Talk:List of religions and spiritual traditions/Archive 4

Re-unite "List of religions and spiritual traditions" with "List of new religious movements"

Recently, much of this article was taken from it and placed in it's own article. I think that this destroys the whole point of this article - a COMPLETE list of religions, with Wikipedia articles. I propose we re-merge the two as they should be again. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I disagree. List of new religious movements is a huge list, and it becomes unmanageable. I could be convinced, but there is a difficulty here. Another approach would be to reduce the level of subdivision here at present. Not sure what is totally best, but a simply re-merge seems the wrong thing to me. Tb (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of New religious Movements

Previously a subset of the list of religions was moved to a new article called list of new religious movements. While I oppose this move, because the definition of the category "new religious movements" is controversial and not well defined by any professional consensus, in order to be consistant and not create a list of religions that is confusing to Wikipedia patrons I have moved the category Neopaganism to the list of new religious movements. Again I would prefer that we have a unifed list of religions.

Was there any discussion when the original subset was moved to a new article? 206.188.56.204 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also moving the subset of parody religions as without the other other subsets of the list of religions they don't make sense here. I will either move them to the list of new religious movements or to a new article titled list of parody religions. Again I think that it would be best if all of the subsets that were removed from the original list of religions were returned there.TR166ER (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time thinking parody religions should go under title NRM; it demeans the title. They are parody and not real religions. I do agree with you that NRM is a misleading title and should probably not exist; all religions should be listed here. The time of their creation is meaningless; I find the separation a fork and highly POV. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that Neopaganism in particular (because it is so widespread and major) and all other religions that were placed in List of new religious movements should be returned to this, the COMPLETE list of religions. We definately need a debate and maybe a vote. I don't know how to do this, though if someone who can would please do it then I think the sooner the better. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It is inconsistent to bring back only part of the list of new religious movements. In my opinion we should bring back the entirety of it but failing that we should not arbitrarily bring back pieces like Neopaganism. TR166ER (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current separation is more useful to users, but I am open to being convinced. There are a couple problems, it seems to me.

The separation has worked for about two and a half years. It isn't perfect, but it has enabled both articles to flourish perhaps better than when they were united.
List of new religious movements is simply huge, and would need to be pared down. If we list every small group, then we are going to have a disaster, because it is going to be hard to argue that we should not also copy the entire contents of List of Christian denominations over here, and at that point, we are done for. So I think if we merge, that must come with an awareness that lots of things currently on List of new religious movements will not survive the merge.
This last opens a third option, perhaps the best. We could retain List of new religious movements, just as we have List of Christian denominations and Schools of Buddhism and Divisions of Islam. Then, put the larger and more important new religious movements in their proper places in this page, with suitable links to the more complete lists elsewhere. Tb (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this third option, although I think it will be tough to make a clear distinctive split between "important" and not. IanCheesman (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about the validity of breaking apart a list of religions by a random (and as far as I can tell non-determined) date. If a specific date is to be used, then that information should be mentioned on both pages (also the titles should be changed to make it clear). For example - This list contains all religions formed after 1500 CE. For religions formed before 1500 CE, please refer to... As it is broken down, it feels like two pages depicting "real" and "the other stuff that weirdos think they believe". I don't think it is the purview of Wikipedia to decide which religions are real and which are not.IanCheesman (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandaeanism

Mandaeanism should not be listed as an Abrahamic religion. They take Abraham to be a false prophet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.28.68 (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should we then label it under. I assume it goes into Iranian religions? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Egyptian religion

I believe we should move this to the African Traditional Religion section. Achillobator

Oppose - the religion in Ancient Egypt and religion in Carthage were culturally distinct from African Traditional Religion. Addhoc 14:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well. Agree with Addhoc. -- Jeff3000 15:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose of course. Per Addhoc, Egyptian religion was quite distinct from African Traditional Religion, but much more related to and had more interaction with Near Eastern religion, and probably even more related to ancient Greek religion (which was itself influenced by Egyptian beliefs). This is little more than an attempt to introduce an afrocentric POV into the article. Egyegy 17:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Egyptian religion supposedly being different from "African Traditional Religion"; Keeping in mind that African religions often differ from each other, there are many affinities between Egyptian religion and some religions elsewhere in Africa. One example is that both the ancient Egyptians and some Africans considered the pharaoh a god, as opposed to a priest like the ancient Mesopotamian kings. Secondly, the pharaoh had a rainmaker-like role as in some African religions, except it was the flood rather than the rain that he had control over. Finally, the religion of the ancient Sudanese to the south of Egypt was practically identical to that of the Egyptians! There are probably plenty of other parallels between Egyptian and various African religions, but space only permits a few. Besides, African religions are hardly homogeneous, and some probably differ as much from others as any of them do to religions in west Asia. While common themes occur between some African religions, the main uniting element of Africa's very large number of pagan religions is, of course, the fact that they originated in Africa. Since Egyptian religion is undeniably of African origin, in my opinion, it must be listed as an African religion.

Novel solution: "African traditional religion" shouldn't be a category of religions because they are too diverse. Then the question of whether Egyptian should be in that category wouldn't arise. Achillobator, don't feed the trolls, no-one really thinks you are POV pushing, troll just said that to annoy you. Zargulon 10:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, or perhaps instead of "ancient Near Eastern" or "African traditional religion", we could have neutral geographic categories like "African religions" or "pre-Islamic West Asian religions". I actually considered that at one point. Besides, "Near East" as a geographic term has a very Eurocentric and vague character, as does "Middle East" (although the "Near East" seems to be the same as the "Middle East", except the latter is used when discussing contemporary politics and the former is used when the subject shifts to ancient history).

Kudos to the two users above, um, Egyptian religion is of African extraction, Henri Frankfort and EA Wallis Budge proved that A LOOOOOONG time ago babes. Shouldn't even be an issue. Peace. Teth22 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Egyptian religion developed independently in African, no reason to take this out of Africa and put it elsewhere.Taharqa 09:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of repeated religions

Also, I have made some minor edits, removing duplication. I am fairly confident that ISKCON (Hare Krishna) should be considered a Dharmic faith. Also usually considered Dharmic are Vedanta and Bhakti Yoga. Similarly, Pentecostalism is usually regarded as a recognised Christian denomination. I consider Jewish Buddhism to be a form of Buddhism, but not Judaism. Also, I think Falun Gong is best described as a Chinese NRM, because it's base on qigong practice, however I accept other descriptions would be plausible. Similarly, I think Aum Shinrikyo is best describe as a Japenese NRM, again other descriptions could possibly be more appropriate. Also the Unification Church is best considered a Christian NRM and Juche a non-religious movement. Sufism is usually considered part of Islam, while Theosophy is considered part of the western magical tradition. Finally, Gnosticism and Hemereticism are probably best described as revealed religions instead of esoteric or mystical beliefs. If there was an overwhelmingly good reason for all of these duplications, then I'll reinstate them. 80.189.68.138 12:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Religions, not Generic Terms for Religious Practice

