Talk:Religion

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2024

The concept of "religion" was formed in the 16th and 17th centuries.[3][4] Sacred texts like the Bible, the Quran, and others did not have a word or even a concept of religion in the original languages and neither did the people or the cultures in which these sacred texts were written.[5][6]

The above is incorrect as religion concept was from the beginning. Men walked with God. Just because the texts weren't found or written doesn't mean the word wasn't handed down from generation to generation . Abrahamic religions are the belief of God the father. God of Abraham. We are descendants of Adam who was made from God. It's not a debate it's a fact. Mct0321 (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry, the things you are saying are more appropriate for the regular social media. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2024

So I discovered a religion that wasn't on here and I would like to put it on here so that people can learn more about that religion because I think that the religion is very interesting and shares a good message The Prophetess of Ommeism (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Remsense诉 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Society, Ethics, and Technology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 22 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Singhsimranjit071294 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Charshenk (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The spelling of the name of the Siberian shaman

The name "Budazhap Shiretorov" is actually "Будажап Ширеторов," but not "Будажап Цыреторов," (Budazhap Tsyretorov) as it is spelled in the photo description of the Siberian shaman in the definition content. Михайло Сніжко (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Women_in_the_Bible#New_lead-image?

If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Definition in lead

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

---

Regards diff (rewrite of lead) and diff ("a religion" instead of "religion")

Arbitrary header #1

@Remsense, Merriam Webster states a religion is "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices". A Religion isn't a range of systems like this article says, a certain religion is a system. Your revert goes against what sources say.BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The MW definition is of a religion. The lead sentence of this article introduces the concept of religion, no article.

Frankly, your other major change was more concerning, which shoehorned in belief in deity (already mentioned in the material directly following) as a specific key trait above the sentence that states there are no specific, agreed-upon key traits. Remsense 🌈 论 00:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

A concept is a general idea or thought about something, this article can't be "a concept of a religion" if it doesn't accurately describe what a religion is based on sources. There are no specific, agreed-upon key traits for every religion, but every definition and source of religion calls a religion a system and not a range of systems. Per Wikipedia rules, if sources say something, Wikipedia is suppoosed to go with what a source says. I can't believe I'm in another talk page discussion where I either get ghosted or I'm stuck discussing for hours and hours when we're supposed to go by what sources say. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Again, the lead sentence doesn't define what a religion is, it defines what religion is. Remsense 🌈 论 00:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

What's the difference between saying "A religion" and "Religion". It's not like this article is called "Religions". Are you trying to say this article defines what religions are which is why it's supposed to say "a range of systems" instead of "a system". In that case why isn't this article called "religions", and why is the definition of "a religion" sourced? This article is supposed to be what a religion is, per why this page is called "religion" and not what "religions" are. Please self-revert, I really don't feel like doing this. Per wikipedia rules on going with what sources say, and per this article being called "religion" and not "religions". BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

That you restored your changes that multiple editors have disputed, even the parts that I had specific issue with and you didn't try to address, is egregious. Frankly, you really need to adjust your behavior to discuss your disputed changes to completion before reverting them, because it's behavior that can get to be incredibly disruptive. You are not entitled to impose changes to articles against consensus.

This article is supposed to be what a religion is

Says who?

In that case why isn't this article called "religions"

Because that's just another way that's even less appropriate: one individual item versus a class of distinct individual items versus the overarching concept.

Per wikipedia rules on going with what sources say, and per this article being called "religion" and not "religions"

MW isn't the only source cited. Remsense 🌈 论 00:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

You said I shoehorned in belief a deity (already mentioned in the material directly following) as a specific key trait above the sentence that states there are no specific, agreed-upon key traits. First of all I mentioned the belief of Gods or a God, then the page mentioned a supernatural being. Not all supernatural beings are Gods. Therefore I didn't mention the belief of Gods or God twice. Once again, yes There are no specific, agreed-upon key traits for every religion, that's why my edit said "A religion is a type of social-cultural system that includes behaviors and practices such as morals, beliefs, etc." The meaning of "such as" on Google is "for example". Because like you said There are no specific, agreed-upon key traits for every religion, and "for example" on Google means "used to introduce something typically", and that's typical within lots of religions. This article is supposed to be what a religion is because it's called "religion" not "religions", what do you mean "says who". And MW isn't the only source on this article that says religion is a type of system and not "range of systems". I could link you more. Please don't ghost me again, respond or self revert. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

First of all I mentioned the belief of Gods or a God, then the page mentioned a supernatural being.

