Talk:Religious exclusivism

I have edited this page By adding links to certain words Like Vedas and viashnivism.

The Hinduism page was controversial and debated for some reasons. I have provided proper proofs and references for the edits I made and also I hope that this controversy ends. There are proper references given and researches were made to publish these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.248.182 (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk
I've added information on religious exclusivism in Ancient Greece.

Deleted 'true exclusivism developed in Israel because no citation was provided and it appears to contradict the facts.

M Crahart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a fork of Chosen people; it covers a related aspect. If there is overlap between the two articles, let's fix it instead of deleting this one. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a terrifying lack of citations & much seems to be OR and surmise. TheresaWilson (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It was written by Dan Fefferman, who offered the following references:
 * Corney, Peter, and Kevin Giles. Exclusivism and the Gospel. Kew, Vic: St. Hilary's Anglican Church, 1997. OCLC 38819137
 * Dickson, Kwesi A. Uncompleted Mission: Christianity and Exclusivism. Orbis Books, 1991. ISBN 9780883447512
 * Griffiths, Paul. Problems of Religious Diversity. Exploring the Philosophy of Religion. Blackwell Publishers, 2001. ISBN 0631211500
 * Küng, Hans. Christianity and the World Religions: Paths of Dialogue with Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Doubleday, 1986. ISBN 9780385194716
 * Quinn, Philip, and Kevin Meeker. The Philosophical Challenge of Religious Diversity. Oxford University Press, 1999. ISBN 9780195121551

Can you explain the difference between a reference and a citation, so I can reduce your 'terror'? :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Take paragraph 2:


 * Exclusivism is most prevalent in Abrahamic religions.[1] In Jewish tradition, it manifests in certain interpretations of the concepts of the Chosen people, in which anyone who does not accept the teachings of Jewish monotheism is excluded from the messianic "world to come."[2] In Christianity, religious exclusivism is seen in the former teachings of the Catholic Church and the current teachings of several denominations that only those who adhere to the true faith will reach Heaven, while those outside of the true church will go to Hell.[3] Exclusivism is seen in Islam in the acceptance of sincere Jews and Christians as people "of the Book" along with Muslims, but the rejection of other religious traditions—as well as impious Jews and Christians—as "infidels" who have no part in Allah or paradise.[4]


 * The four statements numbered above are presumably referenced in the sources mentioned by you, but where? Am I required to read all from cover to cover?


 * Para 3:


 * Historically, religious exclusivism sometimes leads to the justification of religious wars, forced conversions of those outside the faith, bans against inter-religious fellowship and marriage, and the persecution of religious minorities. However, it is also possible to practice an exclusivist faith while generally respecting the rights of unbelievers, and this is often the case today. Many religions practice a modified form of exclusivism, in which other faiths are recognized as legitimate to a degree, but not as holy as the true faith.


 * This reads like opinion and should be referenced as such, or Original Research, in which case it shouldn't be here.


 * I could carry on, but you grasp my point - am I to take your word (and Dan Fefferman's [whom I know not]) that these statements and opinions are somewhere in any one of a number of (to me obscure - sorry) tomes?


 * Let me say, I don't disagree with the premise(s) of the article, but some more accessible citation is needed IMHO.


 * (The "terrifying" was the totality of noncitation from so experienced an editor as yourself :) ) TheresaWilson (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Interjection
Do we need this at all? It's only very subtly distinguished from Chosen People, after all. And the... "source" is somewhat unsavoury. I would vote we restore this to a redirect, or merge whatever is worth saving into Chosen People. 22:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "If there is overlap between the two articles, let's fix it instead of deleting this one" -- Well, no, let's follow the rules. 22:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, what's the template for "needs inline citations"? 22:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the one I was hunting when I found the one I used. TheresaWilson (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here it is (found on the list here). Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks weaselish creature! ^_^ (There should be a scientific name for that)
 * So what are the chances that someone will read all of those books just so they can add the page refs to this article? 23:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete or keep?
This has already been suggested above. I see a merge template has also gone up, but there's little or nothing here worth merging. It's just been copy-pasted from another site, which is best avoided, & the importer has made no attempt to modify it for Wikipedia. The text is more essayish than encyclopedic, with very few examples & lots of very questionable assertions (e.g. exclusivism is largely obsolete in Christianity; Islamic attitudes have changed little since the middle ages). It also wanders off the subject a lot: the article intro explains exclusivism in terms of one religion's exclusive path to salvation, but most of the text is about toleration of other religions, which is a related subject but really not the same thing at all. I suggest deletion. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Do we have to vote, or something? Or can we just restore the redirect immediately? After all, I don't think Uncle Ed is coming back. 03:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still here. I'm just slow. Also, I was hoping that instead of tagging the poor thing to death, you might help me fix it up. Fefferman is trying to distinguish between the main topic of the "chosen people" and one aspect that they share in common with other religious groups. He is also trying to delineate just how and when that exclusivity is manifest.


