Talk:Urreligion
15 August 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Urreligion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Neighboring merger may step on toes
I'm poking you all to another discussion page
The move
It is certainly a good move. However I would relate it to
- context of above comment -- Talk:Claims to the oldest religion.
- re Wikidas' suggestion " I would relate it to dab (𒁳) 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)]
- You see - I do not have a 'one track agenda' as you have suggested Proto-Indo-European religion article almost absurd to link to. I know its not well sourced and is not quite there, but its interesting to compare the two in this context. Wikidās ॐ 23:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)]
- You see - I do not have a 'one track agenda' as you have suggested
A problem
"Claims to the oldest religion" redirects here, and so we have no real article on that topic, as this article doesn't really discuss it. We have an article on claims to be the fastest growing religion; why not one on the oldest? It's an interesting topic, delving into both mythological (from-the-creation-of-the-world) and historical areas.
But what do we mean by 'oldest religion'? Usually we mean 'oldest *surviving* religion', in which case the major contenders are probably Zoroastrianism (strongly dependent on the wildly varying dates given for
"oldest surviving religion" isn't any more meaningful than "oldest religion", because religions are malleable. You can have "claims to the oldest religion" of course, and we can document such claims, but it is meaningless to try and evaluate their truth value.
"Urreligion" is the notion of a first, primeval, original religion, which would automatically be the oldest religion. Just pointing "oldest religion" to prehistoric religion or paleolithic religion might also be a possibility, but it makes more sense to discuss attempts to figure out "which religion came first" in the context of "Urreligion" than in the context of paleolithic religion.
So, in my opinion, there isn't really any valuable article in there, just a boring list of airy claims. The topic that is actually interesting is already here, namely bona fide 19th century attempts to figure out an "Urreligion". --
The article says that "urmonotheism" is now a discredited theory and provides a reference link. This was interesting, so I followed it--but the link does not support the statement in the article. I don't know whether to remove it or not on that basis, but maybe a more regular editor will see this and take whatever action is appropriate. --GRB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.159.84 (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
fwiiw, this is how far we got with the kind of article you envisage. Perhaps you want to try and revive it. But be sure to avoid
- There's also ]
I gave a citation, don't know if it is valid
The on line version of Britannica(no problem in using it as a source, right?) considers the indus valley civilisation to be the start of hinduism , if 'the traditions' of the indian subcontinent can be called as such. is it valid? if not, forgive me.117.196.149.205 (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)