Would anyone object if the following were deleted because they are not religions, but generic terms for practice:

Astrology

Exorcism

Faith Healing

Meditation

Miracles

Prayer

Prophecy

Sacrifice (inc. Animal/Human)

Spirituality (Not Spiritualism, which is a religion)

Worship

80.189.225.243 19:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, go ahead and remove them. -- Jeff3000 01:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Get rid of, and keep out. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Other New Religious Movements

Since Transcendental Meditation is not a religious, but a spiritual movement, it should not be included in your list.Sueyen 20:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other NRMs listed in other wiki articles that I am beginning to include, if there are no objections. 80.189.196.205 14:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In doing so, I have slightly expanded and reorganised the Christian and Buddhist sections. Again, if there was an overwhelmingly good reason for the previous system, then obviously I'll revert. 80.189.193.201 15:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixism: the path of the One

Matrixism is included in the following books about religious movements:

"Religion and Popular Culture: A Hyper-Real Testament" Dr. Adam Possamai, Peter Lang Publishing Group 2005 ISBN 90-5201-272-5 / US-ISBN 0-8204-6634-4 pb.

"The Joy of Sects" Sam Jordison Publisher: Robson Books Publication Date: 7 November 2005 ISBN 1861059051

"In Search of New Age Spiritualities" Adam Possamai, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. 2005 ISBN 0754652130

Matrixism has also been mention in many newspaper articles and is listed on the course syllabi for various university courses on religious studies. This is a very much more than can be said for many of the religions on Wikipedia's "List of Religions". See for examples the content and references for McMahonism and Church of the Universe. 71.139.66.105 18:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixism has been deleted twice, as recently as of May 20th 2006. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixism Since it is not significant enough to be a Wikipedia article, it is not significant enough to be on this page. The first step is to get the article to not be deleted based on verifiable information, and then it can be included here. -- Jeff3000 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is verifiable information. In fact if you were to do a Google book search for "matrixism" you would find the latter of the three books listed above. There you can access the book's index and verify that Matrixism is discussed on page 120. While Matrixism does not have a Wikipedia article, and the reasons for this are debatable, it does have a re-direct to the Wikipedia page on The Matrix where its website can be accessed.71.139.66.105 19:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is not the only thing that allows for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability is also important, and as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixism, Matrixism is not notable enough. The article on The Matrix makes no mention of Matrixism, except the same spam link is included. -- Jeff3000 20:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define notability other than something is verifiably noted? Matrixism is notable enough to be included in books, newspapers and in college courses on religion. In what other way should it be notable? 71.139.66.105 20:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way: the first result on a Google search is a Geocities personal webpage. [1] If you can provide links to websites to establish the notability of Matrixism (say, New York Times articles, and such), you're welcome to. At the moment, I'm very doubtful of the notability. It's not that I hate you, I'm sure you enjoy yourself and I wish you nothing but the best; at the same time, however, if we list every last bit of information on every subject, Wikipedia becomes unreadable -- thus, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and thus notability is a concern. Hope that makes sense. Happy to discuss further, if you have new points. Luna Santin 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is hardly the measure of notability. If it were many of the religions on the "list of Religions" would not be there. As for Matrixism's website being a personal site. That is a huge assumption on your part. It is a Geocities website without adds. That means that it is paid for and hosted just like any other URL. Three books and references in the Sydney Morning Herald and the British newspaper The Sun is very much notable. This is especially true when this standard is applied to the other religions listed on Wikipedia. 69.226.105.161 00:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Matrixism is notable, why has it been deleted twice as being non-notable. You have not made the case. You have evaded your block by using another IP, and I have reported you to an administrator. -- Jeff3000 00:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I have demonstrated that Matrixism is indeed notable or you would not use this argument. I believe the invalid reasons that the article on Matrixism have been deleted previously are three:

