Talk:Religion/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

"the five largest religion groups"

In the introduction, the following phrase appears:

There are an estimated 10,000 distinct religions worldwide, but about 84% of the world's population is affiliated with one of the five largest religion groups, namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or forms of folk religion.

The claim that 84% of people fall into one of those five categories is backed up by the source cited, but nowhere in the source is the language "the five largest religion groups" used. Such a designation, in particular the article "the," makes it sound like there is some sort of consensus or authority behind grouping religion in this way. In reality, world religion being grouped into those five categories was a choice made in the presentation of the data. In fact, the cited source goes on to describe folk religion as "including African traditional religions, Chinese folk religions, Native American religions and Australian aboriginal religions."

Moreover, this phrasing may make it sound to many readers like the "100,000 distinct religions" figure in the previous clause counts each of these groups as single religions. I don't have access to the source of that figure (it's in print) but I am somewhat dubious that this would be the case.

I'm going to change edit this sentence as follows to remove this problem:

There are an estimated 10,000 distinct religions worldwide. 84% of the world's population is affiliated with either Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or some form of folk religion.

Obviously, if anyone has some sort of source to back up "the five religious groups" as an meaningful and authoritative distinction, feel free to include it and revert the change.

Emptybathtub (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Emptybathtub: Maybe I missed something, but the pie chart in the source identifies percentages for each religion, and there are no other categories except "Other religions", which totals 0.8 percent, and Jews, which is 0.2 percent. If one of the "Other religions" had been larger than 0.2 percent, it would have been identified as a separate category (larger than Jews). I don't see the problem. Sundayclose (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: The problem, as I understand it, is not that there should have been another religious group included, it's that one doesn't have to subdivide that 84% of the population into those groups in that way. One could, for example, subdivide among the many different kinds of folk religion, or among the different forms of Hinduism (a view posited by many scholars, e.g. von Stietencron 1988).

I'm not objecting to referring to those five groups, and that 84% of the population are affiliated with one of them. I see how that can be useful and relevant information. I'm objecting to the use of the word "the" because it implies that this categorization is in some way definitive, which the source never claims. Emptybathtub (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Emptybathtub: Thanks for your reply. I want to be sure I understand you. Are you questioning that any subcategories of (for example) Christians should not be considered Christian, or any subcategory of Islam should not be considered Islam, etc? If that's not your point then I'm confused. If there is little or no debate about which groups fall under the broad categories of Christian, or Islam, etc, then I still don't see the problem. Yes, I understand that there are subcategories for each of the big five, but how does that make the broad categories of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or forms of folk religion misleading? Sundayclose (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: My concern is not necessarily whether any individual form of religion falls under any of those five categories (although one could raise that concern, for example with syncretic religions). It's more of a problem with the categories themselves, or with their presentation as "the" way to group world religions.

For example, most Vaishnavas would pretty unambiguously fall under the broad label of "Hinduism." I would in no way dispute that. However, if in listing the major religious groups of the world, the category of "Hinduism" were not used, then they would fall under the category of "Vaishnavism," and other Hindus would fall under the categories of "Shaivism," "Shaktism," etc. The use of the word "the" in the article as it is implies that the former categorization that includes Hinduism as a category is more definite, authoritative, etc. than one that instead has the categories of Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, etc.

This is just one example. I think the label of "folk religion" would probably be even more heterogeneous and open to different groupings (they could be grouped in with "other religions," for example) but that's neither here nor there. Useful information is available from any grouping, and this five group categorization is what is available from the source cited. That's fine in my opinion, I don't think it's misleading in itself. What I think is misleading is calling them "the five largest religious groups," because the answer to the question, 'What are the five largest groups?' is different depending on how one chooses to group the religion of the world. If the set of categories were different, the "five largest groups" would be different.

