![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Urreligion Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Urreligion |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
"oldest religion" appears to be a notable meme, what with 42,000 google hits (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and discussion of the meme itself may be warranted. Googling, the term appears to be most popular with Hindus, but there are numerous other contestants. The idea is a bit similar to that of an " oldest language": do we mean actual prehistoric origins ( origin of religion), cultural universals ( folk religion), earliest evidence ( paleolithic religion), earliest written attestation (Early Bronze Age), "continuity" (or conservative ritualism) ( history of religion, ritualism, Shrauta), or do we mean claims of restituation of a primeval religion (Islam, Umbanda etc.)? This quick overview of meanings makes clear that the term can never be used objectively unless it is precisely stated what the claim is (in the python worship case, "earliest known evidence of human ritual practice." dab (𒁳) 18:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
quoth Wloveral ( talk · contribs): "Article title not clear. Needs major re-write. Should be merged with general article on religion."
-- dab (𒁳) 09:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
So the article is a "povfork"? A pov fork of what article, and pushing which point of view?
Independently of hostile allegations, I do think a well-argued and well executed merger might have some merit. But I also think this can well be a standalone article just like Claims to be the fastest growing religion. The point is that this addresses both actual history of religion and recent chauvinist, literalist and pious claims along hte lines of Hinduism or Islam being "the oldest religion" ( WP:TRUTH). In this respect, calling a religion "oldest" is just adherents touting it on the same footing as calling it "fastest growing". I have indeed created an article on this meme because Hindu editors insisted hook and crook to call Hinduism "the oldest religion" in the indicative in the lead of the Hinduism article. dab (𒁳) 09:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
After a closer look, my fears are confirmed and the article is clearly a kind of [{Wikipedia:SYNTH|original synthesis]], and unless a reference that compares the list of 'religions' is listed here is produced, article should be marked as OR. Wikidās ॐ 12:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of pages that link to this one. Having a blind redirect to something about Germanic philosophy isn't the way to solve the problem. Incoming eyeballs are getting whiplash from the topic shift. This page needs to be properly worked through into a real independent article. 23.116.49.179 ( talk) 18:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm proposing that we merge this article with Origin of religion instead. 23.116.49.179 ( talk) 18:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm poking you all to another discussion page Talk:Evolutionary origin of religions where people are coping with a rogue editor who is vandalizing pages. That editor has deleted a variety of pages on religious history, replacing them with blind redirects to Urreligion (which is not about the same topic). They seem to be interested in pushing their own personal viewpoint without regard for Wikipedia policy. 23.116.49.179 ( talk) 19:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Urreligion Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Urreligion |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
"oldest religion" appears to be a notable meme, what with 42,000 google hits (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and discussion of the meme itself may be warranted. Googling, the term appears to be most popular with Hindus, but there are numerous other contestants. The idea is a bit similar to that of an " oldest language": do we mean actual prehistoric origins ( origin of religion), cultural universals ( folk religion), earliest evidence ( paleolithic religion), earliest written attestation (Early Bronze Age), "continuity" (or conservative ritualism) ( history of religion, ritualism, Shrauta), or do we mean claims of restituation of a primeval religion (Islam, Umbanda etc.)? This quick overview of meanings makes clear that the term can never be used objectively unless it is precisely stated what the claim is (in the python worship case, "earliest known evidence of human ritual practice." dab (𒁳) 18:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
quoth Wloveral ( talk · contribs): "Article title not clear. Needs major re-write. Should be merged with general article on religion."
-- dab (𒁳) 09:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
So the article is a "povfork"? A pov fork of what article, and pushing which point of view?
Independently of hostile allegations, I do think a well-argued and well executed merger might have some merit. But I also think this can well be a standalone article just like Claims to be the fastest growing religion. The point is that this addresses both actual history of religion and recent chauvinist, literalist and pious claims along hte lines of Hinduism or Islam being "the oldest religion" ( WP:TRUTH). In this respect, calling a religion "oldest" is just adherents touting it on the same footing as calling it "fastest growing". I have indeed created an article on this meme because Hindu editors insisted hook and crook to call Hinduism "the oldest religion" in the indicative in the lead of the Hinduism article. dab (𒁳) 09:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
After a closer look, my fears are confirmed and the article is clearly a kind of [{Wikipedia:SYNTH|original synthesis]], and unless a reference that compares the list of 'religions' is listed here is produced, article should be marked as OR. Wikidās ॐ 12:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of pages that link to this one. Having a blind redirect to something about Germanic philosophy isn't the way to solve the problem. Incoming eyeballs are getting whiplash from the topic shift. This page needs to be properly worked through into a real independent article. 23.116.49.179 ( talk) 18:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm proposing that we merge this article with Origin of religion instead. 23.116.49.179 ( talk) 18:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm poking you all to another discussion page Talk:Evolutionary origin of religions where people are coping with a rogue editor who is vandalizing pages. That editor has deleted a variety of pages on religious history, replacing them with blind redirects to Urreligion (which is not about the same topic). They seem to be interested in pushing their own personal viewpoint without regard for Wikipedia policy. 23.116.49.179 ( talk) 19:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)