1. Matrixism involves the use of what are considered illicit substances.

2. The URL that Matrixism uses is Geocities.

3. Christians, Baha'is and others have a vested interest in keeping Matrixism down.

69.226.105.161 00:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I offered the NYT as an easy example, not as a concrete standard. If other items should be removed from the list, out of notability concerns, we'll take care of that. For the time being, we need to be convinced that Matrixism is notable. I was unable to find any evidence of The Sun mentioning Matrixism. A search of the archives, going back five years, under the term "matrixism," turned up zero results. [2] Please provide a link or links to reliable, independent sources, so that we can verify one or more of your claims. Luna Santin 05:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article noting Matrixism can be seen on The Sun's website at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,5-2005590116,00.html. The article in the Sydney Morning Herald can be seen on their website at: http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Theyre-all-god-movies/2005/05/18/1116361618786.html. 69.225.13.17 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can likewise confirm that a NewsBank (world/UK) newspaper archive search finds no reference to Matrixism in The Sun or anywhere else. Furthermore, we're being misled over the book references: these refer to a different matrixism, a mystical/subatomic concept coined by Jean Charon in the 1970s, [3] and nothing to do with the movie. Tearlach 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all of the books referenced above that concern Matrixism. In each one they are specifically talking about the Matrixism whose website is: http://www.geocities.com/matrixism2069. The books even go so far as to refer to this website by its url. I am glad that you have gone out of your way to tell a bold faced lie such as this. It proves my point that people are using unjust, untruthful and invalid tactics to keep Matrixism out of Wikipedia. 69.225.13.17 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intersect between notable subjects and subjects with official sites on Geocities is the null set. HTH. Just zis Guy you know? 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ^_^ Kasreyn 21:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you have not made any valid notability arguments. Please show me one. Indeed you have violated your blocked, went past 3RR multiple times, and not assumed good faith. I am trying to uphold Wikipedia policy, and you are going againt it, even by not accepting that the external link should not be in the page. -- Jeff3000 01:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the rebuttals made above and have factually proved them wrong. The fact that people have misrepresented the truth in this regard bolsters my argument by showing that people have indeed been using unfair and invalid tactics to keep Matrixism out of wikipedia. 69.225.13.17 19:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No valid notability arguments. The link is spam and should be reverted as such, as many times as are necessary until all the vandal's IP's have been blocked. Kasreyn 01:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see responses to the false arguments that were presented above. I expect of course that Jeff will not change his mind because he is a Baha'i and has a vested interest in squelching Matrixism. 69.225.13.17 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had already read your responses when I posted my comment, and found them insufficient. Claiming bias in other editors is an example of an ad hominem remark, which is forbidden under WP:NPA because such remarks disrupt civil debate and serve no useful purpose. Please stick to making your points in a civil way, and refrain from further commentary on your speculations about other editors' motives. Thanks, Kasreyn 20:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a welcome message and a link to User:Lar/linkspam (with an explanation) on User talk:69.226.105.161. Hopefully that will help somewhat in explaining the issues here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you have not provided any notability reasons for inclusion, and secondly you have constantly went against Wikipedia policy by including the External Link, in addition to going against 3RR and block-evading policies. -- Jeff3000 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff you are turning a blind eye to an obvious amount of significant evidence. One can only assume that your extreme bias is because you are a follower of the Baha'i Faith and thus dispise Matrixism so much that you cannot consider it objectively. Perhaps you consider removing yourself from this discussion due to your bias. 69.225.13.17 19:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please refrain from attacking me. My faith has no bias on these pages, and others can specifically note that. Matrixism has nothing to do with the Faith, and I don't despise it, and I really don't care about it it any way or form; everyone is free to practice what and who they wish. The only thing I am concerned on these pages is following Wikipedia policy, which includes notability, and you have refrained in multiple ways of abiding by Wikipedia policy. That's all I can say, look at my actions, and look at yours. -- Jeff3000 19:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an attack it was more a statement of what I consider to be an apparent fact. You say that Matrixism has nothing to do with the Baha'i Faith but you have previously argued at length to the contrary. Also you tried making a link from the List of Religions to a Wikipedia stub that you started called Matrixism(entheogenic). It seems that you are grasping at whatever tactic you think could squelch Matrixism here. I am sure that this is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy.69.225.13.17 20:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where I have argued that Matrixism has something to do with the Baha'i Faith. In fact, I have stated that does not have anything to do with it, as you can check in the archives. Regardless what you think is an apparent fact, you have no right to libel me with what you think; that is Wikipedia poliy. And yes I moved the current link to the Geocities site to another Wikipedia site, because that is Wikipedia policy regarding External Links. I would ask you to read WP:EL to refresh yourself on that policy. My actions have been to uphold Wikipedia policy, and yours so far have not. I have reported your 5RR to the administrators. -- Jeff3000 20:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been legitimate were there not already a re-direct for "Matrixism". Making "Matrixism (entheogenic)" seems to be a deliberate abuse. And again I don't agree that I am slandering you. That would consist of name calling and the like. I am merely pointing out that you may be biased in this argument as a Baha'i. That is a legitimate point for debate. Further I don't think that it is enough for you to just say "you have failed to show notability". I believe that you need to show why all of what I presented is not notable. 69.225.13.17 21:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the above discussions and I am still perplexed. Why is this even being discussed? Matrixism (the fact that a word is created to describe something that does not exist is enough to give pause) does not exist except in the minds a few, obviously deluded, people. A religion? By what definition is it a religion? At best we could have a vanity article, but I don't think those who think it really is a valid topic would be pleased. I am certain that I could add some information about how movies create "religions" in weak minds. This is fantasy gone badly astray; what is worse is that we have citizens who want to argue the "rightness" of their case. "I watched a movie and there really is a 'one'"; can you really say that with a straight face? Does your mother know you what you are doing? I gest, truly, but I think we need a reality check here.

Thank you, Jeff, for being attentive to this article and for being willing to continue to say no. My patience would have been completely expended some time ago. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you demonstrate that something is notable besides that it is noted in books, newspapers and the like? I do not think that there is another way. Since it has been shown that Matrixism is noted in various publication to simply say I don't it has been shown to be notable is not much of an argument. Why are the references that have been provided not enough? Again this is much more notability than is shown for many of the religions listed on Wikipedia. It seems well above any reasonable threshold. Three books, two newspaper articles and a university course syllabus and those are only the ones that are readily verifiable. 69.239.22.48 02:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS for more information. I believe the threshold is quite reasonable, and that "Matrixism" has a long way to go to meet it. Kasreyn 02:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the sources referenced? They are all reliable sources printed by reliable publishers. In what way are they not reliable sources? 69.239.31.252 05:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, two of your books are by the same guy, so those don't represent differing viewpoints. The Sun is a tabloid - not reliable. Your other website merely cites the author of the books, so it is not an additional source. So by my count your six "sources" are really three - books by two guys and a geocities website. Geocities is also generally not considered a particularly reliable source, last time I checked. It appears very likely that the book "Joy of Sects" is merely referencing either the geocities site or the two other books by the same guy. In short, you've got plenty o' nothin'. Please read up on WP:NOTABILITY some more and come back when you have something more than some guy's hobby attempt to claim his recreational drug use is a sacrament. ¬_¬ Kasreyn 06:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of The Sun is just your POV. In many people's estimation The Sun is right on par with the USA Today or the Washington Post. Also you make quite a lot of assumptions to create your theory of a swirling file of information. I doubt highly that you apply the same over-reaching skepticism to any of the other religions listed here. Again to use Church of the Universe and McMahonism as examples; The Church of the Universe lists as its only references a mysterious scrapbook and an even more mysterious pamphlet. Would you say that these are more reliable than what is written about Matrixism? McMahonism provides no verifiable references whatsoever. You may not like Matrixism because it involves the use of psychedelics but that is not a reason to change the standards used to create this list. 69.225.13.101 13:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. As soon as we've settled the Matrixism debate, I'll get down to business on deleting ~~McMahonism and~~ Church of the Universe. Note that I am not a longtime editor at this list page, so I was unaware that those two (and possibly other) religions were also not notable. My interest was only attracted to this page when I heard that a revert war was in progress. Kasreyn 21:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out McMahonism. Clearly marked as a Parody religion. Kasreyn 01:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The characterization of The Sun is not just my POV, but also the consensus of the editors at The Sun (newspaper). Kasreyn 21:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might not like the opinions expressed by The Sun you might not care for its readership but The Sun has the "highest circulation of any daily English-language newspaper in the world." 68.127.234.26 18:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixism has been deleted twice as non-notable. Even the redirect to New Religious Movements was deleted (see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion/Precedents/Deleted#Matrixism). The people involved in those discussions, are not involved here and vice-versa. The consensus in all those discussions and in this discussion is that Matrixism is non-notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and consensus is one of the most parts of Wikipedia. This page is a list of religions who all have Wikipedia articles. Secondly, none of them have an external link to any website. Why should Matrixism be different? In Wikipedia, internal links are always prefered to External links (see WP:EL) and you were not even happy with Matrixism inclusion without the external links. Your behaviour on this and other pages has even appeared on Wikipedia's most vandalized pages.