If you do not see the issue with this equivocation, I kindly ask you refrain from editing the lead of this article without looking more carefully at what relevant sources have to say – really, this should be the case with every editor editing any part of an article. It's not acceptable to impose what amount to your own conceptions and emphases in the most important parts of our most important articles. Remsense 🌈 论 01:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

A God is a supernatural being, but not all supernatural beings are Gods. Supernatural beings can include demons or ghosts or anything supernatural. Therefore there's nothing wrong with mentioning the belief of gods or God on this page and then mentioning supernatural beings as parts of most religions. And once again if this article was called "religions" then yeah it should say "a range of systems". But if it just says "religion", that means one religion. Which means this article should describe what a religion is and not what religions are based off the name of the article. Why is this being debated, this is grammarly correct, the sources linked say what I'm saying, and it makes more sense logically to do so. I know your edits are usually just reverting other people because I just checked your edit history today, mind doing something different and revert your own edit just this once? BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

It was wrong for you to put it there seemingly just because you personally thought it was an important example. I repeat my previous request for you to stop unjustified, unsourced tinkering—especially in our article leads, which are meant to be balanced summaries based on the corresponding article bodies. Thanks. Remsense 🌈 论 01:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to horse-trade over when we'll allow one another to ignore consensus—again, it wasn't just me, you inexplicably restored the changes over User:Pepperbeast's concerns also—I cannot emphasize enough that you need to stop doing that if you want to remain in good standing on here. I pinged them in case they want to flesh out their own reasons here. Remsense 🌈 论 01:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

this guy also undid my edits, recently on the page Karl Marx. I think he undid my edits somewhere else previously. he reverts edits for no reason to make his edit count higher. crazy running into you both again GloryToCalifornia (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Are you really going to act as if the very specific reason I gave you got lost in translation? It's telling that this sense of victimhood always arises in response to their own changes being questioned, but there's little thought spared to the reality that they themselves are undoing someone else's work with those changes. But how dare they be asked to have clear reasons based in site policy for their messing with reference material highly visible to everyone on earth? Remsense 🌈 论 01:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Why was it "wrong for me to put it there seemingly just because I personally thought it was an important example". Almost every religion believes in God or Gods, the fact that it's not mentioned when that's one of the most important things about a religion is insane. But answer the question what do you mean it was "wrong for me". And also, what do you mean unsourced tinkering. I GAVE YOU A SOURCE, and your response was "well thats not the only source". If anything you should be giving sources for your claims because I've already done so and you ignored me and tried ghosting me on talk page. Now your just making stuff up when you say "unsourced", this is sad still can't tell me how my edit breaks rules or how it's actually unsourced, but I can say that about yours factually. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Almost every religion believes in God or Gods, the fact that it's not mentioned when that's one of the most important things about a religion is insane

Stop editing articles based on what you yourself think is clearly the case. That's the last time I'll say it, because I don't know how I could make it any clearer. Remsense 🌈 论 02:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

