This template is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Removal of Historical Religion from Major religious groups and denominations[edit]
Some of the Religions are listed on both list, while other religions are not. Doremon764 (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should we remove religions that are listed on the Historical Religion from the Major religious groups and denominations. So there is one of each? Doremon764 (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doremon764: and @CaptainKaptain:, can you say something here about the reversions going on? I agree with Doremon that Indo-European is the established category. WP is not the place for redefining these categories and creating new ones based on personal opinion. It's only for documenting them. Recategorizing them according to personal opinion or independent research could be considered WP:OR. - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 20:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems CaptainKaptain assumed that Indo-European meant India and Europe from lines he stated, "Indo-European religious category without Indian religions makes no sense & is, thus, just European." Which disregards the term Indo-European and instead tries to infer European religions category is all one including other regional religions. He also separated Traditional African Religions into North and Sub-Saharan Africa seeing it as a major difference instead of religions of a continent. The only religion on the North Africa line was Berber and since it wasn't broken up into the 5 parts of Africa, (North, Southern, East, West, and Center), Berber should be included as it is on the Traditional African page.Doremon764 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Indo-European religions" is not really a thing and it certainly doesn't make sense to have a category labelled thus that excludes Hittite, Iranian, German, Norse, Greek, Roman etc. religions. In fact, all of the religions linked to in that category are branches of Neo-Paganism (most of which are already linked on the template under "Recent"). That whole line should be deleted from the template and those few entries that aren't already in "recent" can be moved there or deleted as too minor to appear here. Dividing North and Sub-Saharan Africa leaves a lot of blank space and means that we lose the link to Traditional African religions, so doesn't seem like an improvement to me. Furius (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CorbieVreccan it seems that Doremon764 reverted the "European" classification into "Indo-European" perhaps due to being more accustomed to the term (as you also mentioned being), which is used to refer to the dominant language group in Europe. However, not only did he forgot to remove several non-IE-speaking ethnic religions from the category (such as Uralic, Circassian, etc.), but the whole "Indo-European" classification for religious traditions doesn't make much sense to begin with, as certain non-IE-speaking European religious traditions, such as Basques, Uralics (which are entirely native to Europe) and Circassians can only be classified as "European" religious traditions (not, as "Indo-European" ones). Furthermore an "Indo-European" classification (which would be made entirely based on the language-group), containing only the European IE-speaking traditions (and not the broader Indian, Iranian, Anatolian, Tocharian and other IE religions) would make little sense. It seems to me that the better classification woulde be a continental one, including IE-speaking and non-IE speaking European religious traditions, which are still distinctly European, though, in essence. A further problem with basing the religious classification on language-groups is that things like the Jamaican Maroon religion, mentioned in the template, would count as "Indo-European traditions" as the Jamaicans speak a language from the Indo-European branch (English creole). I see no problem in applying the same "continental criteria" to African religions, including the North African Berber religion (and also Egyptian, Ethiopian & others). Please don't forget to make the appropriate adjustments when the discussion is finished. CaptainKaptain (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe that not all religions considered Indo-European should be so. But that's personal opinion. On WP we go with the sources. Language is how cultures are generally grouped. So when you say, "...would make little sense. It seems to me..." - that is your opinion/WP:OR. We should stick with the language categories. It doesn't matter whether or not we personally think we have a better idea. - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 00:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it is important to establish criteria and stick to it. But in that case, the result of the criteria is utterly absurd. Where would the Non-Indo-European speaking European religions such as Basque, Circassian, etc. be classified? Should we split African ethnic religions along language-groups too? Have a Niger-Congo, Nilotic, Semitic (Horn of Africa & Ethiopia) and Berber categories rather than an unified African one? Should we also add the African diasporic religions, such as not only Jamaican Maroon, but others such as Candomblé, Santería, Vodun, etc. to the Indo-European category too, since its belivers mostly entirely speak Indo-European derived languages (Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish, French Creole, etc.)