If you feel strongly, that we are wrong, and I'm sure you feel that way, the best way to go about it, instead of continued linkspamming as you've currently done, bypassing Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy, is to use Wikipedia' methods that allow greivances to be heard.

Given that if the Matrixism Wikipedia page is created, you can then make as many internal links in other pages, and argue with it's inclusions in other pages, I suggest you try to first create/recreate the Matrixism page. At this point in the resolution process, I think you should start with mediation, which can then lead to arbitration. I hope this information helps, and you will start working within Wikipedia policies, guidlines, and processes instead of continuely reverting to your version of the article. -- Jeff3000 15:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there has been consensus. I do not however agree that this has been fair. Valid points have been brushed aside one after the other. You're right one could say that thank goodness Wikipedia is not a democracy and continue on with the process. That being said I think that I will wait until there are even more verifiable scholarly references to Matrixism. I am interested to see just how blind to facts people will allow themselves to be just to protect their shakey world views. 68.127.236.71 18:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Matrixism business is just a well known vandal with a Geocities page trying to mess with us. I don't suggest taking him seriously. — Philwelch t 00:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:69.239.31.252, could you comment on the criteria for this article, which include: "As there are countless small religions, many of which cannot be verified to be real or legitimate, only those religions with Wikipedia articles will be listed in order to ensure that all entries on this list are notable and verifiable." Personally, I consider this to be reasonably fair, however I fully agree that in due course Matrixism could have further media attention and be relisted. For example, Digitalism has (probably) survived a deletion vote, largely because of a single "Wired" article. As Jeff has discovered, I have given Matrixism a link at Religion and the internet, any chance I could encourage you to argue your case? 80.189.197.184 14:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digitalism isn't out of the woods yet, largely because it's a neologism that was apparently coined by the author of the "Wired" article, and no two google search results can agree on what it means.

I'll echo the concerns of those that are saying the focus should be on getting the Matrixism article to survive deletion proposals before listing it here. Given that this seems to be the crusade of a single user, I'll also stress that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Rosicrucian 23:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record Matrixism is not my website and I am not a "Matrixist". I have been drawn into this argument because I have witnessed Matrixism receiving unfair treatment on Wikipedia. It seems that this religion is being held to a standard that is not applied to other religions here. Standing up to this ugly double standard is really my only motivation. I am far from the only person to have advocated to correct this.71.133.168.221 18:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixism is being held to a fair standard. If you feel other "religions" are being held to a less strict standard, then work on making the case for their deletion.--Rosicrucian 17:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at [4] and [5]. Addhoc 10:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A student newspaper (not a reliable source) and a quote that Matrixism is "a so-called movie-based religion that claims 300 adherents". Thanks, that makes a powerful case against inclusion. Just zis Guy you know? 11:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, a university quoting a recognised expert and this being picked up by a reasonable newspaper. Also, I am not saying that Matrixism should be included in this list, because the first requirement is to have an article. Addhoc 11:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC) (formerly 80.189.???)[reply]

What you just wrote Mr. "Just zis" doesn't make any logical sense. I disagree with you Addhoc. I do not see it a Wikipedia requirement that Matrixism should have an article before being included on this list. If it is a requirement please show me where it is stated in Wikipedia policy. 68.127.234.26 18:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in my opinion, the approach of requiring entries to have their own article is sensible, not least because it avoids duplicating arguments. Clearly, this only a view that has been developed by editors, not a formal policy. Addhoc 18:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like notable religion to me. 86.136.168.167 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Catholicism

I have moved the Chinese Catholic association to Christian NRMs, which is possibly incorrect, for example they have a reasonably large following. Any suggestions on how Non-Roman Catholics could be listed? 80.189.2.155 18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed the individual groups under "Catholics having broken communion with Rome", to see if this approach is any better. Addhoc 14:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (formerly 80.189.??)[reply]

Messianic Judaism

Since it is so disputed as to whether or not it is Christianity or Judaism, should it not fall strictly under "Abrahamic"? Because while Jews insist Messianic Believers are not Jewish, Messianic Believers insist they are not Christians. If it were alone, then neither group would have any qualms about it (save maybe the name of the group itself, which is another matter). Rivka 20:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that with you that they should be separated into their own group. I mean, the only argument that makes them Christians is their belief in Jesus but since believers of Gnosticism, Babi, and even Islam believe in Jesus up to some degree, maybe it should also apply to them.--23prootie 07:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I don't agree with recent reorganisation of this list which places Baha'i Faith at the start and Babi at the end, which isn't very helpful. I don't see why there has to be this distinction. In the Major world religions article the Baha'i Faith is mentioned and the Babi faith isn't, which is appropriate. However, in this article, placing religions out of alphabetical sequence for unexplained arbitrary reasons isn't appropriate. Addhoc 19:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I would go to the organization before today's edits, as those extra super-classifications are not really needed. Plus instead of alphabetical, maybe it should be more cronological, (i.e. Judaism first in the Abrahamic religion section). -- Jeff3000 20:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbinic Judaism

The opposite of Rabbinic Judaism is Karaite Judaism. Reform Judaism is rabbinic. Reform Judaism was started by rabbis and reform Judaism still has rabbis. Reform Jews study halakha; although it is not binding, it is still a feature of the religion. The opinion that Reform Judaism is not rabbinic is a very small minority opinion which is not to be found outside the orthodox/conservative world and it does not constitute a normative categorization appropriate for wikipedia. Zargulon 14:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Zargulon 22:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karaite Judaism is NOT the opposite of Rabbinic Judaism. Karaite Judaism is the rejection of the Oral Law. Reform Judaism rejects all Jewish law and is not even considered Judaism by Orthodox Jews, as it has a vastly different theological basis. The last time we went through this squabble we threw out the "Rabbinic" category since it was essentially useless.Hiergargo 02:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That it simply ignorant. Karaite Judaism is not just "the rejection of the oral law". Reform Judaism does not "reject all Jewish law". God knows what "Orthodox Jews think", I'm sure you don't. This solution is not ideal but I can tolerate it. Zargulon 07:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karaite Judaism, it is true, is not "the opposite" of Rabbinic Judaism...it is, however, the most successful [historically, at least] opponent of Rabbinical Judaism--at one time claiming up to 1/3 of Jews among its adherents. It is also true that Reform Judaism does not reject all Jewish law...it does, however, reject the authority of Jewish law in informing personal decisions. Where I have to part ways with Zargulon, beyond the WP:AGF and WP:NPA violations inherent in the "That is simply ignorant." statement, is in the apparent assertion that Reform is considered Judaism by Orthodox Jews. The pathetic appeal to authority by invoking what "God knows", and the red herring in the assurance that Hergargo "doesn't [know what Orthodox Jews think]", is...well, exactly that...i.e., "pathetic. Every Orthodox rabbi who has ever addressed the status of Reform vis-à-vis "Torah Judaism", has dismissed it as apostasy, and a number have even blamed the Reform movement as the cause of the Holocaust, ch"v. I would say, based upon personal experience, that the vast majority of Jews who identify themselves as "orthodox", and who adhere to Orthodoxy, under whatever guise or name, agree with Hiergargo's assertion, that "... Reform Judaism ... is not even considered Judaism..."

