Talk:Ethnoreligious group

Other groups
Old Order German-Russian mennonites that live in South America could also be descibed as an ethno-religious sub-group because i've heard they do not mixs, and do not want to mixs with other religions, cultures, and races.

Also some fundamentalist mormons ("not all") consider themselves a tribe and will not mixs with other religions or races.

There are also Black Israelites who are united by race and religion.

Some Old Russian believers that normally stay with their own religion and culture.

Hutterites are another group which normally stays with their own even though they are very liberal on allowing groups, and people into their religion even if it has nothing do with their culture. But even with that said majority of Hutterites stay with the same culture, and language.

Even among Jews there are different sects of Jews are even more ethno-religious then their counterpart.

In the Arab world The Bedouin are mostly united by a traditional culture and Islam, though the community of this group has slowly been intergrating.

There are probably dozens of African, Central Asian, and Native American groups which are united by race and religion.

So I think a few more groups could be added, probably to many groups out there that fit the entho-religion discription. Just thought I would give a few more groups and a few more areas like Africa and among Natives where these type of groups exist many times more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenthere (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Serbs
Serbs aren't an ethnoreligious people. There is quite a number of atheistic(like myself)/catholic/muslim Serbs, which(catholics/muslims) do not consider themselves Croats or Bosniaks. I realize that it's much easier to distunguish these 3 ethnicities via the religion, but in reality it isn't like that. -- P rim E vi L 11:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is a mess, do whatever you want with it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed combination with Folk religion
I felt that this article and the Folk religion article could benefit from combining the two and work on expounding/developing them. Any thoughts? Der.Gray (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think they should stay as separate articles. Folk religion (now that it's been cleaned up a bit) is about religious practices outside of the "official" practices of a religion.  This article is about groups of people who are united by a common religion and a common ethnic background.  They're separate things.  --Alynna (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing sources
This article does not have solid sources for a general definition or description of the term. The few sources that are present are almost completely based on UK law. There were a couple sources used outside the British law section but they either did not support the content or again referred to UK law.

If wider and more scientific sources can't be found, then the page should be deleted, or moved to Ethnoreligious group as defined in UK law or something like that. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The term is definitely used outside UK law, as shown by a quick Google Scholar search for "ethnoreligious group". So it's definitely a real concept, and therefore worth having an article on.
 * None of the first few results is obviously a definition, but I'll look for one. --Alynna (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you had any luck in finding a definition in those sources? It seems to be a real term, but this article is not based on those sources and as it is now has no support for the ideas it presents.
 * I've now reviewed all the sources in the article and found that none of them even mentions the term "ethnoreligious" or "ethno religious", and all three of them are about specific situations in UK law. The sources are:
 * A UK legal document, primary source, not satisfactory for general definition, only for describing the particular event
 * A book on UK legal definitions of ethnic and racial groups. It's a reliable source, but not for the topic of the article since it does not use the term.
 * A blog about a particular UK legal decision that blog discusses how recognition of Jews as an ethnic or racial group may affect admissions policies in schools in the UK. It's a blog, so it's reliability as a source is marginal.  But even if it were reliable, again, it is not about the topic of the article, it's about a specific legal decision.
 * As it stands now, the article is completely unreferenced for the title topic "Ethnoreligious group". Even the section about the Mandla v Dowell-Lee case has no sources for the use of the term.  The article on that case only uses the term "ethnic group", not "ethnoreligious".  That material should be deleted as off-topic and unsourced, or moved to the page about that court case where the text is at least directly relevant, though sources would still be needed for that use as well.   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On further thought, I removed the section about the court case Mandla v Dowell-Lee because all of the information from the case decision, and specifically the list of criteria for defining the group, used the term "racial group" and did not refer to "ethnoreligious" at all. The one other sentence in that section was the text based on the blog footnote and again referred to the Race Relations Act 1976, not to the term "ethnoreligious".   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ethnic religion
Someone has proposed merging this article into Ethnic religion. I oppose this proposal. Ethnoreligious groups and ethnic religions are completely different things. --Alynna (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, hmm. When "ethnic religion" is used to describe, for example, Korean Christians in the United States, that usage is probably synonymous with "ethnoreligious group".  But when scholars describe Judaism as an "ethnic religion", they're talking about something else.  I guess the difference I see is "a group that happens to share an ethnic and religious identity" vs. "a religion that is partially about belonging to a particular ethnic group".  I think we should adjust the scope of the two articles so that ethnic religion is only about the latter thing.  --Alynna (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it should be merged or not, but this article has a big problem, that is - the definition/description of the term has no sources. I've done a lot of searches, and I've found plenty uses of the term, but I've not been able to find even one definition in an academic work.  Sooner or later, if the definition can't be sourced, it will have to be removed as original research. That would leave this article as nothing but a list.  It could be renamed to List of ethnoreligious groups, but even that title has a problem. Lists require clear criteria for inclusion. What would that be for a list that has no sourced definition of the term?  It would have to be something like - at least one author has described the group as "ethnoreligious".  That doesn't seem like a good basis for an article.


 * Maybe we can find someone who has knowledge of this topic to help locate sources for the definition. I'll post a note at the various Wikiprojects that have their banners on this page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It might not be a good criterion for an article in the narrower sense, but it could be a reasonable one for a list.


 * If Alynna's suggestion is to be adopted, whcih seems reasonable, there should presumably be a hatnote on the other article saying it covers only one meaning, for the other meaning see ... Peter jackson (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It is almost impossible to write decent articles about these topics on Wikipedia, as many people's brain simply shuts down as soon as they hear the term "religion". This concerns religionists and anti-religionists alike.

A merge suggestion does not imply that the two page titles to be merged are synonyms, for crying out loud. A merge suggestion is just that. It means that there are two broken articles on two roughly related topics, which given the current stage of article development would do better if they were treated in context on a single page. But many people when confronted with a completely pragmatic merge suggestion start ranting about A isn't synonymous with B, as if the merge suggestion made such an implicit claim. --dab (𒁳) 12:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the distinct but related topic argument does have some validity. When writing or editing other articles it is valuable to be able to refer to one concept as distinct from the other.  In a well written merge, the lead would make the distinction and there would be separate sections which elaborated on each topic; however, where the original articles are "broken" such a merger results in a shambles. --Bejnar (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I do not see much potential benefit at present in merging these two articles. In fact, I see it as leading to more confusion, rather than less. Efforts now should be placed on improving each article.  When that is done, the articles can be evaluated to see if a combined article would be more beneficial to readers. --Bejnar (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per Bejnar. Inamos (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Australian law
Ethno-religious is actually a legal term in Australian law. See for instance the definition of "race" in section 4 of Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (consolidated as at 8-Jan-2010), which reads:
 * "race" includes colour, nationality, descent and ethnic, ethno-religious or national origin.

