Template talk:Religion topics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Cleanup[edit]

I aligned this chart to correspond to the much larger tree under Category:Religion, and tried to correct classification errors in both places. This template used to link to more articles directly, and now it links to a lot of categories. Part of the problem of the previous implementation was that articles were being chosen somewhat randomly - e.g. we've got karma and evil and forgiveness and 11 other random concepts speaking for the entirety of religious belief. That seemed fragmentary and skewed. I've tried to be a bit more systematic in what I've chosen. If people want to see articles instead of categories, it's possible to link to "main articles" for a given category rather than the category itself, though if you ask me that tends to obscure the detailed articles, which may be what people are actually looking for. Likewise, if people want to break out certain topics and add more articles, that's fine, as long as it's done in a systematic way. Hopefully whatever is done will be somewhat more enduring and easier to keep in sync with the category system. -- Beland 07:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I really feel that the links to most places should be articles. That is what people are used to, and Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia and not a list of links. A see also section being a list of links to another list of links in my mind is not great. The category system is used in addition to see alsos, and does not replace them. I'm going to try to get main articles instead. -- Jeff3000 15:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

new section[edit]

I took the liberty of adding a new section to this template on major world religions. I think this template should include this topic. In addition, it may make sense to make the header link to the religion article, rather than the category. Yahel Guhan 07:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

why was religious disaffiliation removed?[edit]

Apart from re-adding religious disaffiliation, apostasy could be added too. Andries (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

YesY Done. -- Huntster T@C 23:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The definition of an abrahamic faith[edit]

abrahamic faiths all share a common root but theyre deritavites(such as the Baha'i Faith or Rastafarianism) does not, so i took the liberty of putting the Baha'i Faith into the "Iranian Religions" category and left rastafarianism for someone else to move —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.68.167 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone moved it back. I undid, since your pattern matches the main Abrahamic and Bahai articles. Dovid (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Not true. Being an Abrahamic religion means that you have a connection to Abraham. The Baha'i Faith follows the same history of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as a continuous progressive revelation. In fact, the Baha'i Faith believes that it is the prophetic fulfilment of those other religions prophecies just as Christianity believes it was the fulfilment of Judaism, and Islam as well. Also, Baha'u'llah claims descendency from Abraham. If you want a reliable sources, check see "Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America" pg 254. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a never-ending circle of arguments between those that cite sources exhibiting affiliation and exhibiting exclusion. How to resolve? Dovid (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Rastafarianism is more Abrahamic than Baha'i, but because it was established relatively recently is considered a "new religion" rather than an Abrahamic one. Surely time of founding is less important than it's derivation? 59.167.126.21 (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"Ethnic" tag[edit]

By what ethnocentric standpoint is African religion "ethnic" but the Jewish, Arab and Iranian religions not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.134.37 (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Vishnuism and Krishnaism[edit]

Removed: links to Historical Vishnuism and Krishnaism. They are sects of Hinduism not religions.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy[edit]

Added orthodoxy and orthopraxy as aspects of religion.--151.201.149.209 (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

...I see "Christian right" and "Christian left", but what about other religions??!?[edit]

Sure, I may be Catholic, but don't try to tell me that Christianity is the only religion to get involved in politics!!!!! --Luigifan (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


I'm also not seeing a Christian Wrong either. --122.106.250.0 (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Mormonism?[edit]

Does not Mormonism count as a subgroup of Christianity, and therefore not mentioned as an Abrahamic religion? -PatPeter 05:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Scientology[edit]

Should we add scientology or other 20th created religions. Kasaalan (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would !vote definitely no, but this is mostly a personal opinion than based on anything substantiated. Huntster (t@c) 23:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I updated your navbox to use WP:HLIST. I agree that Scientology should not be added without more discussion. Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Lists[edit]

This template is a list of religions. In that vein, the proper categorization is to put religions in the primary categorization. The Baha'i Faith is classified primarily as Abrahamic, and while it may not deserve the same treatment as the larger Abrahamic religions on the Abrahamic religions page due to undue weight, removing it from this list goes against the purpose of the template. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

On the link to Religion and Science[edit]

I think Religion and Science shuold be under the subset "Religion and Society". Not in "Secularism and non-religion". You see, genetics and the big bang theory were invented by priests... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argentino (talkcontribs) 19:06, 20 September 2009

The new religions[edit]

