Talk:Ethnoreligious group

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other groups 

message: 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. --PrimEviL 11:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed combination with Folk religion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Australian law 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reinstated British Law section 

message: I removed the following:
:Both Jewshttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V4qhTL61nXEC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=jew+ethnic+mandla&source=bl&ots=be8CAG3X3I&sig=WpluA7K2ZA_w54szQrgtLnXmMHk&hl=en&ei=MupJSrjtA8aNjAeYuo3QAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7http://www.jstor.org/pss/2573430 and Sikhshttp://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/4/2/1/7/p242171_index.htmlhttp://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Mandla.pdfhttp://www.gfa.org/news/articles/ethno-religious-strife-closes-bridge-of-hope-center/ 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)
thread_title:  Removing sentence about Australian law from UK law section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mormons 

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

message: :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)
thread_title: Back to 2012 again

message: 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)
thread_title:  Example groups 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lurs an ethnoreligion? 

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

message: Per this edit at ethnic religion two months ago, a merger has been proposed. This was previously discussed a few years ago at #Proposed_merge_with_Ethnic_religion. 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)
thread_title:  Merge - revisited 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Role of violence, sexism, racism in ethnoreligious practices 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Editorialization: Please stop the original research 

message: 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)
replies: text: Just read the lead of the article Punjabis.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why would Sikh be an ethnolinguistic group 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terrible 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ethnoreligion is a difficult concept. I agree with the tags you've added. Bus stop (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added multiple issue tags 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Distinction between or explanation of "ethnic fusion", "ethnic religion", and "religious ethnicity" categories in table

message: 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)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Please explain your removal of sourced information and readding unsourced info here. --Semsûrî (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have readded pictures. And the information you have added is POV. Gomaza (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Or do you not find Iranica reliable? If so, why? --Semsûrî (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Explain reverts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  It appears that ethnoreligious = religious