 * I find the discussion about whether' the article should exist separately a big distraction from the how'' of fixing it up. The more time I have to spend debating its worth, the less energy I have for repairs. Why don't you guys give me some support? Like, google up the first reference that was fact-tagged, so I have an idea of how it must be done (these days). Then I can continue with the others. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But Ed, if people generally think that it's not worth its own article, why should they chase your references? It's possible that Chosen people should be a section of this article, but until references are provided for the points flagged, that aint gonna happen. TheresaWilson (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding references is not someone else's problem. I have added an inline citation in the lead as an illustration of the format.  Finding a relevant reference took little time as the topic is much discussed. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely: Ed seems to think that it is Someone Else's Problem. He's putting the onus on others to make his point for him, as if he were setting homework for a class. As I've said above, I do not disagree with the existence of the article, solely with its condition. As you note below, Chosen people could be treated as a subset of this article almost. TheresaWilson (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose I oppose deletion as religious exclusivism is a highly notable topic for which there are numerous scholarly references - please see links above. It seems somewhat different from the idea of chosen people in that the latter focusses upon a particular group, such as the Jews, while religious exclusivism is the idea that it is a particular religion, not a particular people, who are preferred. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've taken the tone of a teacher assigning homework. Actually, it's just the opposite. I'm not a good enough writer or researcher to be a teacher here at all. Long gone are the days when I was conversant with all WP policies and procedures. I am a mere dabbler now.