Can you add the new religins please. Like Pastafarianism? --Kirov Airship (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering it is a parody religion, I'd say no. Huntster (t @ c) 02:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} i would like you to add the salafi/wahhabi and quran-only (or quranist) to the list of islam denominations please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglyfidders (talkcontribs) 16:58, 24 January 2010

We don't include denominations in this template, as it is designed to be a broad presentation of the various religions worldwide. Huntster (t @ c) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
huntster, could you edit the islam page then and add these denominations please? they are called salafi (or wahhabi) and quran-only (or quranist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglyfidders (talkcontribs) 23:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest you take this request to the Talk:Islam page, as they will be able to help you better than I can. I'm simply not familiar enough with the subject. Huntster (t @ c) 23:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
huntster, if you are unfamiliar with islam denominations could you refer it to someone else to edit this template please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglyfidders (talkcontribs) 23:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Like I just said, denominations of single religions are not included on this template, just like we don't mention Baptists or Catholics are not included as denominations of Christianity. Also, when speaking to others on talk pages, please don't add your reply to other random sections, as you've done twice now :) Huntster (t @ c) 00:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


Please stop posting unrelated requests to this talk page. If you want something changed in an article, go to the talk page of *that article*. Huntster (t @ c) 00:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from {{subst:CURRENTUSER}}, 10 August 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change

{Bahá'í teachings state that God is too great for humans to fully comprehend, or to create a complete and accurate image of, by themselves. Therefore, human understanding of God is achieved through his revelations via his Manifestations.[15][16] In the Bahá'í religion God is often referred to by titles and attributes (e.g. the All-Powerful, or the All-Loving), and there is a substantial emphasis on monotheism; such doctrines as the Trinity contradict the Bahá'í view that God is single and has no equal.[17] The Bahá'í teachings state that the attributes which are applied to God are used to translate Godliness into human terms and also to help individuals concentrate on their own attributes in worshipping God to develop their potentialities on their spiritual path.[15][16] According to the Bahá'í teachings the human purpose is to learn to know and love God through such methods as prayer, reflection and being of service to humankind.[15]}

to

{Bahá'í teachings state that God, as the Creator of humankind, is too great for humans to fully comprehend, or to create a complete and accurate image of by themselves. Therefore, human understanding of God is achieved through his revelations via his Manifestations.[15][16] The Manifestations are thus seen as critical divine intermediaries, necessary for mankind's guidance on the path of God's will. The dual nature of the Manifestations is described by Baha'u'llah as simultaneously human and divine, similar to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.[17]

In the Bahá'í religion God is often referred to by titles and attributes (e.g. the Almighty, or the All-Loving). The Bahá'í teachings state that the attributes which are applied to God are used to translate Godliness into human terms and also to help individuals concentrate on their own attributes in worshipping God to develop their potentialities on their spiritual path.[15][16] According to the Bahá'í teachings the human purpose is to know and love God. Baha'is carry out these teachings through prayer, reflection and being of service to humankind.[15]}

because

1. Source [17]- [Stockman, Robert. "Jesus Christ in the Baha'i Writings". Baha'i Studies Review 2 (1).] concludes that the Baha'i teachings regarding the nature of the Manifestations parallels the concept of Jesus in the Trinity by Christian theologians. To have the original Wikipedia page state the opposite based on this source was a major oversight. The article poses the following points:

a)Jesus refers to Himself as God in some instances and separate from God in others. The Trinity seeks to explain how Jesus could be God and also separate from God. Baha'u'llah also refers to this dual nature, and the author cites a quote.

b) Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha both discussed the Trinity and confirmed that Christians were correct in their conclusion that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were all parts of God's nature, while at the same time God was one in His essence (not three separate gods). The author cites two quotes.

c)The analogy of God as the sun and Jesus as a mirror reflecting the light of the sun has been used by theologians to explain the Trinity. The author cites Abdu'l-Baha's use of the same analogy.

2. The article in source [17] also references Baha'u'llah referring to mankind's requirement to accept the Manifestation of God, without Whose guidance they will "be gone astray" and all of their work will amount to nothing. The author states that Baha'is see recognition of the Manifestation as "crucial for one's spiritual progress", hence my addition of the line <The Manifestations are thus seen as critical divine intermediaries, necessary for mankind's guidance on the path of God's will>. This is a key point in Baha'i theology.

3. "Almighty" is a name for God used by Baha'is, similar to "All-Powerful", but one that is more commonly used.