The reference to "ethno-religious" was inserted by the Anti-Discrimination (Amendment) Act 1994. To quote what Attorney-General The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD's speech in Parliament introducing the Bill (4 May 1997, NSW Legislative Council Hansard, pages 1827-1828):
 * The effect of the latter amendment is to clarify that ethno-religious groups, such as Jews, Muslims and Sikhs have access to the racial vilification and discrimination provisions of the Act. At present, it is not clear whether such groups are covered by the racial vilification and discrimination provisions, although this would appear to be the position at common law. The amendment will make it clear that vilification or discrimination against a person on the basis of ethno-religious origin falls within the protections against racial discrimination and racial vilification currently contained in the Act. The amendment is in line with existing judicial authority from both New South Wales and overseas which indicates that ethno-religious background is included in the legal concept of race.
 * I should make it clear to honourable members that this amendment is not intended in any way to interfere with religious freedoms, and that the extension of the Anti-Discrimination Act to ethno-religious groups will not extend to discrimination on the ground of religion. At present, section 56 of the Act specifically exempts religious practices, in accordance with the Government's policy that anti-discrimination laws should not interfere with fundamental religious freedoms. The proposed amendment to the definition of race will not allow members of ethno-religious groups such as Jews, Muslims and Sikhs to lodge complaints in respect of discrimination on the basis of their religion, but will protect such groups from discrimination based on their membership of a group which shares a historical identity in terms of their racial, national or ethnic origin. Accordingly, the amendment will not prevent religious schools, for example, from employing suitable staff on the basis of their membership of a particular religion.

So the concept of "ethno-religious" refers to groups where there is an ambiguity between religion and ethnicity. I think Jews constitute the classic example, since they are both an ethnicity and also a self-consciously ethnic religion. I am less comfortable with the minister's reference to Sikhs and Muslims -- both religions view themselves as essentially universal rather than ethnic, and Muslims especially are found in varying concentrations among almost every ethnicity of the world. In the case of NSW law, there is a legislative intention to prohibit racial discrimination, without prohibiting religious discrimination. It is also desired to ensure Jews are protected against racial discrimination, but if religious discrimination is not prohibited there is the risk someone who engages in anti-Jewish discrimination might succeed in the argument that Jews are a religion not an ethnicity and therefore they are not engaging in racial discrimination. Hence the provision in the NSW Act.

s.3 Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) contains a similar provision - I have not researched the logic behind but I assume it is the same.

I know Australian law, I have not studied other legal systems, but I am sure other legal systems have faced the same issue. It is common to treat religious discrimination differently from racial discrimination, to not prohibit it to the same degree or at all, because it is rather different. Religion is seen more as a personal choice, ethnicity as more something inbuilt (even though in its non-biological aspects it still can be chosen to some degree.) And religion can be used to justify almost anything, so prohibiting religious discrimination is more fraught with danger than prohibiting ethnic discrimination. (My religion demands I wear this outfit/symbol/etc all the time, even when serving customers, even though it violates my employer's religion policy. My religion says I can't work Sundays or Saturdays or so on, even though my work needs me too... etc. My religion demands I'm allowed to discriminate in employment decisions...) Yet along come these groups which muddy the distinction between ethnicity and religion.

The import of all of this, is I am not keen on merging "ethno-religious" with ethnic group or any other article. The term refers to a particular issue, which is how in some cases the concepts of ethnicity and religion overlap in messy ways, as much as some would like to keep them separate - and especially in the case of the Jewish people. So I think on that basis this should be a separate page, and therefore oppose merger. --SJK (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reinstated British Law section
I have reinstated the British law section which Jack-A-Roe deleted. I understand his argument for deleting it was that the term "ethno-religious group" was not explicitly used. I would respond that the concept is certainly used whether or not the term is used. Referring to the speech I quoted from above by the then NSW Attorney-General, he says "The amendment is in line with existing judicial authority from both New South Wales and overseas which indicates that ethno-religious background is included in the legal concept of race", I think you will find it was the English lines of authority in particular he was referring to. --SJK (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a synthesis, prohibited by Wikipedia policy (combining comments made by different authors to make a point that neither source actually stated). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing sentence about Australian law from UK law section
I removed the following:
 * Both Jews and Sikhs  were determined to be ethnoreligious groups under the Anti-Discrimination (Amendment) Act 1994 (see above).

The 1994 Act referred to above is a NSW Act. The sentence being placed in the UK law section gives the misleading impression it is a UK Act; and its not clear what relevance the NSW Act has to UK law. (Possibly it has some relevance, but if it does that sentence does not demonstrate it.) Therefore I have removed this sentence. --SJK (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mormons
Mormons are not ethnoreligious. There are Mormons all over the world, from all different racial and economic backgrounds. They should be removed from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.247.40 (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The same goes for Jews. Jews are no more an ethnoreligious group than Christians; Jews just want to be defined as such. There are Jews all over the world, and you can even convert to the Jewish faith...How does that magically change your ethnicity? 71.182.218.10 (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Jews don't proselytize, conversion to Judaism is discouraged, and by and large most people who are Jews had ancestors who came Jews before the Christian era. And there is a long history of people referring to the Jews as a distinct ethnicity. I've met plenty of people who are ethnically Jewish.  Mormonism by contrast is a new religion, less than two centuries old, and still welcomes large number of converts into the fold. I've yet to hear of someone being referred to as "ethnically Mormon" or of groups of "secular Mormons."  Of course it's not a clear line, which is why Wikipedia tries to go by external sources (and I'll admit the list is a mess). —Quintucket (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed the "Example" section
Even with citations the list became too general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.243.166 (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What? Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  11:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Religion is part of ethnicity
(SO SAND AND YOURSELF ARE SUGGESTING THAT THE POPULATION OF JUDEA NEVER EXISTED IN SPITE OF ALL OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OR THAT THEY WERE ALL RELIGIOUS????) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.27.105.182 (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In the real world religion is part or ethnicity. Ethnoreligious is an invention.

It appears to have been invented by atheist Jews who still want to be considered Jews. Whereas The Invention of the Jewish People by Sand lays to rest the idea that people can be Jews without the religion by showing the idea was invented by Zionists in the late 19th c.

I can cite a legal decision in Israel by a jewish judge saying there are many different ethnicities which comprise Jews.

