Talk:Religious denomination

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Religious denomination article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Rewrite

This article could really use a rewrite in some parts, such as the first sentence: Redundancy like "long-established subgroup" with "existed for many years" just looks bad. There are several other places with grammar problems or style issues. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 21:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"almost no physical hostility"

Is there ever really any active "hostility" between Lutheran groups, particularly of a physical nature? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physical verses spirital hostility There may not be physical hostility, how ever there are spiritual hostility called unforgiveness concerning God, self and others with in the Lutheran denominations as well as all denominations. The message of Grace is a message of forgiveness. Forgiveness is the true application of love. The atributes of forgiveness are the fruits of the spirit. All denominations in the Christian faith believe in grace, but few truly understand and apply grace. God wishes grace not justice. Not judging —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.86.25 (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population statistics

Can we have some numbers, perhaps a piechart showing the precentages of the denominations? Faro0485 (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-denominational

While editing another article that described a significant Multi-denominational religious service, I attempted to wikilink it but it was redirected to a for-profit organization. I changed the redirect to Religious denomination. I then added a section describing multi-denominational to satisfy my need to define it to support the article I was originally working with so it meets my needs at the moment.

However, due to my lifetime of work with the US Military, I know that my poor attempt at defining it and describing the concept will never do the concept justice. Perhaps someone much more expert then I can improve that section beyond what I could hope to do. I asked for assistance on the Chaplain's article talk page as well. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition requires to be more specific

Current: A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity.

Proposed: A religious denomination is a counterfeit version of an original religion that has broken away from it's root and continues on to operate under cover of the common name of the founding religion, usually having a form of it's tradition and identity but not the original. [see schism] LET TRUTH PREVAIL!!! TROLLING IS FUN!!!09:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: The phrases "counterfeit version" and "operate under cover" appear to be very POV (Point of View) as they carry with them an impression that the flavor of the religion in question is somehow illegal or illegitimate. That claim may be recognized in some discussions boards and forums but here it would require a very well sourced and neutrally written section explaining the why's and wherefores. I believe that the current definition is both accurate and non-point of view. Wikipedia is not a place for crusades but is a place for people to work together to share knowledge. Please keep that in mind and please share your knowledge with us. Cheers! Veriss (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To: Veriss1: A denomination is a piece that has broken away from the original, not POV but fact. If it waddles and quacks and has a bill, It's safe to say it's a duck. If it's offended that someone calls it a duck does and exclaims POV! does that change the fact? LOL! :) LET ACCURACY PREVAIL!!! TROLLING IS FUN!!!10:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Still Oppose: I still feel that the phrases "counterfeit version" and "operate under cover" appear to be very POV (Point of View) as they carry with them an impression that the flavor of the religion in question is somehow illegal or illegitimate in the eyes of some presumably authoritative group. Your response did not address that nor the issue that labeling these breakaway groups in such a manner would be POV in the eyes of many readers. Which group is authorized to make these pronouncements and determinations that they are "counterfeit" and operating under cover? I am a lapsed Catholic so don't have a dog in the protestant denomination issue but I do want everyone to have a level playing field. What issue are you trying to rectify? Cheers! Veriss (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least clean the definition

PART 1) "A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion." <--fact (not a fact look at the root word)

(I would like to use the word "division" because that's what a subgroup is and the word is a more clear and accurate term to use. IMO.)

PART 2) "that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity." <---speculation/not fact.

That's why they are denominations, because they do not operate the same tradition and have different identifiers which usually call for a difference in name or title it's also why billions of people have died fighting because of difference. Just invite a baptist to mass or a Pentecostal to a mosque and see. Because Islam stems from the same book Christianity does but it is considered a different religion and they even believe in Jesus. So. Part 2 is erroneous. FACT. Not POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkdemers (talk • contribs) 10:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bring some references to the discussion please. Veriss (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to Part 1) Using the root and common use within various religious groups, Denomination refers to a splitting of authority. Such as many churches that have a single demoniator (resembling a monarchy or in cases an oligarchy of elected or "chosen"). Ex. Church of Christ is often quoted as non-denominational unless they have a group of elders/bishops to head multiple churches (in cases a "head church" resembling the papal states in Catholicism).