Thank you for your engagement on this issue! Emptybathtub (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Emptybathtub: I restored your edit because I don't think I should quibble over use of the word "the". But I do think the source makes a good case that 84% of the population identifies with what is commonly accepted as the five largest religions. Thanks for the discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

I will add sources to all of them and add another new religious movement: Anduism. It is a religious movement that has appeared recently and has a following in Southern California. Benjaminnntang (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

- this looks like a joke religion - perhaps better for List of new religious movements than the general Religion article - Epinoia (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Not even necessarily for that. See WP:MADEUP. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Karma a new understanding

The word Karma is completely misunderstood. Karma and its concept is broadly meaning gaining direction in life. It is related to the children's game of "hot - cold". This is where an object is hidden in the house somewhere and one person has to find it while the other person says hot or cold depending on how close they are to the object. The closer to the object the hotter it gets.

The number for karma in decimal is 71. It gets this value from English gematria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.128.106.156 (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

A picture for religion

I noticed that the box makes no provision for a picture so I scouted around to find what seems to me a nice picture and created a box for it. It was reverted with the message that there was no consensus for a picture, bring it to the talk page. In the first place I do not need a consensus to put in a picture initially or to keep it there if there is no objection. But to give the objector the benefit of the doubt, I presume he had an objection to the picture. In that case why would he say "nice picture?" If he objects to the picture then we would need a consensus. We do not need any consensus of anyone to contribute material. You don't have to ask permission to work on Wikipedia. It is only when different views come into conflict that these negotiation rules apply. But for all I know there is an objection even though paradoxically phrased. Let me ask you then, is there an objection or not? If there is not, I am putting the picture back in. If there is, then I fear we will have to wait for another opinion to affirm or deny the picture.Botteville (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the message I sent to pepperbeast, the apparent objector:

Hi there pepperbeast. I was surprised at your reversion of the picture in Religion. I think you may misunderstand the "consensus" idea. No one needs any consensus to work on Wikipedia. We don't have to ask anyone's permission to do so. Whatever we contribute is not automatically revertible just because we didn't ask anyone if we could do it. Think about it. WhO is there to ask? "Dear Mr. Wales, may I please add a picture to "Religion?". But of course you may have had an objection. However, you did not voice any. You said "nice picture." I'm confused. Is this a too hasty move on your part? Or do you have an objection, and if so, what? Please let us know. I started a discussion on the talk page, so you can tell us there. If you have no objection then I would say there is a consensus of you and me, so in that case, please put it back! If there is one, please let us know so the matter can be clarified for the users. This message is repliable, so if by chance you neglect to reply, we go back to the picture by default. Thanks.Botteville (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Lebensbaum, "Tree of Life," acrylic on canvas by Hardy Wagner

I understand that pepperbeast shouldn't have reverted you just because there is no consensus. Here is a link to an essay about this WP:DNRNC. However, I do think that image you added shouldn't be used in this article because it doesn't seem representative of this article's topic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think your view settles the choice of that picture. Unless there are some views opposing yours we can count that particular picture as out. However, you said nothing about the suitability of any picture. Maybe someone might think NO picture should be in there. What do you think? If you think a picture would be appropriate and be an enhancement I invite you to select one out of Commons or download one. Frankly that was about the best I could do for this difficult topic without a more extensive search or putting one in that favored one religion.Botteville (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is a picture that would be suitable in the lead. The problem is that we don't want to give certain religions or ideas undue weight and exclude others.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• The picture field shouldn't be some abstract work that the viewer has to interpret to arrive at their own personal understanding of the subject, it should be something that immediately visually identifies the subject. That means we might not have pictures for articles on especially abstract and complex ideas, barring a famous representation by a notable artist, a very common symbol of that concept, or a picture of that concept in action. The articles Metaphysics, Theology, Spirituality, Absolute (philosophy), and Love do not have pictures in the lede. I am not inherently opposed to having a picture in the lede (and I really don't imagine that most editors would be) but it needs to be extremely representative (which is very hard for this topic). Even narrowing down to just the major world religions, there's enough diversity there that even a compilation would prove tricky. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