Beyond that, the statement "This solution is not ideal but I can tolerate it.", by User:Zargulon, seems me indicative of an abject failure, if not outright refusal, to abide by or even simply understand this fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Tom e r ^talk 07:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomer, Reform Judaism does not "reject the authority of Jewish law in informing personal decisions". Your personal experiences with Orthodox rabbis and Jews are irrelevant to wikipedia. We would not even be having this argument if you guys cited a reliable source, but since you are wrong, I suppose it must be pretty difficult to find one. Your contrived wikilawyering is an embarrassment. See below. Zargulon 08:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your sources, Zargulon? Hello pot, meet kettle. We would not be having this argument if you would comport yourself a little less obnoxiously. As for the accusation of contrived wikilawyering, what's an embarrassment is that you apparently honestly believe what you're saying. It can't be helped, I guess...there's got to be one in every crowd. WE won't be arguing in the future, since doing so, with you, isn't worth the time or effort. To the list of policies and guidelines I've already pointed out to you, here's another one for you to review. Muwahahaha. Stay hungry, Tom e r ^talk 22:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Zargulon 06:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Judaism

For the record, while our article on Sephardic Judaism doesn't make much of the distinction, and our Orthodox Judaism article makes short shrift of the very existence of Sfaradhim, what is called "Orthodox Judaism" refers, in the minds of those who say it [i.e., "Orthodox Judaism"], almost exclusively, to Ashkenazi Traditional Judaism. Among the latest Ashkenazi dogmaticisms seems to be an insistence that everyone reading Wikipedia should be forced to have the Jewish world presented to them only as seen through Ashkenazi eyes. The claim being made here to undo my edit, namely, that Sfaradhi and Ashkenazi are solely cultural distinctions flies directly in the face of the [correct] assertions made elsewhere (Template talk:Judaism comes to mind), that in Judaism, culture and religion are inextricably interwoven. Tom e r ^talk 23:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go forth and write more about Sefaradhim. I'm all for it. They're just as much Jews as us ’Ashkenazim. But:

1) Why aren't you mentioning the Yemenite Jews and the Middle Eastern Jews (עדות המזרח), who are separate ethnic groups? What about the Ethiopian and Indian Jews?

2) The differences between Orthodox ’Ashkenazim, Sefaradhim, Yemenites, and Middle Easterners tend to be practice-based, not ideology-based. Any competent rabbi will tell someone to follow someone to follow his/her own community/family practices, despite differences with his own.

3) Don't foist the non-Orthodox groups off on the ’Ashkenazim. Orthodox rabbis, in my experience, have repeatedly denied they were even the same religion as Orthodox Judaism, no matter what ethnic group. Better to fence those off as a separate group.Hiergargo 02:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) At the top of the list, it specifically says that only groups that have WP articles should be included in the list. There are no articles for Yemenite Judaism, Oriental Judaism, Ethiopian Judaism, Bene Israel Judaism, etc., nor even, for that matter, Ashkenazi Judaism.

2) Practice-based is one of the foremost divisions between the vast majority of denominations (or analogous internal divisions) in most of organized religion. For example, the difference between the 2nd and 3rd largest Lutheran denominations in the US (if I recall the numerical rankings correctly) involves the relative importance of certain functionaries within the hierarchy of church leaders. Among other denominations, the differences are as minor as whether they regard Jesus to have established 2 sacraments or 7, or some other number in between. The vast majority of such divisions are culturally and tradition-based, not simply ideology-based (eventhough ideology is how the divisions are often interpreted). Regarding whether or not a competent rabbi will tell someone to follow the person's minhagh vs. the rabbi's [presumably, as opposed to a proverbial, in this case, pastor attempting to persuade the questioner to follow [or adopt] his, i.e., the pastor's religion as opposed to the questioner's], that scenario involves a difference in outlook between Christianity and Judaism--in other words, now you're talking about tangelos.

3) I didn't foist the non-Orthodox groups off upon the Ashkenazim...that's where they came from to begin with. Although a lot of Conservative Jews have adopted Sephardic customs, Conservative Judaism is an outgrowth of Reform Judaism, which began as a haskalah-based outgrowth of German Ashkenazi Judaism. As it happens, Reconstructionist Judaism, the Union for Traditional Judaism and Conservadox all developed from Conservative Judaism (although the last drew largely on Modern Orthodox Judaism as well). Granted, Humanistic Judaism probably doesn't warrant inclusion under Judaism at all, any more than Jewish Buddhists or Judeo-Paganism, nor, for that matter, probably Jewish Renewal ...and for that reason alone, shouldn't be foisted upon the Ashkenazim. (I'm happy to exclude them altogether, so long as nobody says anything about that one guy ;-) ...) As for whether or not they should be "separated", that's an issue I don't know how to handle from a NPOV standpoint...especially not in a way that conforms with WP:NOR. I'm especially unhappy, as I've expressed previously, with the very existence of the Alternative Judaism article (at least by that name...IMHO it should be called Groupings of religious epikorsim or something similar)... Starting an article to handle those groups as well as the "denominations" whose devotion to halakha is notably less-than-steadfast, or in severe decline (i.e., R, C, Rec, etc.), as well as the groups listed in the Alt Jud article, however, would incite an almost inconceivable crapfest from editors who would feel insulted by their Conservative (for example) Judaism being lumped together with Jewish practitioners of paganism and witchcraft, and with Christians, etc. etc. As for denying that any of these groups are the same religion as Orthodox Judaism, I have to agree...in fact, the first breakaway group, the Reform, set out specifically to accomplish exactly that goal--i.e., the establishment of a new kinder, less-restrictive, more-Christian-looking religion. Tom e r ^talk 03:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not not some teenage Orthodox Judaism forum where contributors are free to vent their prejudices at length in yeshivish about other streams of Judaism and other religions. Look where you are, and either make an educated contribution, or kindly desist. Zargulon 07:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason you chose to reprimand yourself in this manner on this page instead of on your user talk page? Wikipedia article talk pages are not for discussing your shortcomings with yourself. Kindly review WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. If you were directing your venom at anyone else besides yourself with your above statement, the sum total of your remarks are wholly inappropriate. If you were talking to yourself, they're irrelevant. [I can only assume the latter is the case, since not only did I not say anything in yeshivish, I couldn't have had I wanted to...] Tom e r ^talk 22:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my contributions so far on this page, I have done nothing worse than criticise people's contributions. You, on the other hand, have accused me personally of having venom and an obnoxious comportment. Which of us do you think most people would say was making "personal attacks"? I have assiduously stressed the ecumenical nature of this page and upheld respect for other people's religions. You, on the other hand, launched into an unprovoked assault on non-orthodox streams of Judaism, going even so far as to call some of them personally apostates (not just their alleged beliefs). Which of us, if either, do you think most people would say had "venom" or was "comporting themselves obnoxiously"? In the interim period I have started 5 new pages on topics completely unrelated to this one, and they sure were hard work. Your edit record during the same period speaks for itself. Which of us do you think most people would say was obsessed? By the way, if you can type in hebrew letters, could you please fix the contradiction at the Masoretes page.