The entire idea of ethnoreligious is like taking about jewish Mormons or atheist Jews. There is really no difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWIIWT (talk • contribs) 14:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

2016

 * This is an old comment but for posterity I'll say that's complete bullshit (and so is shlomo sand) Zionists merely revived Jewish nationalism for increasingly assimilated Ashkenazi Jews, look at historical records and pre-Jewish emancipation Jews thought of themselves as an ethnicity and a religion. In traditional Jewish law Jews are known as Israelites, and non-believing Jews are indeed Jews according to the sages. STFU as they say in other parts of the net.--Monochrome _ Monitor  11:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * there are many scholars who agree with TWIIWT's point re the creation of Jewish nationalism. You are espousing the primordialist view. I am open minded on the topic. Can you provide sources for your statements re "look at historical records..." and "...according to the Sages"? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you're open-minded on the subject, given that you've had this explained to you so many times. Feel free to check out this Chabad article, if you're actually interested. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1269075/jewish/Is-a-Jew-Who-Converts-Still-Jewish.htm "Apparently, Jewishness is about neither religion nor race. Unlike a race, you can get in, but unlike religion, once you’re in you can’t get out. As with Achan, once you are a part of this people, you are the entire people. As Israel is eternal, so your bond with them is irreversible, unbreakable and eternal." Another Chabad article http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/2514031/jewish/What-is-a-Jew.htm "And conversely, one who is born a Jew or converted to Judaism properly, will remain a Jew forever, even if he desires otherwise. This is what the Talmud means when it says: “Although he has sinned, he is still a Jew,” no matter how objectionable his actions are, he remains a Jew, a son of the Holy One, Blessed be He." (The talmud portion is Sanhedrin 44A btw, "Even though [the people] have sinned, they are still 'Israel' R. Abba said: Thus people say, A myrtle, though it stands among reeds, is still a myrtle, and it is so called." The wikipedia article on Who is a Jew also has some helpful anecdotes, among them " Hakham Se‘adyá ben Maimón ibn Danan, one of the most respected Sephardic Sages after the Expulsion, in the 15th century stated:Indeed, when it comes to lineage, all the people of Israel are brethren. We are all the sons of one father, the rebels (reshaim) and criminals, the heretics (meshumadim) and forced ones (anusim), and the proselytes (gerim) who are attached to the house of Jacob. All these are Israelites. Even if they left God or denied Him, or violated His Law, the yoke of that Law is still upon their shoulders and will never be removed from them." Also see http://www.jewishboston.com/do-you-think-its-possible-for-someone-to-be-both-jewish-and-christian-in-some-real-sense/ "although individuals with Jewish mothers will always be Jewish according to Jewish law, regardless of their beliefs or practices." Drsmoo (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not what primordialism is. It would be primordialist if I said the Jews existed "in essence" before the Jewish nation existed, and that this nation was a natural, inevitable outgrowth of this mystical "essence". The Kingdom of Judah (and thus the Jewish nation) dates to the 9th or 8th century BCE, preceded by the Israelite people group which emerged in Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. The Israelite people were not Jewish by nationality, but Jews are Israelites by inheriting their civilization. Israelis are a modern construction meant to adapt the somewhat nebulous Jewish tribal identity to modern Westphalian nationalism, in a way that made sure non-Hebrews could be considered part of this nation. I find it funny how post-zionist types are so interested in "debunking" the modern form of Jewish national identity (which has clear ancient precedents) while adhering fully to primordialist, romanticized conceptions of Palestinian nationhood. (not accusing you of anything OIAW, referring to other wikipidian(s). And sir smoo took the words out of my mouth :) --Monochrome _ Monitor  08:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A genuine question though, can converts get out? Is a non-maternally-Jewish-born convert to Judaism who converts to say, Episcopalianism, still a Jew? :/--Monochrome _ Monitor  09:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In theory the Talmud makes it very hard to annul conversions. There are many passages dealing with this. Modern rabbis in Israel claim enormous power to declare conversions invalid, basically based on a combination of fraud by the convert and the converting rabbi being unqualified. Very sad and stupid.


 * I think the story of Onkelos is very relevant he must be the most famous convert to ancient Judaism. It does in to detail how difficult conversion was for him and yet he ends being credited with writing Targum Onkelos.Jonney2000 (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You could have just written "Modern rabbis in Israel claim enormous power to _______" and you would've been right. :P Personally I feel the most famous convert was Obadiah. Anyway, if these conversions are annulled, those people are no longer Jews, yes? Also Onceinawhile, check out Zera Yisrael.--Monochrome _ Monitor  05:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, both mother and child could be forced to reconvert. If a convert is questioned by a Beth din that wishes to annul a conversion, and many courts these day seem gleeful at the prospect, it will likely happen. Unless they are super frum or know a lot about halakha. A grand child would probably be protected.


 * In the diaspora I think the more common case is the mother converting back to Episcopalianism and then the child going to a Beth din for marriage and then is told that he / she is not a Jew.


 * All this annulling is basically a modern phenomenon. Going back to a marriage case from the 1960s-1970s 49-65 p. has further discussion.


 * https://books.google.com/books?id=QKxvMujgKfQC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=judaism+annulling+conversion&source=bl&ots=iWydbLIjaK&sig=7tAz3oS8CKbkUypXM56BdXI2mk4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjW8Jv7-OPQAhUBVCYKHUxmAZ4Q6AEILTAD#v=onepage&q=judaism%20annulling%20conversion&f=false


 * Jonney2000 (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Back to 2012 again

 * First, we actually have a category Category:Jewish atheists because there are people who consider themselves proud ethnic Jews, and would never dream for a moment of denying their ethnic Jewish historical origins, while at the same time they do not have any particular religious beliefs, and certainly do not follow traditional Jewish ceremonial practices.
 * The reason for this is that in the United States, "Jewish-American" functions as an ethnic group identity on the same level as "Italian-American", "Mexican-American" etc. Probably the majority of ancestors of American Jews came from current-day Germany, Poland, and Ukraine, but most Jews would NOT consider themselves to be German-American, Polish-American, or Ukrainian-American (nor would they generally be considered such by self-identified German-Americans, Polish-Americans, or Ukrainian-Americans, except in a few special cases).  Similarly, Jewish was defined as an official ethnic identity or "nationality" on Soviet identification cards, even though the Soviet government encouraged all Jews to become atheists. If an ethnic Jew became an atheist in the Soviet Union, the nationality line on his identification card was not changed, etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

religion was part of ethnicity, before the rise of the universalist world religions, oh, just about 2000 years ago. so the claim is not wrong as such, it is just unbelievably outdated. The rise of universalist religions are related to the rise of super-ethnic imperialism, of course. Since the Roman Empire, a state does not necessarily need to be a nation, and religion does not necessarily follow ethnic lines. This was the entire project and secret of success of Christianity. So you may say that "ethnic religion" is a retronym and the term really designates the historical default case, only, after the spread of Christianity and Islam it is no longer the majority case (well, it holds for the majority of distinct religions, i suppose, but certainly not for the majority of religionists).

