the Myths section. Personally I would place it amongst the images in the Religious groups (near Folk). If there are too many images, I would suggest deleting the 'Incense burner in China' as there are examples already shown in the main article image at the top. Manbooferie (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That's reasonable, and I'm fine with moving the images around. If possible, I'd like to retain the incense burner as well, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for lead section

I suggest including the following sentences from the "Definition" section of this article in the lead section:

There are numerous definitions of religion and only a few are stated here. The typical dictionary definition of religion refers to a "belief in, or the worship of, a god or gods"[22] or the "service and worship of God or the supernatural".[23] However, writers and scholars have expanded upon the "belief in god" definitions as insufficient to capture the diversity of religious thought and experience.

It's really a key piece of information and it is well-stated above. I also think it would be fine to add the sentences to the lead and also repeat them in the "Definition" section. Repetition of key information is considered good practice in writing manuals--and I think it also makes sense in writing encyclopedia articles. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No, this is too much historical information for the lede. Shii (tock) 03:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree with Shii. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

African traditional

An editor in good faith has added a long and detailed list of African religions, from article Traditional African religion. IMHO this addition, as it is now, is not in line with the spirit of this article, because the section Religious groups shall simply contain an overview of the main existing religious groups and not a detailed list. Thus I suggest to remove such list of Traditional African religion, but to add one or more lines into section Folk to cover also these African religions, with a link to Traditional African religion where the actual list is present. A ntv (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

In contrast, I largely liked the expansion, on the grounds that it broadens the perspective of the page. In my opinion, it's tricky to define religions other than the most populous as "folk", because, if one reverses perspectives, people in (for example) Africa might regard their own religions as just as established (or whatever adjective that conveys seriousness) as any others. What I think would help more, however, would be to make the section less of a list, and more paragraph-like. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I like the African addition. What I don't know is if they really belong to one group with common origin, or if there are more different groups, but this is a-ok for now. Same should be done for both ancient and modern Indo-European religions as well. NikNovi (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is not neccesary to repeat a general term in the template thou, especially not term mythology which, at least to me, suggests something ancient or just a description of the theology without practice. And on some actual pages the term is religion, not mythology, for instance Akan religion. (On the Indo-European part i've put mythologies in the Ancient category, and actual religions in the modern category. But surely this can not be same for African religions, as they, unlike Indo-European religions, have continued presence in history up to modern times.) NikNovi (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Significant Oversight

Mounting evidence indicates all human religion originated in African shamanistic practices, in which the Amanita muscaria was central. That the religion main page contains not one reference to this mushroom would seem to indicate this page's obsolescence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.10.28 (talk • contribs)

See WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. You need to cite reliable sources that represent what mainstream academia has to say on the subject. The idea that a large portion of human behavior is ultimately the result of a few tribes thousands of years ago eating a few bad mushrooms is not mainstream. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian religions

There is no reference in the article to Pre-Columbian religions.

Many indigenous peoples in what is today Suth America still practice what could be labelled as Pachamamism, Pachamama being "Mother Earth". This comes from civilisatios as old as the Tihuanaco people. The Quechua and the Aymara revereed the Sun, but also the Mountains (called as of today still Apus, and the Earth too.

wikipedia is really lacking a lot of information of this, as of many other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.191.66.227 (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2014

Religion refers to sets of variously organized beliefs about the relationship between natural and supernatural aspects of reality, and about the role of humans in this relationship. ELCLant (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC) (I have given my reasons for requesting this change in the Definition section, above. Thank-you.)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Pure Land Buddhism

The section on Mahayana Buddhism mentions teachings within that subset. This includes Pure Land Buddhism. However, the words "Pure Land" link to a wiki article on the concept of Pure Land. Pure Land Buddhism. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism is the article you probably want to link to instead.