Using a hebrew word in the middle of an English paragraph when there is a more normal English word which means the same thing (epikorsim=apostates) sounds yeshivish to me but I admit it's subjective. Zargulon 07:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I recommend we take whatever personal differences we have off the discussion page for this article/list. Asking for citations is one thing, saying "you haven't given any citations because you're wrong" is quite another. Letting that rest tho, I think I've fixed the contradiction you pointed out at Masoretes, and when I have time, and get my internet working properly again, I'll be happy to supply references for the assertions I've made above [the vast majority of which, according to how I read what you've said regarding them, you have either completely failed to understand, or completely, intentionally or otherwise, misinterpreted in the interest of causing pointless and unproductive argumentation]. FWIW, neither WP:NPOV nor WP:NOR apply to talk pages, and I made no changes to the article that violated either of those two policies...so, in my view at least, any discussion of either, regarding my changes, is frivolous and misinformed. As I have explained elsewhere, while my edit history is really irrelevant to my participation on this page, I am having pretty severe internet connectivity problems... Beyond that, the demands of my job have, for the past few months, taken up much of the free time I once had to edit WP. Directing your comments toward me, however, is just as unproductive to the betterment of the article/list as my directing mine toward you was previously, so let's, please, agree to figure out the best way to procede in the interest of the betterment of the Project. As a side-note, "apostates" can refer to apostates from any religion...I used it specifically to refer to apostates from traditional Judaism, for which the word "epikorsim" [a Greek, not Yiddish, word given a Hebraized plural form] is the perfect choice. If you'd paid any attention to this whole discussion, you'd long ago have figured out I'm Sfaradhi, not Ashkenazi, and find Yinglish as bewildering as most Americans find Arabic... I hereby declare a flushing of all misunderstandings, and hope you'll agree to do so as well, in the interest of making the list "all that it can be". Tom e r ^talk 07:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good luck with your connection. Thanks for fixing Masoretes. It is news to me that yeshivish has to be based on Yiddish/Ashkenazic, although that's certainly what it says on the yeshivish page. Zargulon 08:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discordianism

Discordianism is NOT a mock religion! It is a very real religion with very real beliefs. It might look like a parody because of the very humorous tone some of it's philosophy have ("Nonsense as salvation!") , but it's still part of the philosophy. Discordians actually believe in Discordianism. Anyway, it might be a good idea to put it under the "other" category, since it is a very unique kind of belief system.

In practice Discordianism appears to be a mock and or parody religion. However, this is is not strictly the case as the adherents are in fact taking part the ritual of increasing chaos by pointing out, to all who will listen, the inadequacy of various more stuctured belief systems. This is a service to the Goddess Eris (a.k.a. Discordia, Discord, Chaos), and is meant quite seriously as a method of honoring her.

The idea of a parody religion is, in itself a bigoted affront and a lazy attempt to marginalize something which apparently some authors and editors here feel is nothing more than some goofy kids on drugs at best or an evil cult at worst. Discordians are devoted to the increase of free thought, the degradation of slavery in all of its forms, and the personal and spiritual empowerment of all people. These are hardly the hallmarks of a parody.

The Category of parody religions itself should be removed as its defining characteristic "Groups that poke fun at other religions or religion in general" is applicable to most if not all religions on the list. When Islamic and Christian adherents can speak with proper respect about Discordianism or even each other then, perhaps this will be a proper category, but until then please understand that Discordianism is not a joke. It is a revival of a Hellenic sect which seeks to pay proper respect to the Goddess. Although at first glance it may seem like a bunch of pranksters anyone who isn't too lazy to read the most basic scritures of the religion, and they're pretty short let me tell you, will find that the Goddess herself is a prankster. It's what she does. It's what discordians do to honor her, and it's not a joke. Well kind of, but not really, not the way you're thinking.

While you may feel that way, it's not clear from the article that all the followers feel this way. I also know people who consider it their real religion. I don't agree that it is a Reconstructionist religion, however. It definitely has syncretic and eclectic elements, and nowhere in the article itself is it claimed to be reconstructionist. You are the first person I've heard make that claim, actually. Can you source it here as reconstructionist? How about we move it to the more general Neopagan section? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivism

I noticed that there was a list for groups that were non-religious but had religious tendencys, should we include Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy since it's critics have accused it of being a cult? The Fading Light 14:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Addhoc 15:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quakers and Christianity

I do not think that the Quakers (Religious Society of Friends) should be listed as 'Christian', as there is no set Creed and thus whether or not Quakerism is a 'Christian' Religion (or a religion at all, many Quakers deny that Quakerism is a 'religion' in the convential sense!) is left up to the individual themselves, and there is an increasing movement away from Christianity for numerous reasons (theological, spiritual and political). There is definately not question that the Quakers emerged from Christianity, from Protestantism, but at the same time there's no question that Christianity emerged from Judaism or the Baha'i faith emerged from Babism which emerged from Shia Islam!

In addition, this this contradicts the quaker article: "Many Quakers feel their faith does not fit within traditional Christian categories....and is still controversial among Friends.]]. Obviously, I cannot speak for all Quakers, Quakerism itself makes that impossible, but I think that most would object to being termed 'Protestants' and would probably prefer to be in the 'Other' list, though a note about the historical relationship to Christianity would certainly be appropriate.