This isn't the article on "ethnic religion" though, it is on "ethnoreligious groups". I.e. on ethnic identity which is overwhelmingly correlated to religious adherence. This includes Christian groups, just as long as they are surrounded by groups of different confessions, it holds for Armenians just as much as for Irish Catholics. It does not hold for Swedes, because Swedes are Lutherans surrounded by Lutherans, so their Lutheranism didn't turn out to become important in defining their ethnic identity. --dab (𒁳) 13:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Example groups
I removed several uncited groups based on my understanding of the meaning. My understanding is that it's not merely language, religion, or geography that define an ethnoreligious group, but rather the fact that these groups coexist with other ethnoreligious groups, and yet maintain endogamy and a distinct identity on the basis of their religion. The Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks are of course the prime example: they speak the same language and inhabit the same area, but have three identities based on Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim religion. The Hui (who would be Han Chinese if not for their Muslim religion and customs) are also examples of this. Same for the Jews and Armenians, who might once have had homogeneous nation-states, but historically mostly lived in diaspora among other ethnicities; often speaking local languages but always distinguished by religion and ethnic identity.

Using my own understanding as a definition, I removed the Bahrainis, Tibetans, Uighurs, Persians and Georgians because these groups have historically been defined by geography and language. Though the religion may be distinct from their neighbors, that's incidental. I also removed the Germanic neopagans because they haven't been around long enough to form an ethnic identity. —Quintucket (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Lurs an ethnoreligion?
How can the Lurs be an ethnoreligious group when the article for the Lurs says: "The Lur peoples are diverse and individualistic in their religious views and practices. Religious views can differ immensely, even within a family group. While the overwhelming majority of Lurs are Shia Muslims, some practice an ancient Iranian religion known as Yaresan which has roots in Zoroastrianism, Mithraism and Manicheism. Traditionally the Lur people outwardly profess Shia Islam, and the religion of some is a mixture of Ahl-e Haqq involving a belief in successive incarnations combined with ancient rites." Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Some sections are questionable
Someone mentioned the Lurs, the Pagans are also quite irrelevant to the topic.Domsta333 (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Original Research?
, could you please link to the reliable sources you based your diagram/examples regarding "types of ethnoreligious" groups on? I haven't seen any sources breaking ethnoreligious groups down into types, but perhaps I missed them. Drsmoo (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. There are a number of excellent works on this topic - the best I have online is:
 * Of course none of these works include all the examples that were in this article - these have been added over time by dozens of different editors - and have now been organized. Each of these have sources either already on this page or on their main page, which allow them to be categorized. This is in line with common practice in other "List of..." articles on wikipedia, which our example section reflects.
 * PS - I warned you about your wikihounding in August. It has continued non-stop since then. About half of the articles that you edit or comment on continue to be ones that I have been working on.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Samaritans and Crimean Karaites are both closely related to Jews. Both accept converts and are generally non-proselytizing. As a practical matter relating to genetics Samaritans especially have been actively recruiting converts recently, historically mostly Jews but more recently some Christians as well. It has been done via arranged marriages. They have not recruited Muslims because of apostasy in Islam.


 * Judaism is also considered a non-proselytizing religions with inherited membership. Much of your classification seems to be original research. I cannot even understand the Venn diagram.