69.204.91.53 (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Issues with theories of religion

Category 3.2, the social constructionist theory of religion, appears to give undue weight to that particular concept - no other theory of religion is given nearly as much detail, and social constructionism isn't even mentioned in the theory of religion article (although that may be a weakness in the latter article, it makes me highly doubt social constructionism is that universally accepted a view.) I'd recommend it be trimmed to a sentence or short paragraph summarizing the social constructionist view and integrated with the theories in 3.1. 3.3, comparative religion, is even worse; it's a critical dismissal of the concept which does nothing to enlighten someone as to what comparative religion constitutes, and although could perhaps be transwikied to that article as the basis for a criticism section, certainly has no place in this one. Comparative religion is an important concept, however - I'd rather see it replaced with that article's opening paragraph or something akin to it. 209.6.166.24 (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. The heading, "construction-ism", may make this sound like one view, but the section mostly consists of scholarly characterizations of premodern views of religion -- an important part of "theories" past and present. Shii (tock) 17:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Mythology

Why isn't any reference to ancient mythologies? Some of them, like greek and nordic, have the same roots as Hinduism, but are forgotten in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.196.124 (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request 18 April 2014

Way down the page in the short section on Scientology there is an incorrect link to auditing which should be to Auditing (Scientology).
87.115.109.40 (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Editor2020 02:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2014

there is a table Under "Religious groups" it is based on year 2000's reports. it's too old. plz update it. M.kavakebi (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - I agree the data is old, but there is no obvious, later information. Can you provide a link to more recent, reliable, independent figures? - Arjayay (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Mohammad Teachings is Hadith

I am not able to edit. Please add Hadith where written Mohammad teaching as to link to the project article of Hadith. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Hadith is mentioned in the article, and is not a "revealed book". Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hadith is linked above as "teachings", so it can't be linked below. I added (hadith) in parentheses Shii (tock) 14:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

it was not added, please check previous history of changes. Thanks Shii that you changed it after my note, now I read it ok. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Albania in the map as a muslim country

Everyone knows,that Albania is not a pure muslim country,as it has many people of both orthodox and catholic faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.74.253.9 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Attempts to change the definition

@ELCLant: has been trying to change the opening definition without really discussing the matter.

Is there any reason to change the current introduction? Especially without citing additional sources? The current one covers pretty much anything that could be called a religion, while the first attempted new version causes problems with certain belief systems such as Confucianism (which classified as either a religion or a philosophy), and separates the cultural aspects of many religions. A second attempt tries to limit the definition as if it were purely an American phenomena.

Can anyone think of a reason to include these edits? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at the edits, and it seems to me that the existing (unchanged) lead definition is better sourced and more inclusive, so I prefer not to make the changes. By the way, I want to make sure everyone remembers WP:3RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Wetodid (I grabbed this from another talk post) (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Religion is defined as, according to this article, "an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence". This is very confusing, since it mixes together anthropological and phylosophical terminology requiring separate explanation to be properly understood (and the reference to Geertz in the note does not suffice). I recommend changing the entire initial definition as follows: "Religion refers to sets of variously organized beliefs about the relationship between natural and supernatural aspects of reality, and about the role of humans in this relationship.

Wetodid (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC) (another request suggestion for correcting definition) I suggest making use of Durkheim's wording (given in the later Definitions section). Thus: "Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views relative to sacred things including but not limited to gods and spirits". Manbooferie (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Durkheim is not really acceptable in religious studies, correct me if I'm wrong though. Shii (tock) 00:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

Wetodid (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Acceptable? He is considered the father of sociology and spent significant effort exploring and defining religion, he is cited further down the definition...? Also, you focused on the word Sacred, which clearly establishes the value of religion, its holiness or divinity, if you take that component away its merely a set of traditions. Can we compromise on other wording? Lastly, the Etymology uses the word sacred "Religion (from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,"[10] "obligation, the bond between man and the gods"[11]) is derived from the Latin religiō, the ultimate origins of which are obscure." I am really not seeing what your concerns are. Maybe the fix is as easy as adding the word supernatural;"that relate humanity to a supernatural order of existence"

So? Freud is considered the father of psychoanalysis, that doesn't mean that you'll be learning Freudian techniques in a modern psychology course. Can you define "supernatural"? What is the supernatural in Confucianism? Shii (tock) 21:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Shii in terms of the lead sentence, at least insofar as I don't see the proposed new version as actually being an improvement (at best, just a net gain of zero for no compelling reason). However, looking at the edit history, I note that a sentence about Asad was also deleted: [12]. Was that intentional, and should that sentence be put back? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That line was originally in Note 1, and some formatting error put it directly into the first paragraph. I don't think it actually makes sense without having introduced who Geertz and Asad are in that first paragraph. Shii (tock) 00:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Maps

I just made this revert: [13]. What is the rationale for duplicating, or better, replacing the existing map? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)