I think this is important as religion is a major cultural element and only relevant to itself in terms of classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.10.181 (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

misleading map

The map used on this page is misleading. The United Kingdom, where Catholics represented ~9 percent of the population, is striped for mixed Catholic/Protestant, while the United States, where ~22 percent of the population is Catholic is shaded only as Protestant. I don't have the tools to edit a map like this, but at least one of these countries ought to be changed, and I think 22 percent of the population ought to be enough for the U.S. to be classified as mixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.189.179 (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, some African countries are described as being predominantly of "nature religions" when in fact the largest faith is Christianity. Catholicism is the largest faith of Benin and Togo, and Protestantism the largest of Liberia. Christians, collectively, form majorities in Madagascar and Central African Republic, although it's possible that individual denominations do not outnumber animists. 12.239.145.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The mention of Hindu denominations is wrong

The article states:

"In Hinduism, the major deity or philosophical belief identifies a denomination, which also typically has distinct cultural and religious practices. The major denominations include Shaivism, Shaktism, Vaishnavism and Smartism"

That's not the same as Christian or Jewish or Muslim denominations. Hinduism is an umbrella term which many religions fall under, it is not a religion itself. The so-called denominations mentioned above, are in fact different religions. Similar to how Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all based off of the same religious tradition of Abraham----Vaishnavism, Shaivism, etc, also share common roots in the Vedas, but they're not different denominations of a single religion like Methodist or Baptist, Shia or Sunni, etc. they worship different Gods. In Hinduism a denomination of a religion is called a sampradaya, e.g. some well known Vaishnava denominations include the Sri Sampradaya, the Brahma sampradaya, and the Vallabha Sampradaya.

Others have complained about this at the talk for the wikipedia article on Hindu denomination.

66.75.110.26 (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed Citation Needed Tag

Addressed the call for a citation to the statement, "When Martin Luther protested Catholic practices, he and his followers were persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church as heretics." This statement tends to be a bit simplistic, but the point is valid. I cited an English translation of "Edit of Worms" which was essentially the arrest warrant for Luther after being charged as a heretic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Brugge (talk • contribs) 03:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of "examples" section

I noticed the section presents the "persecution" of Lutherans as fact, while the general public may be better served with something along the lines of, "...which the Lutherans allege is a persecution," with a corresponding citation.--Bettering the Wiki (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom and corrections

This map had some major errors, so I fixed those errors, these errors were:

The United Kingdom is only 9% Catholic and it was colored as a mix of Catholics and Protestants, while the United States which is 22% Catholic was colored as only Protestant, so I colored the United Kingdom as Protestant, because designating the UK as a mix of Catholics and Protestants but not the USA does not make any sense
Kazakhstan is 70% Muslim and 26% Christian, so it should be completely green instead of being colored as a mix of Sunni and Orthodox.
Puerto Rico was colored as Protestant, when in reality the majority are Catholic, so I colored it as such.
Cuba was colored as a mix of Catholics and Folk religions, when in reality the majority are Catholic, so I colored it as such.
Madagascar was colored as entirely Folk religion, when in reality is almost equally divided between Catholics and Protestants but with a strong syncretism with folk religions, so I colored it as such.
Holland was for some reason with a weird color that I didn’t recognize, so I colored it as a mix of Catholics and Protestants because that’s what is in really.
Estonia was colored as Protestant, when in reality the number of people who adhere to religion in Estonia is almost equally divided between Orthodox and Protestants, so I colored it as such.

(The Sr Guy (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

China isn't Buddhism, it should be mixed or other religious, especially Uyghurs, they are Muslim.

As above. Please fix. Thanks. 92.40.177.186 (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]