 * A better way to classify this would be to classify all of the non-proselytizing religions with inherited membership together and remove them from the closed column. The Crimean Karaites should also be grouped this way.Jonney2000 (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jonney's assessments, I don't see any sources that use this classification or that specifically divide ethnoreligious groups into types. Drsmoo (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi to take your examples, if I converted to the relgion of Crimean Karaites, I would become a Karaite, not a Crimean Karaite. The same is true of "Goan Catholics", or all the others listed as "formally defined by both religion and ethnicity"
 * You are correct re Samaritans - the sources which suggest they don't take converts are out of date. The first (and I believe only) conversion to Samaritanism without marrying in was an American in 2011. So they are in the wrong list. The other three in that list (Druze, Yazidis and Zoroastrians) are closed groups (as the Samaritans used to be).
 * Drsmoo, please read the source above properly.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oncenawhile, I did, thanks. Nowhere does it divide ethno-religious groups as you do. The question was "could you please link to the reliable sources you based your diagram/examples regarding "types of ethnoreligious" groups on?" Until otherwise, I agree with Jonney2000 that this is original research. Drsmoo (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is because are looking for a picture not a concept. Per Attribution, diagrams are actively encouraged, so long as they do not transmit original research ideas or concepts. If you read the sources you will see that the diagram is a very faithful representation. And if you take the time to consider the diagram, putting aside your unrelated long running vendetta for a moment, I find it hard to see how anyone could disagree or have any other concern with what is being illustrated. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no "vendetta" and I consider that to be another personal attack. The categories you used are completely your own invention, for example, the word "flexible" isn't even used in that context in the source at all. You created your own categorization system and your own categories, and even made a diagram to illustrate your own categorization system, none of this was based on reliable sources. It is a textbook example of original research. Drsmoo (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't take you seriously when you deny the vendetta. Your edit history is plain for everyone to see, or you can look at this tool. You have been following me from article to article for the last six months. No other editor has been subject to this kind of following around from you. It's as if every time you log on, you immediately check my contribution history. It has happened too frequently and too consistently for this to be coincidence. Can you provide another credible explanation? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, you can find similar results with any other editor who frequents I/P articles. As I've said before, please provide the reliable source(s) you based your categorization system on. Drsmoo (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Across your entire edit history, 35% of all your edits have been on pages which I have also edited within the prior 24 hours, and that figure goes up to 45% if you remove the time constaint. If you look at the previous six months half the pages you edit are ones I have just edited. No other editor comes anywhere near this level. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, don't worry, I have no special interest in you, I don't post personal attacks against you either. It seems clear though that you're unable to provide reliable sources for your edit. Drsmoo (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The statistics are crystal clear - ignoring them won't make them go away. I cannot be expected to continue to assume good faith in the face of this.
 * As to the source, you are wilfully ignoring it. Either you haven't read it properly or you are being tendentious. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop with the nonsense. If you choose to not assume good faith that's your own problem. Both Jonney2000 and I have noted that your edit is original research. Drsmoo (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You should read The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Your behaviour means it is impossible to take you seriously. Not least you continue to ignore my request to actually read the source. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just noticed you deleted all the improvements to the article. Stalking me is one thing, but tendentiously damaging the encyclopedia because of your obsession is a real problem. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I read the from the page you linked to until the end of preview of that chapter. It didn't categorize ethno-religious groups like your edit did. Your edit was completely original research. Drsmoo (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just restored the United Kingdom section title change and the reference you added. If there was anything else that was mistakenly removed please accept my apologies. Drsmoo (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If I for a moment assume good faith, the only explanation is that you misunderstand WP:OR.
 * Please be specific: exactly what "facts, allegations, and ideas" or "conclusions" are transmitted in the information that you removed do you consider is not supported? Enough with meaningless sweeping statements playing to the gallery - spell it out. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume this question is directed towards Jonney2000 as well, as both of us have pointed out the Original Research. Which "gallery" do you think I'm playing to btw? The entire classification structure you presented doesn't exist anywhere outside of your imagination. If there had been sources that said something akin to "Academics divide ethnoreligious groups into the following subdivisions" then those subdivisions should be represented on Wikipedia. You can't just make up your own subdivisions and then host them on Wikipedia. It's shocking that you're unaware of this. Drsmoo (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stick to the terms of WP:OR. You are creating an imaginary threshold. Please specify exactly what "facts, allegations, and ideas" or "conclusions" are transmitted in the information that you removed do you consider is not supported. What do you disagree with? Jonney2000 provided useful and constructive questions, which elicited some progress in this discussion. You on the other hand appear to be playing mental gymnastics in order to avoid any discussion of actual substance. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop playing games. There is agreement that it's original research. You can't invent your own categorization system and host it on Wikipedia. If you want to divide ethnoreligious groups into subcategories you will need to provide reliable sources that attest to those subcategories. Drsmoo (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Past behaviour from you suggests that even if I brought a source that used the exact phraseology you demanded, you would just pivot your request and ask for something else instead. You appear to be here solely to wikihound me, rather than to actually improve the encyclopedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, you have a strange focus on me. Two editors have said your edits were original research. You were asked to provide a source which divides ethnoreligious groups into the subdivisions you put into the article, and you didn't do so. The new link you found doesn't do so either, though it is an improvement. It talks of four subcategories, however your edit does't use these subcategories, but invents its own, and you place the ethnoreligious groups in your own subcategories, and ignore what the source says. For example, the source puts Jews in the religion category. Btw, including a personal attack in a wikisummary is a serious violation. I humored your paranoia, but now I'm going to a noticeboard. Drsmoo (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the evidence is crystal clear. As I wrote at the ANI, 70% of your edits this year are on articles I have been editing. It is scary. As to this article, it is a subject I have studied in great detail. I have read dozens of sources which attempt to categorize and simplify it - discussion on the topic is low key because there is nothing controversial in it. All we need to do here is stop the blunderbuss and combative approach and discuss the detail. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You now have three editors who've said your additions are bad, a clear consensus. Feel free to continue focusing on me though, that way you can bring my edit post up in this article and then claim I'm "hounding" you in the future Drsmoo (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Misrepresenting other editors' views will only lose you credibility. Improving this encyclopedia is not possible if you try to paint a black and white picture to shut down other editors. There are many possible routes to a win-win-win situation here, where you, I and the encyclopedia all benefit. You just have to try. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

There are many problems with your classification system. You claim that Crimean Karaites follow normative Karaism when clearly they do not. I do not object to a classification system but because of the lack of agreement between scholars it must be kept simple and objective.

Three categories should be enough

1: Non-proselytizing religions with inherited membership

2: Primarily religious

3: Primarily ancestral with religious elements

This would be closer to what the article originally had and also to Abramson's typology.Jonney2000 (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, this sounds like a very sensible suggestion to me. Will you implement it, and then we can discuss any finer details? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and implemented your proposal, but to avoid any difficulties I have excluded examples where I am not sure what you had in mind. Can you implement these?


 * Oncenawhile (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I made a few changes and switched over to the “ethnic fusion”, “ethnic religion” and “religious ethnicity” paradigm. In the literature you often see religions defined as non-proselytizing which has a specific meaning. :::Namely those religions which do not send missionaries / actively proselytize. I thought it would be helpful to further subdivide ethnic fusion this way.