i just looked to see what you guys are talking about, and GlorytoCalifornia is right, this page is not called religions so it should talk about what a religion is. I looked at the Merriam Webster page and yea religion is a system like he said GloryToCalifornia (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean "Stop editing articles based on what you yourself think is clearly the case". Muhammad said he was the messager of God, Jesus who said he's God the Son that comes God the father is the figure of Christianity, Joseph Smith said he saw an angel and was a messager of God, God is the main thing of every religion, the main figure, and you say "on what you yourself think is the case". I know its the case. If you ghost again I'm going to revert your edit in 24 hours so I don't break the three revert rule. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Also pinging User:Wound theology, who worked on this lead some in the past and might be able to explain in a different way than I can manage presently. Remsense 🌈 论 03:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Are you just pinging your friends who you know will agree with you, whether online or in real life friends? I checked his edit history and he hasn't been active in four days. @World Theology if you get back online, look at all the points I've made, how I used a source to back up my claims, how I explained not all supernatural beings are God, and how Remsense made stuff about me on how I didn't use a source, he said untrue statements you can Google in like 10 seconds, etc. Really wish editors like Remsense would go with the sources, go with what makes sense logically, instead of going with "I DONT LIKE HOW IT LOOKS, IM GOING TO GHOST THIS GUY OR WASTE HIS TIME, AND IM NOT BACKING DOWN". can't explain a legitimate reason on why it looks bad, what rules it breaks etc. Meanwhile I can say how it doesn't make sense grammarically, how sources go against Remsense's arguments, and how I could be doing something way more productive if editors like Remsense would follow the rules. The 24 hour time limit has restarted since you responded BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I gave clear reasons why I pinged the two editors who I've barely interacted with before if ever. I'm exhausted and cannot deal with this myself, and this isn't the only article you're busy exhausting editors on, so you have other talk pages to busy yourself with, luckily. Remsense 🌈 论 03:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense I'm exhausted too. I don't wanna do this and I told you from the beginning and you don't wanna admit you're wrong. You've made stuff up, and made untrue statements. Wikipedia:Citing sources says word for word "sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". I challenge the current material on the page, you can't give me a source or a definition that says "religion is a range of systems" like I gave you a source that said "religion is a system". Just another example of how your revert violates Wikipedia's rules. You got two on this talk page that oppose your edit and you're currently by yourself the other editor didn't show up. I'm tired too, revert your edit. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

You're not entitled to impose your changes on articles, and I don't know how I'm supposed to make that an easier pill for you to swallow. Site policy is very clear that the onus is on the editor wanting to make disputed changes to establish consensus for them. If you're unwilling to do that, then it's likely best to avoid making highly prominent edits to highly important articles, or at least to accept when others take issue. Remsense 🌈 论 03:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@BlackAfrican2006: First, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Dictionaries provide simple descriptive definitions for common use, not in-depth coverage and explanations. Going by what Merriam-Webster says is an error in judgement, albeit a common one here. Your additions, to put it frankly, are not improvements.

Ultimately, though, you need to understand that Wikipedia is based on consensus. Your actions in this very comment thread show a concerning lack of WP:CIVILITY and a refusal to assume WP:GOODFAITH. Futhermore, saying that you're going to revert [his] edit in 24 hours so [you] don't break the three revert rule is not just clear edit-warring behavior, but an admission of it. This alone is almost certainly grounds for a block, so I suggest that you take a step back from this page. wound theology◈ 03:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I also think that BA's edits are not an improvement. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Wound theology Yeah Dictionaries provide simple definitions, not in-depth coverage and explanations. But if the encyclopedia goes against what the definition says, the definition sourced for a reason, like the complete opposite of what the source says by calling "religion" a range of systems instead of "system", then there's a problem. Saying my additions are not improvements doesn't mean anything if you don't explain how they're wrong. I don't assume WP:GOODFAITH in a situation like this because he reverted my edits on two different pages today, and another editor came to me and said his got reverted for no reason, I checked Remsense's edit history and 98% of his edits are reverts, lots of times for a good reason, but it looks like sometimes he just reverts because he feels like it. And saying I'm going to revert in 24 hours isn't edit warring behavior, I'm saying that so Remsense doesn't try to ghost me on the talk page because he did that earlier if you read the discussion. And I do revert in 24 hours I'm not breaking the edit war rule. I guess rules on this site matter only when you guys want them to matter. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 03:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't assume WP:GOODFAITH in a situation like this because he reverted my edits on two different pages today

Assuming good faith is mandatory. You don't get to cast aspersions because you made low-quality edits that got reverted by a long-time editor. Yes, Ramsense sometimes makes errors. But in this case, your edits did not improve the page (they did the opposite, in fact) and there is now a quite clear consensus to that fact (taking into account the editors who reverted you and now Joshua.)

And yes, saying you're going to revert in 24 hours is edit warring behavior, and saying that so Ramsense is forced to respond to you is incredibly inappropriate. Waiting until 24 hours pass so you don't break the 3RR is gaming the system and explicitly against policy -- it is even given as an example of disruptive behavior here.