- the proposed picture does not reflect the whole topic of Religion - I think it would be difficult to find an image to represent the topic of Religion - there may be pictures of individual religions, but not of Religion as a whole - I support the reversion of this edit - Epinoia (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess the consensus is, it is not possible to represent this topic with a picture. The common ground for all religions is the ineffable, but how do you portray that? If you decide to use a conventional image, whose conventional image do you use? I find this discussion interestingly parallel to the controversy over whether you should use icons, such as statues or paintings, in church architecture and ceremonial objects. Like causes, like effects. I'm done with this topic and this article. Maybe we should leave the discussion around so it would't have to be repeated.Botteville (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Educational image?.. Angkor Wat...it's the biggest by far!--Moxy 🍁 03:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Botteville: re Maybe we should leave the discussion around Yes, that's the exact reason why we don't delete past discussions but archive them if the talk page gets too long. As for the comparison with iconoclasm, they're morally opposed to the concept, the opposition here is mere practicality. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

There was a problem with two replies being jammed together but someone has separated them now. Ian and I have been working this out per UP discussion. But I see, Ian, it was you who made the "Iconoclasm" comment. I have to be honest with you here, I still do not understand it. The conclusion we reached was that the ineffable cannot be adequately depicted and that attempts to do so must necessarily fail of universality. Therefore the article should have no image. I did make a comment about historical conflicts over graphic portrayal the the sacred, but I am sorry now I ever brought it up. It isn't the discussion. Please ignore it and we will go on. Ian if you want to continue the philosophic discussion, maybe my UP would be a better place to do it. If you want to prolong the picture discussion, adding your own weight, of course that is your prerogative, or if you want to discuss some other aspect.Botteville (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

overwhelming european bias

This article is overwhelmingly biased to represent religion as being essentially European and judeo-christian. The section "concept and etymology" has the opinion that only religion as it is practiced in christian Europe is "true" religion, and that other religions are not real religions. As a key evidence for this bias, before I got to this article, and maybe still now since there has been some back and forth editing on it, the article contained the following sentance: "Throughout the Americas, Native Americans never had a concept of "religion" since their traditions do not fit into such European concepts." which explicitly defines religion as being European exclusive, much to the offense of anyone that follows a religion that isn't European in origin. Try explaining that religion is a European concept to someone from the 15% of the world that is Hindu, let alone to a descendant of a Native American culture! This example is particularily egregious since the US and Canadian governments are both guilty of systematically erasing Native American culture and religion, and making a claim of this kind is a continuation of that same colonial impulse. If the Natives had no religion, then why did the US government make Native pratices of religions and sacred ceremonies illigal until 1978? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Religious_Freedom_Act

Religion is not a European concept, and religions other than judeo-chrisitan ones exist. As this wikipedia article itself defines, "Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements.[1] However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion" - nothing in here says anything about Europe, or judeo-christian faiths. An article on a general topic should have general content - while it is undeniable that judeo-crhistian religions are the most widely practiced religions on Earth, they are not the only ones, and for topic like Religion it is particularily insensitive to claim or overrerpresent one religion to be more valid than others.

I suggest this article be written from a more global point of view, potentially removing some of the European-centric content or moving it to articles that are explicitly about religion in Europe. Religion is clearly a global, human concept, and this article should make an attempt to describe the entire breadth of human religion as it has historically been practiced, as it is being practiced, as it could be practiced, as it is practiced in fiction, etc - not centering on one particular religion in one particular region of the planet. English wikipedia has a global, diverse audience composed of many ethnic groups and cultural backgrounds, and an attempt should be made to neutrally describe Religion for what it means to all of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitchhiker Of The Galaxy (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Great! Glad you are using the talk page. But this is not really a forum WP:NOTAFORUM. Much of what you have written is about how you conceive religion, but you have not provided sources that verify your views.