I'm not going to leap in and make any changes before it has been discuss, so any comments?-Gegen

After some quick reading it seems like some consider it to be part of Christianity, and others don't. Not an easy problem. For example, from the Religious Society of Friends article it states that the movement away from Christianity "has become increasingly evident during the latter half of the 20th century and the opening years of the 21st century, and is still controversial among Friends." I guess the solution comes from citing good sources; Adherents.com puts them underneath Christianity [6]; also, unfortunately, the Religious Society of Friends doesn't have a reference for the above statement. Maybe once we find a recent source documenting the most widespread belief, we could better understand the situation, and place them in the best group, or maybe even place a note beside them. Regards, -- Jeff3000 22:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gegen, I read the article cited and was surprised that the quote you have was not sourced. It is beyond question that the Society of Friends was founded upon the belief in Jesus Christ. Professing a creed is hardly required to be labeled a Chrristian relgion; if so Jesus and all of the early apostles would be found to be outside of Christianity (creeds were created later).

More than anything Quakers believe in being led by the Spirit and that nothing is more important than that personal revelation. Today, the Society may, in certain areas, have grown away from Christ, but that information should be legitimately documented before stated. Simply stating that one is not a part of the larger, orthtodox groups does not equate to being non-Christian. Great thoughts. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the theological freedom of the Quakers makes things difficult- the Quakers do not label themselves as that goes against on of the 'core principles' of Quakerism. I am in New Zealand, so obviously my thoughts regarding it are influenced by the Quakers in New Zealand (Quakerism is often very localised) and on their home page on the 'who we are' page they define themselves as:

"It is Christian in origin and inspiration, but is open to ideas and values from other forms of religious expression." http://www.quaker.org.nz/whoweare/whoweare.htm But as I've said, Baha'i is Islamic in origin and inspiration, the difference being that some Quakers will say that they are Christians, while no Baha'i will claim that they are Muslims. It's difficult and it comes back to 'what makes a Christian?'. I'm by no means an expert, but I'd say the death and ressurection of Jesus is probably the central thing that binds all the Christian sects together, from the Orthodox to the Catholics to the Protestants. The Quakers don't necessarily belive in the death and ressurection of Jesus, or they may offer a very different interpretation which could be symbolic, allegory or even gnostic or mystic.- Gegen

That's why we need verifiable sources for what is the most widespread belief among Quakers. The question of what is an independent religion is a subtle point. The Baha'i Faith came out of a Islamic milieu, but has significantly different practices and beliefs, including a new prophet/founder (which is sacrilegious to most Muslims who believe Muhammad to be the Seal of the Prophets) which is based on some eschatological prophecies in Islam and Christianity. I would state that that is more like Christianity coming out of a Judaic milieu. -- Jeff3000 23:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the problem- there is no way to do that accurately as Quakers place so much emphasis on personal interpretation, the inner light, Quakerism isn't like other religious groups in that the basic creed is that there is no creed. However, taking a quick look at the Quaker websites included in the Quaker Article (Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), the British site says that the Quakerism is 'rooted in Christianity' and 'centre their faith on Jesus', the Australian site doesn't specifically mention Christianity- if they defined themselves as Christians surely they would say so?, New Zealand says that is it Christian in 'Origin and Inspiration' and the Canadian site doesn't make any specific statement about whether or not they are Christian, but reading through there site there is little mention of Christianity at all, even when talking about the history of Quakerism! But as I've said, this can't be taken as authoritive, and these websites may not even represent the general consensus of the Quakers in their country, but one thing does seem to be fairly clear- the majority do not claim to be Christian, however they do say that they take inspiration from Christianity (like Christians take inspiration from Judaism). I still say the Quakers should be moved to the 'Other' section- Gegen

Listing of specific organizations

Should specific organizations that subscribe or purport to subscribe to a specific religion be included? It doesn't seem so to me. The article would easily grow to 10 times the size if every church and temple decided they deserved to be listed too. I've taken out some specific orgs, but some remain. The proper place to direct to specific orgs is in the article about the religion or using the category system, isn't it? IPSOS (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, IPSOS. Yes, you are right. 72.49.203.96 03:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Joshua[reply]

Status of Bön

Dear editors, it is an error to list Bon as a branch or subsect of Buddhism. Both the followers of Bon and scholars consider it a seperate and distinct religion all on its own, whilist not ruling out the two mutually influencing each other. Please consider revising this, I would do so myself, however I am not a registered user and I understand that actual editors are irked by anonymous folk editing. 72.49.203.96 03:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Joshua[reply]

Disambiguation proposal

Agree that a disambiguation page would be useful, however the List of religious organizations would be a better location, not least because that article is a very short indiscriminate list. Addhoc 11:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so, what are we going to do with the collection here? Some of it has value, but the formatting is problematic, and we'll need to split it partly into existing articles, partly to new ones. --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to convert this into a list of lists, compare list of languages or list of deities. dab (𒁳) 15:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Eastern religions"

Uh... someone keeps reverting my "Taoic religions" and "Dharmic religions" edits to "Eastern religions. I also try to add historical religions, and Zoroastrianism under Iranic religions. Why the hell should it be "Eastern Religions" basically meaning Dharmic religions with no Taoism or Shinto? 124.186.114.216 (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and they're adding "Jewish ethnic divisions" even though its JudaISM and sects aren't beneath the religions, they're representative of the religions. Wtf? 124.186.114.216 (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw... that was me>>> I forgot to sign in. Saimdusan 07:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimdusan (talk • contribs)

The term "dharmic religions" was deemed to be a neoligism, through much discussion, see the original discussion, the deletion request, and the the deletion review. Taoic was similarly seen to be a neologism. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but there is surely a difference between the Indian religions and East Asian religions, which should be shown on this page? Plus, "Jewish ethnic divisions" does not belong on a page about religion? 60.231.16.132 (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neopaganism

Neopaganism should be kept here, as it is a part of the "Pagan" section. If it is removed, "Rasrafarianism" and the "Bahai faith", as modern religions, will have to be removed from their "Abrahamic" section. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It is generally agreed by scholars that Neopaganism has different origins than traditional historic Paganism. Also Neopaganism is a much more recent development than The Baha'i Faith. Truly Neopagaism is a new religious movement. While I disagree with separating new religious movements from the list of religions as long as it is being done Neopaganism should on the NRM list. If you would like to return the entire list of new religious movements to the list of religions that is something that I would be able to support. TR166ER (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganize Christianity

There is already List of Christian denominations. I think that the list here of Christian groups should follow the structure of that list, which has basically well stood the test of time. Tb (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've done this. I'm not opposed to adding some of the groups in that I pruned, but I think it's excessive to try and have every individual distinction, or we would just end up reproducing List of Christian denominations, and the page would be come unbearable. Tb (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western Buddhism?