? That would be a huge blow to the general quality and accuracy of the template for the sake of precisely meeting criteria for criteria's sake. That seems to go against the general purpose of informing people. CaptainKaptain (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and PS: the main source that seems to be utilized in the template is Mircea Eliade, which is a religious scholar but also a proponent of Indo-European studies. I don't think that source would be strictly neutral, in that regard. Anyway, something to consider. CaptainKaptain (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also propose unifying the different Asian classifications into a broader "Asian" category and then, inside that category, split the religions into language-group classifications (such as Tibeto-Burmese, Japanese, Tai and Miao, etc.). The same could, theoretically be done to the European (splitting into "Indo-European" - including the Afro-American diasporic religions, "Basque", "Caucasian" and "Uralic" inside that category) and African (splitting into Niger-Congo - and perhaps further into Bantu/West African, Nilotic, Semitic, Berber, etc., again inside that category) if one is going to stick to classifying religious traditions according to culture groups based on language groups alone as a criteria. CaptainKaptain (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. Creating a whole Asian section and separation religion s by Contintents gets messy because of Western and Eastern Religions. Things like where religions are prominent and where they originated from aren't always same locations.Doremon764 (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First-time ever I see the term "Indo-European religions" being used in such a way. It refers to the (reconstructed, hypothetical) religion of the proto-Indo-Europeans; to use it to group present-day religions is absurd. The term "European" seems to refer to various strands of neo-Paganism (and are also mentioned under "Recent"), and some original native religions (which belong to (Other ethnic"). The Abkhaz people most certainly are not IE. And the common name for "Dharmic religions" is "Indian religions." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Doremon764 diff, I propose to discuss the various issues separately: "the naming of Indo-European category, the separation of North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa, and should religions of Asia be cluster together under an Asia banner." Plus, the place of neo-Paganism and ethnic religions. Let me note, in advance, that I'm afraid there's no single, logical way to structure this template. Abrahamic and Indian religions refer to historical developments; Austroasiatic, Chinese, etc. refer to geographical boundaries. But it seems logical to me to follow the structure of List of religions and spiritual traditions and Major religious groups#Classification, despite the logical inconsistency of Indian versus east Asian. regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to re-arrange the subboxes in line with List of religions and spiritual traditions. Ethnic religions and NRM can be grouped as well, but I've had enough for the moment; the accolades are dancing before my eyes. And I screwed-up the make-up somewhat: some of the thick white lines disappeared. Does anybody else know how to fix that? Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've vreated several subgroups now; I wasn't able yet to fihure out how the thick lines will appear; and the alignment still sucks too. But I'll try to fix those problems. Template:Navbox may have the answers. The thick line has to do with "border"; it is set as "none" when using a child navbox. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The naming of Indo-European category - neo-Paganism and ethnic religions[edit]
diff 19 may 2021 CaptainKaptain, "European group includes Circassian, Uralic and others who are not Indo-European speakers. Plus Indo-European speaking groups such as Indians are listed under the Dharmic religions category & so forth."; changed Indo-European (links to Indo-European languages!) into "European."
diff 20 may 2021 Doremon764, "The Religious studies category is known as Indo-European and is focused on that region which differs from Indian and Iranian Religions"
diff 21 may 2021 Doreman764, "Uralic added back as a catagory different from Indo European"; moved several neo-Paganistic movements and ethnic religions to a new group of Uralic (which links to "Uralic neopaganism")
It's clear that most of these topics are about neo-Paganism, which is mentioned under "recent," while Adyghe Xabze is an ethnic religion, and Hellenism is a historic religion. And why are these links piped (that's the correct term, isn't it?). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The separation of North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa[edit]
diff 21 may 2021 Doreman764, "Added Traditional African Religions as Traditional.", merged "North African" into Traditional (linking to "Traditional African religions")
Traditional African religions has a subdivision of Central Africa, East Africa, Horn of Africa, North Africa, South Africa, West Africa, African diapsora. Makes sense to me; northern Africa is mediterrenean, and closely connected with southern Europe and the Middle East, while the Sahara forms a significant natural border with sub-Saharan Africa. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should religions of Asia be cluster together under an Asia banner[edit]
Eastern Religions include other religous grouping outside Chinese, Indian, Japanese, and Korean. Some groupings are in the Ethnic and Indigenous grouping, and that what makes it more complicated. Nepalese, Vietnamese, Philippines, and etc.Doremon764 (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it will never be smooth... As for this box, if we follow List of religions and spiritual traditions, we'll have to resort all the links again; a lot would go under "Ethnic religions," I suppose. And "Ethnic religions" would still have a geographical subdivision.
A friend of mine is librarian; no matter how she sorts her books at home, she always has some books that defy the classification, which she finds very frustrating. I love it; sort of 'nature defies human systematization'. Some sort of 'freedom peeping out from whatever systematizatiin'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The term Middle Easter Religions or Western Religions[edit]
Joshua Jonathan, the best place to ask for help with template formatting is probably the Help desk. You might also consider pinging some of the other contributors to this template to see if they can help. – bradv🍁 03:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Lingayat is already there. Ganapatya can't be under Shaivism. It's in the list linked to at the end, not sure whether a specific entry is needed. hemantha (brief) 04:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Since Kaumaram was there, adding Ganapatya seems right. hemantha (brief) 12:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Since Kaumaram was there, adding Ganapatya seems right. hemantha (brief) 12:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