Wikipedia is often a slow site. You are not entitled to an immediate response. Discussion often takes months; a two-sentence revision to the lede of Astrology took a year and dozens of page-equivalent discussion to come to consensus. wound theology◈ 04:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Fighting about 2 sentences in a page for a year is quite sad, we're not doing that. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

It's an extreme case, but the point is that details matter and editors often have complex disagreements over them. With that in mind, if everyone behaved the way you have on many of these articles the wiki would simply not function as a result. That's why policy is the way it is. Again, I bristle when editors take special umbrage with getting reverted when they were the ones who overwrote others' work in the first place—it's an issue of perspective. Remsense 🌈 论 04:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

everyone chill out. If you read wikipedia's guildine on consensus it's clear consensus is not always a vote or the minority or majority view but the arguments made in the talk page too. BlackAfrican2006, even though i agree with you 100% I've got a solution that might make everyone happy. it seems like your main concern is how this page says "religion is a range of systems" instead of "a religion is a system" like what sources say. What if we just change that about the article and leave everything else alone like the belief of Gods when it already mentions supernatural beings. anyone think that's a good idea? if that's your main concern you don't have to rewrite the whole first paragraph like you did. tell me if that's good, I wanna make everyone happy :) GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Religion is not a single system. It is a range of systems. A Confucian temple in rural Taiwan and a Protestant megachurch in Alabama are both examples of religious systems, but describing them as a single "system" because Merriam-Webster gives a very broad, non-encyclopedic definition is just inane. wound theology◈ 04:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

A Confucian temple in rural Taiwan and a Protestant megachurch in Alabama are both examples of religious organizations, and the religion is the system according to every other encyclopedia and definition i've searched through in the past few hours. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Look, I think this is a comparison that will make the issue click: we're not going to insist on introducing articles in terms of a history, a politics, a philosophy, or an art. You could insist on that in each case, it could be done grammatically, but it's the wrong framing given the difficulty in adequately discretizing the concept at hand. Remsense 🌈 论 04:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Multiple editors have made it explicit both that they don't agree with that, as well as why. Remsense 🌈 论 04:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This isn't TikTok or Instagram reels, we do things slow here. We've been doing it slow for more than 20 years. We're not going to stop now. Giving vague threats about edit warring will not get things done quicker, it'll get you banned. wound theology◈ 04:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not giving vague threats about edit warring. It's not edit warring if it's after 24 hours and doesn't break the three revert rule. And yeah @GloryToCalifornia I like that idea BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The 3RR is a bright line, but it doesn't define what edit warring is. Waiting for 24 hours when it would otherwise break the 3RR is edit warring. Again, I am warning you: do not die on this hill. wound theology◈ 04:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not even something one needs to read in between the lines about, @BlackAfrican2006 would know their conception above is contradicted prominently in the first paragraphs of WP:Edit warring if they were taking our policies (they've already been linked that one several times!) at all seriously at present. If they're unwilling to do that, why are we supposed to keep trying to offer advice about achieving consensus to someone who thinks they're entitled to ignore it? Remsense 🌈 论 04:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

both cambridge dictionary and encyclopedia britanica describe a religion as a system. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

You're not listening. Engage with anything I or WT have said. Remsense 🌈 论 04:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Nice try, though Britannica in fact does not open by defining a religion:

religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death.

Remsense 🌈 论 04:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense you ignored the guildine that said material challenged must have a source or can't be on the article. GlorytoCalifornia just said Cambridge Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britanica describe a religion as a system. I don't know if that's true because I didn't check it, but if it is you still haven't provided a source yet. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

It astounds me that you're so sure of this when I've stated repeatedly there are other sources cited there than MW. Remsense 🌈 论 04:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

GloryToCalifornia mentioned 2 new reliable sources, I don't know if they're linked on this article like the other one but they're reliable sources. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Probably because dictionaries are a different type of reference work than encyclopedias. Encyclopedias generally do not try to define a religion, almost like we were trying to make you aware of something this whole time and weren't making stuff up for fun. Remsense 🌈 论 04:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

im desperately trying to make people happy. what if this article said A Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

