|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Religion article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10|
|This subject is featured in the Outline of religion, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.|
|Religion is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has been mentioned or used by a media organization. The reference is in:|
|Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
- 1 Edit Request July 26, 2013-update to Social Constructionists.
- 2 Edit request on 26 September 2013
- 3 Missing end quotation mark in Geertz quote under Definition Title on September, 27, 2013
- 4 Categories for non-Abrahamic and non-Dharmic religions
- 5 Grammar in section 5.1 + Whabbabism as separate from Sunni Islam?
- 6 Image of shaman
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
- 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
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
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. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Shii (tock) 01:26, 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.
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".
- (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Done Thank you!
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 184.108.40.206 (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.
Image of shaman
About these edits: , , and , 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)