4. <According to the Bahá'í teachings the human purpose is to know and love God. Baha'is carry out these teachings through prayer, reflection and being of service to humankind.[15]> This was changed to emphasize that the Baha'i teaching is that the human purpose is to know and love God. Prayer, reflection, and service are some methods Baha'is might use to achieve these ends, but are not the human purpose themselves or the only means possible. This sentence could be misleading.

Thank you for considering my request for an edit. As you can see, items 1 and 2 are important parts of this article that have been misrepresented or left out. I hope that the article will be edited accordingly.

173.18.103.141 (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please place your request on the page you wish to make changes to. That way other people can discuss your proposal. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Confucianism[edit]

Chinese with beliefs ranging from Atheism to Islam all practice it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.39.14 (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I can try to answer. That's normal because Confucianism is a philosophy-religion that could be practiced at the same time with other type or religions, just like it happens with Buddhism. But the impediments to practice Confucianism or Buddhism with another religion come often by the other religions. For instance, any Abrahamic religion require exclusivity of cult (because of the First Commandment). --87.2.243.238 (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ramons03, 23 February 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Please fix the link to toleration religious.

Thanks Gfoley4, the problem is, i see this link broken "Toleration" in the religious toleration page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramons03 (talkcontribs) 20:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ramons03 (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. →GƒoleyFour← 22:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Samaritanism[edit]

Does this belong in the Abrahamic grouping? It doesn't seem to fit as a subset of one of the current entries, but is definitely Abrahamic.Naraht (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Shinto[edit]

Why Shinto is under the label of "East Asian" religion but Shenism is under "indigenous" religion, named "Chinese"? Shintoism is also an indigenous religion, no one outside Japan practice that and also only Yamato people could be shintoist. If it's because of its prominent status in Japan, also Shenism should put under the "East Asian" label, because is the traditional religion of China, as Shinto is for Japan. --87.2.243.238 (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


South American/Latin America[edit]

How come there's no section for south american religious practices?.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of links[edit]

Several links have been deleted from this important template without any discussion whatsover. I asked the editor responsible for this to explain their actions on the talk page but they refused. Instead they have resorted to edit warring to force their POV on this template in violation of our policies. I ask uninvolved editors for help in repairing the damage inflicted on this important template and to address the edit warring by the other editor.. – Lionel (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Denominations[edit]

What is the criteria for a denomination to be shown on this template? It it for example ok for me to add Ibadi and Ahmadiyya to the template? Pass a Method talk 17:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a not unreasonable question. I would think that there is also a broader question as to what level of significance and notability is required for any topic to be inculded in this template. There are, for instance, several major and significant branches of Hinduism which are not currently included, like the Ganapatya, which are not yet included. Certainly, it would be impossible to include every denomination or major grouping of every major religious system in history. The length of the existing, rather incomplete List of Christian denominations indicates why. Opinions? John Carter (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The current template is imbalanced. For example eight Jewish denominations are shown, but some religions have none. The reason i deleted the denominations is to avoid such an imbalance. Pass a Method talk 18:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
That's nice. I'm wondering, did it ever occur to you that, maybe, you might discuss that before you decided that a personal opinion regarding "balance" was so overwhelmingly important and unquestionably valid that you felt free to unilaterally, without discussion, change the material to suit your own personal opinions? That is, in general, the way things are supposed to be done here. I notice that the "edit warring" seems to have continued lately. It is on that basis that I am filing a request for comment on which groups, and how many within each broad field, should be included below. John Carter (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on articles to be included in this template[edit]

How many and which articles should be included in this template? John Carter (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