If you're only trying to make editors happy and not make the article the best it can be for readers, then our interests are not aligned, and I don't see the point in sparring with you further, or entertaining bargains that are beyond the point. Remsense 🌈 论 04:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

i'm trying to make the article the best it can be, which would make people happy, do you like the paragraph i proposed? :) GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@GloryToCalifornia: with all due respect, you only got into this conversation because you had a bone to pick with Remsense; your first comment in this thread is an aspersion. Instead of trying to make editors happy, you should recuse yourself from this discussion. wound theology◈ 04:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

i don't got a bone to pick with remsense, he reverted my edit on Karl Marx but i didn't enter this conversation because of that. if you check my edit history, ive bumped into remsense and blackafrican2006 before in the past because remsense always reverts about politics or religion and blackafrican edits about politics and religion. I found this discussion because i check the talk pages of articles like Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Satan, so on and so on. I wasn't stalking remsense's edits, and even if I were I should leave and my opinion doesn't matter because I was undone on another page?? GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Ugh this discussion is going to last 9 years the way it's going. @GloryToCalifornia propose more paragraphs, everyone vote on them, I agree with GTC, we're not going to get consensus on my proposed edit, me and him probably won't agree with you guys either, the only way to resolve this is to propose different versions of the first paragraph that 95-100% of us agree on by voting. I believe that will significantly shorten the conflict. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Current consensus is that the page stays the way it is. Only you want a change, and GTC wants some sort of compromise. wound theology◈ 05:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I've already said I agree with black african 100%. well Maybe 50%. I agree that a religion is a system and not systems but I disagree with rewriting the first paragraph like he did. But I'm willing to compromise and try to make everyone happy:) GloryToCalifornia (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm extremely tired, GlorytoCalifornia offered alternatives, I offered to keep the page the way it is, but added "A religion" instead of "Religion" because of Grammar, but Remsense can't even let that happen. I'm trying to hang out with friends and family, but he wants to revert my edits, even though I gave up, because despite giving example of how his edit violates the rules, he ignored it because apparently he doesn't care about the rules. So I gave up but decided to fix a grammar issue but apparently that's wrong too. I make an edit about anything at this point and Remsense just reverts it, he's officially revertd me on three or four pages alone yesterday. Can someone please tell him to end this and be the bigger person so we can all move on. He's been giving me massive headaches the yesterday and today literally for no reason, probably to increase his edit count like what GlorytoCalifornia said. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Wound theology I reverted one of Remsense's edits I disagree with, and in his edit summary he said "this will get dangerous real quick". So I can't say I'm going to revert in 24 hours but he can make threats that can be interpreted in anyway, no one tells him to stop, he broke the 3 revert rule on this page and no one sent him a warning, is this an alt account, your friends, or what?? I'm literally just trying to end this, that's it. By putting "A religion" instead of "Religion" for Grammar reasons, and then I'll stop. That's if Remsense stops BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Remsense is still right. "A" religion is an abstraction; religion, without an 'a', is the proper scope of this article. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The definition of Abstraction is "the process of simplifying complex concepts by focusing on essential characteristics and ignoring irrelevant details". Saying "A religion" is grammarically correct and what any of you are saying can be disproven with a quick Google search. Are you his alt account or a friend, I would expect more people to make more sense logically. Explain how it's a abstraction or You're wrong. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Remsense nor I need an alt account; you're breaching WP:GOODFAITH again. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2

Merriam Webster states "Religion: a personal set or institutionalized system [etc]"; is does not state "a religion." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan oh now you care what Merriam-Webster says. I used Merriam Webster to show how in a definition it calls religion "a system" like what you just mentioned and you guys said that's just a definition, it doesn't matter. Earlier when I was arguing for this page to call religion a system. First of all Merriam Webster isn't supposed to say "A religion", with every word, it's supposed to have a word up top on their website, and a definition down below, therefore the word "religion" isn't in their definition of religion. Therefore "A religion can't be used", that doesn't give an excuse to all of a sudden not using grammar properly. That's like reading the definition of "Cow" on Merriam Webster, saying "the title of this definition doesn't say "A cow" so I'm going on Wikipedia to remove anything that says "A cow". BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• In terms of grammar, "religion" can be either a countable or uncountable noun, per Cambridge ("C or U") and Oxford, so an article is included or omitted depending on context. Oxford defines the uncountable use of "religion" as the belief and associated activities, while a religion is "one of the systems" based on that. Besides the first sentence defining religion as "a range" of systems, the rest of this article mainly treats religion as a general concept and how it relates to other broad concepts like law and science, so it is fine to omit the article. ObserveOwl (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

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