With respect to the statement of Native Americans, the source is a reliable source per wikipedia policy and the author of that piece states: (Tinker Tink, "7. Irrelevance of euro-christian Dichotomies for Indigenous Peoples". In Omar, Irfan; Duffey, Michael (eds.). "Peacemaking and the Challenge of Violence in World Religions". Wiley-Blackwell. p. 207. ISBN 978-1-118-95342-6.) "It will also be helpful to acknowledge from the outset that American Indian religious traditions have never fitted into and dare not be retroactively reduced to the more general modern euro-christian category called "religion", never mind that more discrete category of world religions. Indeed traditional elders in all Indian communities have been clear over many generations now that our communities never had a traditional category called "religion" at all (see my entry in the "Encyclopedia of the American Indian" from a couple of decades ago). In other words, the category itself is a colonialist imposition that cannot work with any accuracy for Indian folk in the final analysis."

Sounds pretty clear to me what the source says. Tink Tinker is author from a chapter in the "Encyclopedia of American Indian History".

As to the other issue of religion being euro-centric, it actually is. It is a European invention. Most cultures doe not have concept of religion because it emerged in Europe (it is a latin term) and then it was slapped onto other cultures as a afterthought. There are numerous sources provided in the whole section on this (For example: Nongbri, Brent (2013). "Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept". Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-15416-0).Ramos1990 (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Here another example of the invention of religion in Europe: (Morreall, John; Sonn, Tamara (2013). 50 Great Myths about Religions. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-470-67350-8.) "Before the British colonized India, for example, the people there had no concept "religion" and no concept "Hinduism." There was no word "Hindu" in classical India, and no one spoke of "Hinduism" until the 1800s. Until the introduction of that term, Indians identified themselves by any number of criteria—family, trade or profession, or social level, and perhaps the scriptures they followed or the particular deity or deities upon whose care they relied in various contexts or to whom they were devoted. But these diverse identities were united, each an integral part of life; no part existed in a separate sphere identified as "religious." Nor were the diverse traditions lumped together under the term "Hinduism" unified by sharing such common features of religion as a single founder, creed, theology, or institutional organization."

These like these are the things many sources constantly mention. The very concept of religion is not found in most cultures at all. Even the Bible and Quran do not have such a term in there at all.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Northern Ireland and Great Britain

According to the 2016 Irish Census; in relation to Northern Ireland, which a census is taken by the U.K government, and the Irish government uniquely, Protestantism is practiced by 48.4% of the population and Catholicism is practiced by 45.1% of the population, meaning we should change the coloring on the map to lined blue/purple to represent that, while leaving England and Scotland as blue and the Republic of Ireland as purple, along with Wales as purple which scroll down to read more about. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

And what, pray tell, does the Irish census have to do with Northern Ireland? Again you seem unaware they're separate countries. And Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, the map is coloured by countries not landmasses. Canterbury Tail talk 19:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand, the map is colored by countries not landmasses, however in England, Protestantism is 47% and Catholic is 9.6% of the population. 22% protestant and 14% catholic in Scotland, Wales is the only part of Britain that is more Catholic than protestant at 48.5% Catholic and 19.8% Protestant, according to all there most recent census's. Northern Ireland is the figure I referred to before. For the record Wales, Scotland, England, and Northern Ireland are there own counties respectively, should these differences not be reflected? It would make the map more detailed and more accurate. Therefore I support leaving England and Scotland blue, turning wales purple, and making Northern Ireland lined purple/blue, I wouldn't be doing this if there weren't 4 different countries that make up the U.K, it is in the unique position of being 4 constituent countries united under one name. Separate laws, separate ethnic groups, separate land borders and as we are discussing, different religions. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see that you addressed the important issue that the Irish census has nothing to do with Northern Ireland. Sundayclose (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom both take a census including Northern Ireland uniquely, regardless, Wales, England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are different countries, Wales is Catholic, Scotland and England are Protestant although we can discuss the ratio of change, Northern Ireland the difference is 4%, Scotland it is 8%, Northern Ireland is an near even split, this should be reflected. The map is saying Wales is more protestant than catholic when the opposite is true, in fact by a big margin. It is also giving the impression that Northern Ireland is a solid Protestant majority, when it is an near even split with Catholic. See the problem? Let's not forget they are all different countries again. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

You just changed your original post. You're not supposed to change your comments after someone has responded. Instead you should strike your former comment and add the change, like this: "Ireland CensusNorthern Ireland Census". Read WP:REDACTED.