An editor has added a link to Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, but labelled it "Western Buddhism". I think this is quite problematic, for three reasons:

Friends of the Western Buddhist Order is already the name of the group according to Wikipedia;
Western Buddhism is a link to a broader page, Buddhism in the West, and
The name "Western Buddhism" implies that the referenced link refers to all Buddhism in the West, rather than simply one particular group.

So, I changed the name of the link to match the article Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, and the editor has reverted it to his original. What think we all? Tb (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was the one who originally did it. I agree with you there Tb, but I thought that "Western Buddhism" was the best group to label Friends of the Western Buddhist Order and Jewish Buddhism under. Is there any other suggestions? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Assuming the article is accurate, Jewish Buddhism is not really a religion or spiritual tradition. Buddhism has the property that there seem to be a number of adherents of other religions who refer to themselves as Buddhist, but unless we see some kind of organized something I don't think they should really be listed here. If there is a larger category for Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, I think it should be something about "ecumenical" Buddhism. (Scare quotes because "ecumenical" is really a technical term in Christian theology, and doesn't really fit.) But I think a larger category is only necessary once there is something to put there. Because Friends of the Western Buddhist Order is not clearly in any one of the three primary schools, I'm fine with it being positioned right where you did, but I'd like the name to match the page. Tb (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicism

The careful characterization of Christians has taken a lot of work on List of Christian denominations; please don't disturb it without conversation and some consensus. Listing Anglicanism under Protestantism is a POV-laden disaster, and excluding the Orthodox from Catholicism is also a POV-laden disaster. Tb (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As defined "Catholicism" can mean:

"(a) "the whole body of Christians". The actual extension of Catholicism in this sense varies with the different understandings of what it means to be a Christian. (d) "the part of the Latin Church that remained under the Roman obedience after the Reformation", i.e. the Roman Catholic Church. This definition of Catholicism should be expanded to cover the Eastern particular Churches that are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, and that the Church in question sees as no less part of Catholicism than the Latin particular Church. (e) "any church (as the Anglican) claiming continuity with the church before separation into Greek or Eastern and Latin or Western". Churches that make this claim of continuity include not only those of the Anglican Communion, but, among others, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church of the East. The claim of continuity may be based on Apostolic Succession, especially in conjunction with adherence to the Nicene Creed. Some interpret Catholicism as adherence to the traditional beliefs that Protestant Reformers denied (see, for example, the Oxford Movement). " Therefore I don't think that there is enough concensus on what "catholic" means to label Roman Catholics, Anglicans and the Orthodox churches under it. It just causes too much confusion, and I think that the vast majority of people recognise Anglicanism as a form of Protestantism. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

So even if it's wildly non-NPOV to put Anglicans under Protestants, we should do it anyway? Of those three definitions, notice that (a) is of course not valuable for categorization since it includes everyone; and (d) is POV-laden (the Orthodox and Anglicans will protest that they are part of the one catholic church. We can of course solve the problem with clarity, or hoping people will read Catholicism. Or maybe--just maybe--people in these traditions know more about them. You may also be colored by being English; Anglicanism outside the UK is often very different than Anglicanism within it. Tb (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, this is an encyclopedia, not a tool for telling people what they already think they know. Lots of people have never even heard of Anglo-Catholicism, but as a factor in global Anglicanism, it is extremely important, and has had extremely far-reaching effects on the self-understanding of Anglicans. There are two potential definitions here, and one of them is POV, and one of them has achieved some stable consensus. Can we please enjoy that stable consensus rather than mucking it up? When I asked if it would be good to make this page's Christianity section match the structure of List of Christian denominations, you didn't raise any discord, because you apparently assumed--rightly--that List of Christian denominations had sorted things out reasonably well. What you are suggesting is tantamount to moving the Mahayana buddhist groups over to a new "heretical buddhists" category because, after all, that's exactly what the Theravada think they are. Restricting the label "Catholic Church" to only the Roman Catholic Church is a propaganda move, designed to express POV. But it ticks off Orthodox and Anglicans all the time, and Wikipedia is commited to NPOV, even if it is contrary to your unsubstantiated guess about what "most people recognize." Tb (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, I see your point, though I think that we do need a larger concensus on this other than just me and you. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

of course we certainly do: we have the consensus of List of Christian denominations, Catholicism, and many other spots. Tb (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Atheism

I'm not sure where it would fit into the categories listed, but shouldn't Atheism be included, as it is also a set of beliefs? Faranya (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "list of sets of beliefs"; it's a list of religions and spiritual traditions. Atheism is neither. Tb (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism is a religion. "The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction" Just because the shared conviction in the case of atheism is the absence of the supernatural, that does not exclude it from the category of religion. Faranya (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So in the case of atheism, there is no communal faith, or group rituals. Something like Ethical Culture could certainly be listed, but that's not the thing as atheism. Tb (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some atheisms are religious. Or the other way around, I'm not sure. The Positivist church, for example, is atheist: it had (and in Brazil still has) a radical rejection of any deity or supernatural force, coupled to a communal faith in humanity as the bearer of unlimited potential for a perpetual uninterrupted scientific progress based on Comte's theory of History, and group rites and liturgies to celebrate it. Another example are the still very popular Masonic lodges which, while on general similar to the Positivist church, draw more directly from the broaden European Enlightenment of the 18th century rather than from Comte's specific version. And on a more ancient tone, there are branches of Buddhism which not only reject the usefulness of any deity for man, as Buddhism usually do, but go one step further and reject their existence (and that of any supernatural reality) altogether.

So, while atheism, being a philosophical posture, isn't itself a religion, it's a pre-condition to certain religions. How to add this into a simple directory-like structure isn't by any means clear. -- alexgieg (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger: new religious movements and traditions

As long as the word tradition is in the title then the list of new religious movements should not be merged. Andries (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any decision on this matter would require a criteria. My suggestion would be to draw the line on the adoption, by a certain religion or branch, of any principle derived from Modern and Contemporaneous philosophies. For example, if a religion believes in, say, progress, and/or individual self-determination, and/or that there's no ontological hierarchy, etc., and it was founded from the 15th century onwards, it would be classified as a "new religion". If not, it would be a "traditional religion".

The point, in any case, is that the criteria must be objective and neutral, no matter what. If it isn't, and religions get split in two or more lists because one "feels like" it should go here or there, then such a decision is clearly non-NPOV and should be avoided.

If such a criteria cannot be consensually defined, then merging the lists and avoiding taking a decision altogether would be better. -- alexgieg (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Indo-European religions in Indo-European religion section

In the Indo-European section Hungarian and Finnish polytheism is included on the list. However they are not Indo-European religions, but Finno-Ugric ones. Should they be moved? 144.32.126.12 (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]