There has recently been a good deal of activity of individual editors on this template, regarding what should and should not be included. That being the case, I think it would be in everyone's interests if we could establish through discussion at least for the interim which specific articles deserve to be included in the template, or, if that is unworkable, what sort of general guidelines we should use to establish which articles should be included. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A few personal ideas.
1) I imagine each of the following major topics from the synoptic outline of the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, listed at User:John Carter/Religion articles deserves inclusion, possibly as a major subheading:
Afro-American religion; Religion in Africa; Religion in Central Asia; Religions of the Ancient Near East; Arctic religions (yes, I know it's a redlink); Religious art; Australian Indigenous religions (also a redlink); Baltic religion (a redirect); Buddhism; Religion in the Caribbean; Celtic religion; Chinese religion (currently a dab); Christianity; Egyptian religion (a dab); Greek religion (a dab); Hellenistic religion; Hinduism; Indian religions; Indo-European religions (historically); Iranian religions; Islam; Israelite religion (of the Hebrew Bible period); Judaism; Jainism; Religion in Japan; Religion in Korea; Religions of Mesoamerica; Study of religion; New religious movements; North American Indian religions; Religions of Oceania; Philosophy and religion; Prehistoric religion; Religious phenomena (as per the encyclopedia on my user page); Religious scholars; Roman religion; Science and religion; Sikhism; Slavic religion; Society and religion; South American Indian religion; Religion in Southeast Asia; Tibetan religions; Zoroastrianism; and Uralic religions;
2) Beyond that, certainly any individual groups which meet certain fairly clearly defined criteria, if we could come up with some, should be included as well. Here I'm thinking of, for instance, criteria based on things like percentage of world population at the religion's peak, length of history, historical impact, what have you. For topics not related to specific religions, like religious art, that I honestly don't have a real idea for, and would welcome any input. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The existing template is already pretty well organized, so obviously we should use it as a "template" for any improvements such as considering any of those articles. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it does perhaps place a little too much emphasis on "current" religions, rather than religion in general, which would include a few more basically inactive ones. But, otherwise, it is fairly solid. I do think that Religious art and some related articles, like maybe Temple (architecture), maybe Altar, and a few others could be a separate line in the template. And there are quite a few African religions, so the one existing link to one of them might be seen as being unrepresentative. Maybe.
The major focus of recent dispute has been which of the "subgroupings" within major religious traditions to include. That would also, presumably, include the section on NRMs as well, as many NRMs are Christian or Dharmic as well. So, can anyone think of any ideas which groups of the Christian and Dharmic traditions they think should be included in the template, or, alternatively, what sort of qualifications we might use to determine which groups should be included? John Carter (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a criteria list would help. What makes a sub-group eligible for inclusion? Wikipedia serves people looking for information. The more people are interested in a sub-group the more Wikipedia should weight it. That is hard to measure. Consider:
Critieria for inclusion (tentative)
  1. Membership Statistics
  2. Percentage of the overall population of a country, continent, etc.
  3. Prevalence of attention given by scholarship, reputable authors, media, etc.
  4. (Feel free to add/remove, or start a section for Criteria for inclusion)
in response to the RfC, DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Major outline: John Carter's wondering about major topics from the Jones encyclopedia moves our thinking in a useful direction. How do other encyclopedia's outline this topic? The redlinks in Jones' list highlight the possible improvements to this WP template.

I am okay with the existing template's general outline (as supported by Til Eulenspiegel above).
in response to the RfC, DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Moralism (religion)[edit]

Just added the religion of moralism to the list. I'm guessing that the best spot for it would be under "Recent" religions, but if there's a better category feel free to move it. JBogdan (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed a modification as follows * Druze IS MUCH CLOSER TO ISLAM THAN * Yârsânism and introduced the other Shias[edit]

INTRODUCE:

as well.

Missing Ancient Christian Churches[edit]

The Church of the East & Oriental Orthodoxy should be included in the Christian section. They are far more historically significant than other groups which are already included. Could someone please add them? 116.52.95.192 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point - Yes check.svg Done Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

"Recent" section[edit]

Current list under "Recent":

Seeing as Discordianism, "Druidry" (Neo-druidism), Stregheria and Wicca on WP are all categorized as Neopaganism, is it not undue weight to include all of these subsets and not other forms of Neopaganism? I am not proposing we add more, but rather that we cut all the subsets, as the Neopaganism article covers all of them. I would maybe leave Wicca, as some hear of that without knowing about Neopaganism. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna 21:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

arabian[edit]

Arabian mythology on Ancient religions>Near East179.236.147.129 (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Jehovah Witness'[edit]

Jehovah Witness' should be on the list somewhere, but should they go under as another subgroup of Christianity, or new religions? Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

tengriism and shamanism[edit]

Where are they?? 68.100.162.64 (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 3 December 2013[edit]

I would like to fix some of the mistakes in this template. For example, Hinduism is included in the Indian Religions section but not in the Ancient Religions or Indo-European Religions section while Zoroastrianism is included in both. Mālik Tākat (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
NB: the requestor is a sock of the prolific Buddhakahika. Beware of future requests of a similar nature. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 5 December 2013[edit]

This template has a number of mistakes. For example, Armenia is in Europe, not Asia! 136.159.160.71 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Armenia is a borderline case, but as footnote 9 of that article shows, several sources place it in Asia. --Stfg (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)