What does this mean: "The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom both take a census including Northern Ireland uniquely". The wording is very confusing.

Please give us a link or other way to find the Northern Ireland Census. For that matter, I can't find a source for any of the data in the map. Sundayclose (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom both take a census including Northern Ireland uniquely appears to be a fantasy. See page 5 of this report about the 2011 census, in particular paragraphs 1 and 2. Or the summary of the 2016 census, in which the only mentions of Northern Ireland are in the actual census forms when it asks questions such as Elsewhere in IRELAND (including Northern Ireland), write in the COUNTY. I can find no mention of any of the six (ceremonial) counties of Northern Ireland nor any mention of any of the major towns and cities. As such, the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the 2016 Irish census did not include Northern Ireland. Religion is covered on pages 71 to 74 of the report, there is no mention of the claimed statistics regarding the Catholic/Protestant split in Northern Ireland. Perhaps even more damningly, the map on page 74 showing areas in different colours depending on percentages (I'm sure there's a technical term for maps like that, but I can't think of it) completely excludes Northern Ireland, leaving it a rather drab grey colour. FDW777 (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The map in question is based on the countries, so should be based off the UK and the UK alone. Other countries aren't subdivided, don't see why the UK should be. Additionally yes the concept of the (Republic of) Ireland doing a census in Northern Ireland is complete fantasy, it's like Spain doing a census in France, and unfortunately just seems to support the continuing notion around the OPs many contributions that they don't understand what Northern Ireland is or how it works or the separations in Ireland. Canterbury Tail talk 13:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Permission to delete this talk page section? I ask to delete this because I understand each side, now to keep the 3 countries and one province together as one, although they are three countries, and a region, I understand your reasoning to keep them together for clarity purposes. Also I was under the impression the Republic does a census for the North too, but upon further research that was disproved. Permission to delete this talk page topic? B. M. L. Peters (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't delete after others have responded to the initial post. You can modify your own comments; see WP:REDACT. Sundayclose (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I just want to point out that on a Wikipedia page titled "Abortion Laws", the UK policy is split between countries, so therefore there are different colors in the U.K. Take a look. I understand of no one is for the change however. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

That would be because, as most people who've been paying attention already know, the right to abortion varied in Northern Ireland compared to the rest of the UK. Since there was no similar law restricting access to religious beliefs, your example is flawed. FDW777 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

And while we're discussing the map

Can anyone direct me to a source for the data in the map? Is it a synthesis of data from various articles related to religion? Sundayclose (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Order of Religions

I have observed that the order in which world religions are written follow no particular standard. Either it should be alphabetical or it should be on basis of approximate age. I propose the revision of present order to prevent bias towards any religion. Request your opinion on the same and whether it should be chronological or alphabetical. Santosh L (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Order without hypernymic analysis is impossible.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

Please change "For instance, India is still one of the most religious countries and religion still has a strong impact on politics, given that Hindu nationalists have been targeting minorities like the Muslims and the Christians, who historically belonged to the lower castes." to "India is a largely secular nation where despite the majority being Hindus, minorities can benefit from several programs which has led to an increase in their number since Independence." The source for the line in the Wikipedia article is dated at the year 2000, which is 20 years ago. I would also like to question the source, as being written from a foreign's viewpoint which results in the foreigner not understanding the true nature of India and Hinduism. India supports minorities and their numbers have been increasing. If India allowed religion to have a strong impact on politics, how come the percentage of minorities, especially Muslims, have risen since Independence while the percentage of Hindus is decreasing? Also, anyone living in India knows that no minority is persecuted here and in fact, they are given more opportunities by the Ministry of Minority Affairs. Here you can see that minorities can even avail special benefits. Finally, the Muslims and Christians are not considered lower castes. That is a completely false statement. The term "lower castes" applies only to Hinduism and the Hindus are working to remove it, as it is not mentioned in our ancient texts, but formed as a result of the invasions and British rule which solidified caste discrimination. All this shows that the line in the Wikipedia article is not justified. I request you to kindly change it. ShankaracharyaBharat (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Likely to be contentious. Please establish consensus before using the edit request template. Melmann 16:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This is an old comment, but I've tagged the word "historically" in the sentence about religions and caste. @ShankaracharyaBharat has identified (correctly) that the context of caste and religion is actually subjective depending on the time period of Indian history in which it is discussed.

