Talk:Indigenous religion

[Untitled]

https://www.academia.edu/738533/Pagan_Saxon_Resistance_to_Charlemagne_s_Mission_Indigenous_Religion_and_World_Religion_in_the_Early_Middle_Ages I don't know how to add sources but here is another essay by Carole Cussack. If someone with knowledge of how to edit Wikipedia could add that indigenous religions are typically linked with subsistence based economies and local understandings of warfare I would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.32.29 (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to NOT merge Ethnic religion and Indigenous religion. —Caorongjin 💬 10:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Ethnic religion into Indigenous religion. The terms have overlap. Both are also contentious, largely because of the adjectives employed, "ethnic" and "indigenous," but the latter seems to be used more neutrally than the other. Also, the edits made against ethnic religion that are often related to the lists of what is "ethnic" about the religion seems unhelpful. Also see the existing discussion. —Caorongjin 💬 13:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, because these are two slightly different concepts. "Indigenous religion" is used to categorise the religions of "indigenous" communities, which in contemporary academic parlance means those which have been colonised and continue to inhabit a subordinate position within a colonial context (so the religions of Native American communities in Canada and the U.S., the Ainu in Japan, the Maori in New Zealand etc). "Ethnic religion" is used to describe religions where membership is closely related to ethnicity, such as Yezidism, Judaism, or Folkish Heathenry. Some of these religions would count as both "indigenous religions" and "ethnic religions", others (such as Judaism or Folkish Heathenry) are ethnic religions but not indigenous religions. The ethnic religion article is in a really bad state (unsurprisingly, really, as "ethnic religion" is not a category with widespread use among contemporary scholars of religion), but I don't think merging the two articles will help the situation. If anything, perhaps we should just delete the "Ethnic religion" page altogether? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: I think you actually are agreeing with me. I basically suggest to keep what is salvageable from ethnic religion by copying it into indigenous religion, and deleting ethnic religion. The nuanced differences can be clarified in the article on indigenous religion. —Caorongjin 💬 12:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The articles can be improved to better explain how the terms relate to each other, but they exist as separate concepts in religious studies. What mainly seems to be causing trouble is that the article on ethnic religion is poor and misleading, because it suggests that a religion in its entirety must be either ethnic or universalising. In religious studies and ethnology the term is often used for understanding certain aspects of all religions, for exemple how different Christian denominations relate to ethnic divisions. Because this is unclear, people keep adding and removing religions that may be understood as ethnic in some aspects and clearly not in other. Ffranc (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, aligning with the reasons explained by Midnightblueowl and Ffranc. The article is in a bad state (like many articles of Wikipedia, and many articles pertaining to religion studies in particular) and needs to be rewritten according to quality standards, but I don't think that deletion or merger are the solution.--Æo (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IR

What about the judgement in terms of conclusion on the discussion of IR 77.246.52.176 (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

Hello there! I hope this review is not too alarming nor out of line to make, but I think it will at least somewhat help with the completion of this article.

Firstly, I think the overall composition of the article is well put together. The "Definition" section is the most helpful for understanding how the term is generally perceived by those who discuss it as well as the history of the term and why other titles are not fitting. With a topic as complex as this, I feel that this inclusion is incredibly useful.

It is to my understanding that there is still a lot more work to be done before this article can be considered wholly finished, and that is the impression that I get. I hope I am not being too harsh in wording my thoughts that way, but it seems to me that more development on each section is necessary. The "Examples" portion in its current state appears to be a replication of the first portion and does not entirely include new information or details. I think expanding on these topics would be extremely helpful in making the article more complete. It may even be possible to add more topics that relate to the topic at hand, including Indigenous groups' perspective on the matter as well as more religions to include under the umbrella. Input from the community from which the topic stems may help in bringing in more perspectives for the article..

I hope this proves to be useful! –JustAJar4 (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Critique

Hi!

I think that this article provides a great foundation for improvement. I felt that the lead section was probably the most effective in providing that preliminary information on what the article is about. However, I feel that the article as a whole is missing more in depth information and examples. I think that the "Examples" section has most room for improvement. As user JustAJar4 said, it seems that the examples section and the lead section are pretty similar. Instead, I think that there could be some specific examples of indigenous religions and their beliefs, traditions, etc.-- I do recognize that this may a difficult task, considering how many different indigenous religions there are. I also feel it might be beneficial to do a bit of comparing and contrasting of "indigenous religions" and "world religions", as there are definitely many similarities/overlaps that I didn't see mentioned in the article. Oliviachung5 (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"I do recognize that this may a difficult task, considering how many different indigenous religions there are."

Hi @Oliviachung5 - I understand your points but the definition of "indigenous" or "indigenous religion" is flimsy, arbitrary and rather biased given how it must have some tie to European colonization in the modern era. Even the page notes this (i.e - why the Buryat religious practices are considered "indigenous"). Or that an "indigenous" religion has to be more "primitive" or "non-mainstream" in nature. It also seems to be Anglophone-centric, since the sources I see disagreeing with Shintoism being an "indigenous religion" are not written by actual natives of Japan who I bet would have quite a different perspective on this. I.E - Western scholars argue Shinto has many "foreign" elements, but all religions have external and internal influences. I'm also sure many non-Anglophone peoples in Africa, Europe, etc would have widely different views about what an "indigenous religion" is.

There's a cited argument of the Shinto religion of Japan not being "indigenous" because the Yamato Japanese were "colonizers" and the Ainu may have arrived in some parts of modern Japan before them. If the pre-Columbian religions of North/South America are all considered "indigenous" religions, then the debates against Shinto religion is silly since the Aztecs, Maya, Inca, et al were also colonizers that oppressed foreign tribes/peoples.

If the definition is measuring over who arrived in an area first, then the Sami people and their culture/religion shouldn't be considered "indigenous", especially since the Basques are probably the last Paleo-European language in Europe, of which the Indo-European and Uralic languages are not a part of. And if we go back even further, then human life all began somewhere in Africa, so it gets kind of hazy arguing who got onto a land first.

So if Shintoism is contested/not counted as "indigenous" by Western scholars, then why is it being mentioned in the "examples" section? The other example provided, which is the Heathery movement that claims to draw upon the indigenous traditions of North/Western Europe is also debated/met with skepticism because of European colonization and whatnot.

I assume expanding this article would include more examples of Amerindian religions which are virtually agreed upon as being "indigenous" by Western scholars. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)