 * Hopeful I categorized everything reasonably Cheers.Jonney2000 (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * We should have cited definitions of each of these three terms, “ethnic fusion”, “ethnic religion” and “religious ethnicity”, otherwise the whole thing is rather confusing.--Pharos (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess we're taking the typology from Hammond and Warner (1993), right?--Pharos (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes as it seems to be the most widely cited. FYI footnote 2 in the article contains a quote from that article outlining the typology. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do think Hammond and Warner (1993) typology is a bit skewed, as it is explicitly based on "Late-Twentieth-Century America".--Pharos (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge - revisited
Per this edit at ethnic religion two months ago, a merger has been proposed. This was previously discussed a few years ago at. That discussion was clearly opposed to the merger, but personally I remain open minded as their is significant overlap between the topics and both articles are short. Before starting a formal discussion, general views here would be helpful. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Mormons
Are not an ethnoreligious group. The LDS prosyletize all over the world, the only truly endogamous lineage is that of the incestuous FLDS. In addition I believe Onceinawhile's changes need discussion, particularl concerning whether or not they constitute synth or original research. They general view I don't really dispute but the specific categorizations of "ethnic fusion" etc etc are far from universal. This book gives a better description of ethnic religion.--Monochrome _ Monitor  05:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree - all this need a healthy discussion. Glad you're here - the more the merrier.
 * On Mormons, Hammond and Warner disagree with you (see the quote in footnote 2).
 * On your source, their description of "ethnic religion" is based on Coakley's article from 2002 (linked here). Unfortunately Coakley doesn't use inline sourcing so we don't know whether he was borrowing from H&W.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also see the attached . It's a master's thesis from a Mormon university, so not WP:RS, but the literature review is quite detailed. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree on the non-RS part. There are a few sources but there is also common usage and common sense. Have you ever heard of a mormon athiest? an ethnic mormon? No, only "ex-mormons". The other groups are widely recognized to have ethnic components. (irish catholic is not an ethnoreligious group anymore than spanish catholic or french catholic and they're only perceived as a particularly distinct group because of the dichotomy with English protestants IMO but they're certainly an ethnicity) Meanwhile mormons are inherently a religious group. They don't even call themselves an ethnic group on their website. Their core in utah has common culture but ethnically they're indistinguishable from other white (WASP and German/Dutch) Americans (except the incestuous FLDS).--Monochrome  _ Monitor  10:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Your last sentence makes it sound like you don't know the difference between ethnicity and race... Oncenawhile (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously there are some people here who want to push Mormons as an ethnoreligious group but Mormons are NOT an ethnic group, therefore also not an ethnoreligious group. How can people from all over the world with totally different ethnic backgrounds, of whom the vast majority became Mormon less than a hundred years ago become an ethnic group? Mormons as an ethnoreligious group is totally against the definition in the article. Why do some fanatics here want this fringe case (at best) for all costs include in the article? That's so mad! I revert to safe common sense! Metron (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a nice personal opinion, but that's not what the sources say. The Hammond & Warner reference, one of the references being used to support the definition of ethnoreligious groups, specifically lists Mormons as an example of religion-based ethnicity. Additionally, the inclusion of Mormons in the example table was supported by another reliable source that specifically argues over three chapters on how contemporary Mormonism is a ethnoreligious group. Are we being led by reliable sources, or can we just ignore them if we disagree with them? --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Role of violence, sexism, racism in ethnoreligious practices
More mention needs to be included about the role of war, violence, sexism, racism. --2604:2000:DDD1:4900:2D13:E233:7E13:57DF (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethnoreligious group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021112918/http://www.icsresources.org/content/curricula/ReligiousOrEthnic.pdf to http://www.icsresources.org/content/curricula/ReligiousOrEthnic.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Uighurs
this source (]) you added does not, anywhere in it, call Uighurs an "ethnoreligious group". What it mentions is "ethnoreligious consciousness". However there are Uighurs that are not Muslim. I am removing it as it is not sourced to its claim. Furthermore the other source doesn't call Uighurs an "ethnoreligious group", what it notes is the presence of "ethnoreligious separatism". A religion (Islam in this case) can play a large role in a society without turning that society's members into an "ethnoreligious group" to the point that non-adherents (be they atheist or Buddhist, there are plenty of both for Uighurs) are not considered members of the ethnic group. Otherwise almost every European or Middle Eastern ethnic group would have to be considered an "ethnoreligious group" reducing the meaningfulness of hte term to zero. --Calthinus (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Additionally, some of the "sources" I've found used are actually talking about "ethnoreligious identity" -- the intersectional identity of the ethnic and the religious. Literally every person who practices a religion has an "ethnoreligious identity". Does that make them an "ethnoreligious group"? No. Muslim Irish people have a very interesting "ethnoreligious identity". They are not an ethnoreligious group. You can't use these sorts of wordings to cite the existence of an ethnoreligious group. The source has to literally say, "ethnoreligious group" otherwise it is not a proper citation. --Calthinus (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * having an ethnoreligious consciousness is the same as having an ethnoreligious identity agreed? Which is impossible to have unless you consider yourself to be part of an ethnoreligious group.


 * Ethnoreligious groups are not based purely on genetics for that matter no ethnic groups are. These groups are basically based on perceived difference between themselves and others.


 * I have found many more cites for Uighurs. But I really think the ones provided are enough. If you read the definition of the Ethnic religion column


 * "Ethnicity in this pattern extends beyond religion in the sense that ethnic identification can be claimed without claiming the religious identification, but the reverse is rare."


 * So not all Uighurs being Muslim is not relevant.Jonney2000 (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I find the suggestion that people en masse "consider themselves a part of an ethnoreligious group" surprising. 99.9% of people in the world have no idea what "ethnoreligious group" means and even the groups that are non-controversially described here very often have internal debates about what their identity exactly means (i.e. Jews, famously so). But in the end personal identity, is, you know, personal, and the term "ethnoreligious" has in the past been used to describe intersectional ethnic-religious identities, not just ones to as discrete ethnoreligious groups. Regarding the "ethnic religion" definition this really doesn't help the case you're trying to make, because in Xinjiang not only are there Uighur non-Muslims, but there also are Han Chinese Muslims, Tajik Muslims, Kazakh Muslims, Kyrgyz Muslims, and other non-Uighur Muslims. However if you do have cites that actually explicitly state Uighurs are an "ethnoreligious group" (hyphenated forms or things like "ethnoreligiously defined group" etc are also fine of course), of course you can add it. It should not be about what we think as individuals.--Calthinus (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * what you are saying does not make any sense. How individuals in each groups perceive themselves is of utmost importance.