Regarding the earlier point about India and religion, India is officially and constitutionally a secular state. The statement that "India is still one of the most religious countries" is debatable, religion certainly plays a large part in Indian society and a very large proportion of the Indian populace report themselves (through the census) as being religious; but India is not technically "religious" as say Iran is. Aeonx (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rama and the ocean.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yaz.17. Peer reviewers: Ericneumann 99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2018 and 4 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Awiggin8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 22 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Singhsimranjit071294.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Siot0819. Peer reviewers: StasiaTaylor.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bhagavan Vishnu.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

What is real definition of religion?

Rules and regulations which is made by God (Creator) revealed by contemporary messenger is called Religion. 106.222.210.39 (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Something worth including.

Add a parqgraph on the immortality of the soul, it is as far i know the single most common property of every religion, it's a cornerstone of any serious handling of the subject. 109.245.32.101 (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

If anything there regarding this matter, there could maybe be a matter directing this article to the article that exists on civil religion, the robert bellah concept. Beyond its obvious sectarian/ideological implications as "a cornerstone that has to do with specific handling of the subject," I think a specific characteristic on something like the immortality of the soul is getting into questions of definition, which as the paragraph points out, are dubious at best within scholarship. There is however a train of Western thought with figures like Rousseau as is outlined in the last chapter of the social contract which points to qualities like the immortality of the soul as comprising something similar to what bellah is describing. However, I think this suggestion is unnecessary. There is simply no need beyond the concepts laid out within the aspects/related aspects. Specifically the belief section details how Religion has to do with theological matters such as the immortality of the soul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.8.92 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The immortailty of the soul is not a common idea of every religion. There are many religions that do not include a belief in a soul or do believe in a soul that is not immortal. Adding a section about the different conceptions of soul would probably go out of the scope of this page. Kardoen (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2022

Capitalise Hindus, Jews, and Sikhs. Pluralise Buddhists. Change the link for Unitarian Univeralists from a planet to Unitarian Universalists and remove the apostrophe from UUs. This is for the caption on the first image of the page. Johnsmith212254 (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Capitalised as requested. Although changed the links to faith/religion instead of its specific adherents. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

That is better, since the symbols are of the religions, not people. Johnsmith212254 (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

However, a few errors have been made. It should be "Wicca", not "Wiccan" and "Universal Unitarianism" (I also made an error in the request), not "Universal Unversalists [sic]". Johnsmith212254 (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Johnsmith212254 for fixing them! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 05:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

That’s fine. I wasn’t really paying attention when I made the request, which is why it was erroneous. Johnsmith212254 (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

error in lead section

" about 84% of the world's population is affiliated with one of the five largest religions, namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or forms of folk religion.[10] " the folk religions shouldn't be counted as a single one, as they developed independently and certainly have wildly different beliefs. also, the cited source says otherwise: 16.3% of the world's population is religiously unaffiliated, while 0.2% are jews and 0.8% follow other religions. proposed change: " 83.7% of the world's population is affiliated with a religion, 91.7% of which with one of the four largest religions, namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.[10] " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:62:4321:1100:7406:59f7:3618:9ecc (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

make page: metaphysical worldview: the hypernym of religion and nontheism

https://www.tandfonline.com › doi › pdf
by PK Inokoba · 2010 · Cited by 9 — It is within this context that the African predicament of backwardness was investigated. It is argued that Africa's metaphysical worldview is the cul-de-sac preventing ...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:410c:c57f:f869:4414:790c:2622 (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)