I still have hopes for collaboration, though. Because over 1,000 articles that I started are still in existence. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I approach from the opposite point: I have created no articles here and do not know enough of the procedures which have grown over the years. I have no doubt that, given sufficient time, I could become fluent in WikipediaSpeak, but I am a dilletante here only.
 * From this position of ignorance, might I suggest that your method creation of this article was slightly misguided? A wholesale copy from another GFDL source is hardly reasonable, no matter how good it is. Some addition to Chosen people might be preferable, leading to an eventual fork (is that the correct word?). Anyhow, it's up to those who know better than me (and you by the sound of it :) ) to decide. TheresaWilson (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I'm not opposed to having an article on Religious exclusivism as such. I'm sure that the "Chosen people" approach doesn't cover all there is to say about that subject. However, Ed, I think one major problem with trying to start the article in this manner is that you try to establish the present text as a baseline which needs to be improved upon, without taking the time to consider whether it is appropriate for WP in the first place. Whether or not that's the intention, it seems a bit too much like an attempt to quietly let the New World Encyclopedia POV in through the back door. It would be much better to let it grow out of Chosen people or perhaps Exclusivism, as TheresaWilson suggests. --Lanfranc (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been following Ed's work on Conservapedia for some time, and this rather odd behaviour of his is quite common there. He seems to have a habit of reading about something that catches his interest, then creating a stub or cut/paste like this one, without regard for whether the information already exists, or whether the article is already needed, or indeed discussing the matter with anyone.  For instance, in this case it would have been appropriate to discuss at the chosen people page whether this was necessary in the first place.  The stub will usually be rather random, with few wikilinks and fewer references.  Then he'll expect others to run around and do all the actual work of finding references and finding some way of incorporating it into the wiki, all the while claiming it would be a shame to remove the information.  But would it be a shame if the information is already there, or it could be better dealt with elsewhere?  In this case, very likely not.  I'd support a subsection in Chosen People, but this cut/paste job is best removed. --Kelseigh (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC) — Kelseigh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This method of developing articles is our explicit editing policy. It is not our policy to expect articles to be submitted in perfect form which other editors merely inspect for quality.  Your comments also have an ad hominen quality which is uncivil.  Are you here specifically to harass this editor? Colonel Warden (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (i.e. restore the redirect to chosen people).  There may be a case for a separate article on exclusivism, but if so, it should be a new article.  Importing an article wholesale from another site is not a good alternative, even if it is non-copyright, & especially when it's as far off Wikipedia standards as this one is.  It has broad generalisations, POV interpretations & is short on solid relevant facts.  Making this a valid WP article would involve researching & rewriting it from the ground up - I.E. no different from scrapping this rubbish & starting from scratch, which would be far preferable in my opinion.  Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If an article is to be made, it should be original and referenced. TheresaWilson (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (restore redirect) It could be a good article, but starting from here is more trouble than a stub. 04:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * At the moment there appears to be a majority in favour of deletion. Those against: it's importer creator and an avowed anti-deletionist. No-one has expressed any intention of chasing up references or otherwise improving the article. (excepting Colonel Warden who apparently thinks "do as I say, not as I do" will engage enthusiasm from otherwise disinterested bystanders). I suggest that Ed Poor either digs up some references himself or reverts his past edits (& The Col's) & return to the redirect. If Ed Poor wishes to create an article here, which would be a "Good Thing", then a less ambitious start might be in order. TheresaWilson (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not bandy around ad hominem characterizations like "an avowed anti-deletionist", they have little relevance to the specific topic at hand. As for deletion, we can't decide anything here. Someone should AfD it if they truly think deletion is warranted. This will get broader participation than the seven "disinterested bystanders" we have here (not counting myself, I'm just passing through). -kotra (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What we're discussing is reverting it back to a pre-existing redirect - is AFD appropriate in this instance?  w easeL   F ETLOckS  18:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I'm not sure. It would help get more uninvolved eyes on the issue, if nothing else. 5-2 is pretty weak consensus. -kotra (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * AFD is not appropriate per WP:BEFORE. I have requested comment by other editors.  Please allow 30 days for input. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As we seem to have several novice editors here, I again counsel reading of our editing policy. It is better to edit the article, as I have just done, than to debate it from the sidelines.  Even if one does not care for the original, the process may still be productive as in the tale of the Stone Soup. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Stone soup is all very well, but I wonder whether if, in place of a stone, the travellers had set up a pot of water with a turd floating in it, the villagers might have been more reticent to add their own ingredients & seasonings to it.  w easeL   F ETLOckS  13:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * An RfC is not the correct place to discuss deletion. Although this article is problematic, it should be reduced to a stub. not deleted.Dillypickle (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: whatever the article's current flaws, it seems to be a notable topic. if you don't like the content as is, whip out your editing axe and prune it down to a stub.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: should simply be a subheading under an article on major religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diotemaheartsphilosophy (talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Seems like a good notable subject that is likely to be covered in reliable secondary sources. As long as it's not a POV-fork I see no reason in deleting. Remember, there is no time limit to make this a brilliant article. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 01:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you said that, because usually when I article I start gets challenged like this I feel I have only 7 days to make it a brilliant article. And if I have to do it all by myself while also justifying its existence, that is just too much work. I prefer to collaborate with other writers, because I can rarely write anything worthwhile by myself. (If I could, I'd be writing for money somewhere! ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As it stands it's poorly [sic] referenced OR. without a doubt it is a valid article, or at least article section. If not deleted, it must be either reduced to a stub or completely rewritten. As no-one has expressed any personal intention of improving it, (plenty have said it should be improved, but there has been a distinct lack of action) then STUB is the obvious option. TheresaWilson (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There've been no changes to the article in over two weeks. Granted there is no time limit for creating a good article, but it does require at least some interest or motivation in doing so.  My suggestion is that any decent content (if there is any) should be put in exclusivism (which also needs a tidy-up), along with a strong link to chosen people, & this page should then redirect to exclusivism.  However, if nobody's done that or made any significant improvements in another week or two's time, we should call it quits & just restore the old redirect, which is much more useful than what we have here.   w easeL   F ETLOckS  22:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep:The article needs work, but I don't think it should be deleted or simply reverted to a redirect (which is essentially the same thing). As stated above there's no deadline, and further editing can make it a better article. I could see making it part of exclusivism and then redirecting it.  --Smoggyrob 06:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoggyrob (talk • contribs)