 * Few modern scholars on this topic would agree with your view. Which is sadly close to leaving it up to “old Western scientist” to classify groups into what amounts to racial categorization.Jonney2000 (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the group definitions in question happen to invented by Chinese people, not Westerners, though I'm not sure if that matters to you. Anyhow, I would never be so presumptuous as to assume I know how every member of an ethnic group personally identifies based on some thousand or so words I read that happen to have been written by a Western professor. But my view is immaterial. As I said, if you have a source that actually says "ethnoreligious group" for Uighurs you can add it.--Calthinus (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ulster Protestant and Irish Catholic
These seem to be quite odd inclusions, particularly when the sources that supposedly justify their inclusion ('Yang and Ebaugh' and 'Hammond and Warner') would also require us to mention: "Italian, and Polish Catholic..." and "Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish Lutherans". This kind of definition would require us to mention almost every group on the planet. Alssa1 (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Tag of frequent editor for comment. Alssa1 (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ironically while I've been opposing a lot of the spurious inclusions on this page, I can see both ways for this one. In both Ireland and historically in the US, there has indeed been a specific group that is Irish Catholic and was exclusive of those who were eihter non-Catholic or non-Irish (i.e. in parts of the Northeast US the Irish would have their own churches-- including one case where there was a "French Catholic church" across the street!). Irish Protestants are trickier territory but in North Ireland (Ulster if you're a loyalist) there is indeed an identity that arose in response to Irish nationalism that was based on "Ulster" and "Protestantism" -- although once again that's trickier territory. So this isn't like Italians. However it matters what the sources say. What do they say?--Calthinus (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To quote Yang and Ebaugh: "The third form, “religious ethnicity,” occurs where an ethnic group is linked to a religious tradition that is shared by other ethnic groups. The Irish, Italian, and Polish Catholics are such cases." to quote Hammond and Warner: "An ethnic group may be linked to a religious tradition, but other ethnic groups will be linked to it, too. Examples include Irish, Italian, and Polish Catholics; Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish Lutherans." I think we as a community need to work out a consensus on which this is based, which is separate from the sources provided. I for one am against the inclusion of Irish Catholic and Ulster Protestant, simply because it opens us up to accusations of a double standard if we don't include mentions of Poles, Italians, Scandinavians (etc). Alssa1 (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm torn on this. Frankly I disagree with the authors. But that's not policy. For me the Irish are more like the Balkan inclusiosn on this page (Bosniaks, Greeks, Serbs et cetera) where, under the rule of foreign states that determined a citizen's rights based on their religion, it historically became a group boundary mechanism. In parts of Scotland you guys actually use "Catholic" and "Irish" as synonyms (i.e. in Glasgae for example) and when you say "Catleck" it doesn't mean the Polish immigrants, no? This is flatly not the case in Italy, Poland or Scandinavia -- actually the Scandinavian case is flatly ridiculous as there are ethnic Swedish Buddhists, Muslims, etc, and this doesn't diminish their Swedish identity in any way afaik, actually this sort of multiculturalism has become an aspect of Scandinavian identity. Perhaps the best way out of this conundrum is to find a more favorable source.--Calthinus (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You've made a good point, but I think one part undermines the inclusion of Irish Catholic (at least) and Ulster Protestants. The existence of Swedish Buddhists, Muslims etc, doesn't undermine a Swedish identity, just in the same way a Irish Republican Protestant does not undermine their Irishness; the division there is political not an ethnoreligious category. Alssa1 (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you know more about North Ireland nowadays than I do, and in the modern day everyone has become more connected of course. But is it not true that historically, one can speak of such things-- yes there were Irish Protestant nationalists, but in the understanding of the lay people and even some of those more in the know, the conflict was framed in an ethnoreligious way ("Home Rule is Rome Rule", etc). This being their (i.e. a huge chunk of the population) understanding of the conflict is still of significance, no? This page doesn't have, yet, a section for groups that once functioned as ethnoreligious groups but no longer do-- but I think it would be improved if one was added.
 * Of course this does need a source. I think I'd be fine with removing it, on the grounds you stated of no double standards, until such a source arises. Does that sound fair to you, and then when/if such a source arises and/or is added, I'll give you a ping so you can give it a look?--Calthinus (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that. Alssa1 (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Mormons, the third time
As several people have pointed out here already, Mormons do not fit into the usual definition of an ethnoreligious group. At best, they are an odd case, but in my opinion and the opinion of many others they are not an ethnoreligious group. The claim is pushed by Mormon themselves with a lot of energy. There are also users here with close connections to Mormonism who try to press this view into the article. Since these fanatics don't give up, I included a section where I point out what the problems with this case are. To include an example which obviously contradicts the given definition, in my view damages the whole article. To delete this again and a again in my view is pure VANALISM! -Dan Holsinger (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you really think that referring to other editors as "fanatics" will help the discussion? It borders on violating WP:NPA. Dismissing another editor's opinion based solely on their religious belief is the lowest level of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement and is unlikely to resolve a content dispute. And that is what this is - it is not vandalism (even when you shout), it is not POV-pushing, it is simplify a content dispute. If you still think it vandalism, you have an obligation to report me to the appropriate noticeboards, such as WP:AIV.
 * Looking at the previous discussions above I only see you and Metron recently disagreeing with the inclusion. A little less than two years ago, there was a disagreement on the inclusion between two editors, one for, one against. Before that, you have to go back six years. So saying "several people" have pointed it out or that it's the opinion of "many others" is a bit of an exaggeration. The only other places where this subtopic appears to have been discussed on WP are here and here, neither of which indicate an overwhelming consensus or majority among WP editors one way or the other.
 * With regards to the actual content dispute - two points:
 * First, the section you added ("The Mormon case") fails, by itself, WP policies, in particular it fails WP:SYNTH. The following claims made in the section are personal opinion/extrapolation not supported by the cited source:
 * "...scholars with close connection to Mormonism propagate..."
 * "There are no other groups who are merely religious who in the same way claim that they are an ethnoreligious group anyhow"
 * Maybe I'm wrong and the cited authors do make these claims. If so, please point out where. I would also argue that the section fails WP:UNDUE. We have no sources that indicate this is a controversy, similar to the Who is a Jew? debate, so any deep discussion seems to be driven by the content dispute between editors here and not by evidence of dispute documented in reliable sources. IMO, a simply inclusion, with sources, in the examples list is the proper weight to Mormons as an ethnoreligious group.
 * Second, your entire argument above is based on personal opinion. You even say so in your second sentence. Unfortunately, editor opinion is not the standard for inclusion or exclusion on WP, reliable sources are. There at least two sources that support the idea that Mormons are an example of an ethnoreligious group: "Seeking the Promised Land: Mormons and American Politics" by Campbell, Green, and Monson; "Religion and Ethnicity in Late-Twentieth-Century America" by Hammond and Warner. The former, written by two Mormons and a Methodist, spends three chapters discussing the arguments for and the implications of Mormons being an ethnoreligious group. The latter, the authors of which are of unknown religious leanings, specifically states, in regards to the ethnic fusion type of ethnoreligious groups: "Religion is the major foundation of ethnicity, examples include the Amish, Hutterites, Jews, and Mormons." Honestly, I agree with you that Mormons are an odd case and I have no personal opinion on if they are or not, but personal opinions (again) are not the inclusion criteria. If it weren't for the existence of reliable sources I wouldn't argue for their inclusion in the examples list. We cannot ignore reliable sources simply because we personally disagree with them. The inclusion in the examples table meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We can mention that the "ethnoreligious" term is relatively rarely used to refer to Mormons. I don't think it makes much sense to editorialize that such use is plainly nonsensical.--Pharos (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No we cannot without a source.Jonney2000 (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Editorialization: Please stop the original research
For years a few editors have decided that it is appropriate to remove sources and push their own rubbish opinions on this page. If you have sources that contradict, then please add them. Editorializing and original research is inappropriate.Jonney2000 (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Why would Sikh be an ethnolinguistic group
Don't most of them belong to the Punjabi ethnic group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zibran 2 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just read the lead of the article Punjabis.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Minahan
Minahan is not considered reliable so I've removed the reference and added needed templates instead. --Semsûrî (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Terrible
This article is terrible in every way. Anybody looking for more information about this subject will be left confused instead of educated. Literally the worst article I've ever come across on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.100.6 (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Added multiple issue tags
I've tagged this article with multiple issue tags in hopes of drawing the attention of skilled editors and/or an expert on the topic - it needs a lot of work, and while I apologize for what might be interpreted as driveby tagging, I don't currently have the time (or the knowledge) to do that work. If you'd like to discuss the tags or a related issue, feel free to reply; I'll keep an eye on this page.  ezlev signed this. talk  04:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Ethnoreligion is a difficult concept. I agree with the tags you've added. Bus stop (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Distinction between or explanation of "ethnic fusion", "ethnic religion", and "religious ethnicity" categories in table
There is no explanation of what these three terms mean (or rather, what meaningful differences exist between them that warrant such a table) or why each group has been categorized in the table in the way that it has. I'm inclined to remove the table and re-write the examples section in a way that makes sense, and will do so if I hear no objections. Thoughts? newmila (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the three terms/sub-categories are based on the Yang/Ebaugh and Hammond/Warner (currently ref 5 and ref 6) references. I would agree that the headings for the table have not been clearly defined in the body of the text (they are described in the quotes in the references). --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Intro
I have changed the intro per undisputed, common & broader definition and added a source to support it. The previous intro was inaccurate or misleading since it was more similar to the definition of "ethnic fusion" rather than the definition of the broader "ethnoreligious group". The term ethnoreligious group has been applied to various groups who are defined in terms of either ethnic fusion, ethnic religion, or religious ethnicity. Each term has its own definition and each term has different meanings. The common feature of these 3 term is reffering a combination of common ancestry and common religion to define a social group and the intro should reflect it. 46.154.15.165 (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I kindly request editors to use the talk page instead of reverting all my work with one click and with an edit summary like "back to stable version". IDK what this ("stable version") even means - this is wikipedia and there is no such thing as stable version. I explained my edits in both talk page and in my edit summaries, "stable version" is not a real argument. The intro was neither sourced nor was a result of a consensus. Someone wrote it long ago and no one bothered the fix it later. If this is what you mean by somehow utouchable stable version.

Back to the topic, the intro had problems and I wrote some of them right above. The previous definition implied that all the ethnoreligious groups are distinct ethnic groups too but, this is not the case for all ethoreligious groups. Irish Catholics, for instance, are not different than Irish Protestants in terms of ethnic background...or Syrian Turkmen do not have distinct ethnic background than a Turkmen from Kilis. Ethnoreligious group refers to a social group having common ethnicity plus common religion. Not "ALL" ethnoreligious groups constitute distinct ethnic grups, even though it is the case for some of them, such as Mandaeans, Jews, etc. This is the definition of ethnic fusion in particular. For these reasons, I fixed the intro. The current intro does not contradict with any definition of "ethnolinguistic group", whereas the previous intro did. 46.154.177.166 (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Besides, check intros of Ethno-linguistic group and Ethnic group out. There is nothing wrong with using word "group" or "grouping". 46.154.177.166 (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Explain reverts
Please explain your removal of sourced information and readding unsourced info here. --Semsûrî (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have readded pictures. And the information you have added is POV. Gomaza (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I only added information from already-added sources that is Iranica Online which clearly states that they are Kurdish thus cannot be a ethnoreligious group. Did you remove it because it didn't fit your POV? --Semsûrî (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Or do you not find Iranica reliable? If so, why? --Semsûrî (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Disputed or not, is not a reason to remove the pictures. And the claim of the dispute, that some Yazidis speak Kurmanji, does not mean that they are not an ethnoreligious group. The Iranica source also states that some Yazidis speak Arabic as their mother language. Also language is not a synonyme to define an ethnoreligious group. Gomaza (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If Iranica writes that Yazidis are Kurds and other references say they aren't then obviously the tag "(disputed)" is needed. You removed that tag for no reason but because it doesn't fit your POV. Am I wrong? --Semsûrî (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Confusion of terms
The terms religious ethnicity, ethnic religion, and ethnic fusion are not explicitly explained in this page, which possibly caused many people to group some of the ethnic groups that personally, I would not consider as the classification. For example, do Bosniaks necessarily have an ethnic religion? Ethnic religion is defined as "a religion or belief associated with a particular ethnic group. Ethnic religions are often distinguished from universal religions, such as Christianity or Islam, in which gaining converts is a primary objective and, therefore, are not limited in ethnic, national or racial scope." Islam is associated with Bosniaks, but is it like the relationship between the Armenians and the Apostolic Church? On a different note, ethnic religion already has its own page, so it isn't really necessary to include ethnic religion in this page other than a brief mention to distinguish it from an ethnoreligious group. Ayıntaplı (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with your observation, and the sources cited for each ethnoreligious group don't necessarily classify each into one of the three categories in the table, leaving the decision seemingly arbritrary in editors' hands. This is especially confusing regarding ethnoreligious groups affiliated with Christian Orthodox churches, which are heavily tied to national identity and language. However, is the solution really to remove the "ethnic religion" category on the table? The references Yang and Ebaugh and Hammond and Warner do mention ethnic religion as a category of ethnoreligious grouping, and their quoted passages remain the only detailed explanation on the page. I'm really not sure what to do about this.
 * KN 940 (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It appears that ethnoreligious = religious
A) An ethnoreligious group (or an ethno-religious group) is a grouping of people who are unified by a common religious and ethnic background. and then (form the link on "ethnic") B) An ethnicity or ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include a common nation of origin, or common sets of ancestry, traditions, language, history, society, religion, or social treatment. A2) Furthermore, the term ethno-religious group, along with ethno-regional and ethno-linguistic groups, is a sub-category of ethnicity and is used as evidence of belief in a common culture and ancestry. So, combining and simplifying, we have An ethnoreligious group is a grouping of people who are unified by a common religious and shared social or religious background.

By definition then, a ethnoreligious group can be just a religion. But that is the same definition of ethnicity. Mcdruid (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The meaning of the word will be what most scholars think is most helpful, not what results from your personal method of dictionary definition triangulation. All the Roman Catholics in the world together are undeniably a religious group, but they're not an ethnoreligious group... AnonMoos (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I am pointing out that there is no wholesale use of this term and that it is tautological. Nor am I using a "personal" dictionary, but quoting exactly how Wikipedia defines it. Mcdruid (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * If all the Catholics in the world together are a religious group, but not an ethnoreligious group, then the two phrases do not have exactly the same meaning. And it's not the dictionary which is personal to you, but your method of triangulation using dictionary-type definitions. AnonMoos (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)