 * Agree: I agree with Smoggyrob, the article should not be deleted, nor should it be merged into Chosen People. There is a slight difference between those who are chosen by a diety, and what happens to them, as compared to others.  As such, they should be linked, but not merged.  If anyone has anything usefull for this article, then I request that they please post them here, so that another great article can mature from this.Lukefan3 (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep (RfC Comment): Exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism are pretty standard labels in discussing the positions of different faith groups among scholars of religion. 'Chosen people' tends to be a self-applied label, whereas exclusivist is a term used by specialists to describe a particular position on soteriological matters.  A quote from a review of one of Diana Eck's books: "The exclusivism/inclusivism/pluralism theological typology has been thoroughly discussed in Christian and interfaith circles. In a paper entitled "Instrumentality, Complexity, and Reason" given at the 2000 meeting of the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies, Terry Muck, an evangelical Christian scholar involved in Buddhist-Christian dialogue, dubbed exclusivism/inclusivism/pluralism "The Paradigm" because of its ubiquity."  --Clay Collier (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Protestantism
The article says that many Protestant denominations believe that people who don't accept their views of things will go to Hell. Seriously? Most Protestant sources I've come across say that only believing in Jesus is necessary to be saved and since Protestants aren't the only ones who believe in Jesus (although a number of bigots say that Catholics aren't Christian!) I fail to see how they would think that not agreeing with them would get someone sent to Hell. 86.43.160.254 (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits today
This article was almost entirely WP:OR. I removed the WP:OR content and replaced with "expand section" tags where relevant. Please do not add original research and other unsourced content to Wikipedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Religious exclusivism in (by) this article
This edit caught my eye. It removed an Expert needed request saying,. I took a look at the table in List of religious populations article, and it does seem to me that there is some disconnect between this article and that one, though I don't know which religions listed there claim exclusivity and which do not. The edit summary I quoted asserts that religions not included here make no claim of exclusivity. Perhaps that explains the disconnect, and perhaps it does not. Perhaps the lead section of this article ought to state explicitly that the article concerns religions which make a claim of exclusively, and perhaps each section about such a religion ought to lead off with a cite-supported characterization of the exclusivity claim relating to that particular religion. (note: I make no claim to have expern knowledge regarding this) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Section on Hinduism
I have removed the section on Hinduism and Undid revision 989903487 by Bonadea (talk). "Hindusim promoted religious exclusivism" is a strong claim and need authoritarian source for Wikipedia to claim this. First line is not even in source and the second line is sourced to a tabloid named Times of India. It is not reliable at all. I am quite surprised that you are calling this "well sourced". Kindly do not restore this content without establishing the veracity of the claims sourced with a scholarly source. Thank you. --Walrus Ji (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The section on Hinduism is incredibly weak. "Hindutva" being a sect of Hinduism is controversial and widely debated. The average Hindu who does not agree with Hindutva would say it is not a sect of Hinduism (also would this mean hindus are exclusivist to hindutva followers?), many hindutva followers also believe it is not a sect of Hinduism, although I agree there are some that do believe it is a sect of Hinduism. I personally believe it isn't, and its originator, Savarkar was himself an atheist. "Arya Samaj assert the infallible authority of the Vedas, implying the inferiority of other religious traditions" - why is this only written here for Hinduism, same goes with all Muslims and Quran, and all Christians and Bible. Also, Rig Veda 1.98:1 says "let all noble thoughts come to us from all directions". Therefore, a belief in the infallibility of the Vedas suggests that the followers of Arya Samaj believe this line from rig veda is true. This suggests acceptance of noble thoughts from other religions. I agree it does not ask for acceptance of thoughts from other religions that are not noble, but I think we'll agree that it it doesn't count as exclusivist. I've decided to remove this section, it's very weak.Karunavajra (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)