Talk:List of founders of religious traditions/Archive 1

Archive 1

Starting page

Someone (I can't remember who) was busy adding names of various founders of religions to the Muhammad page, and I decided that it made more sense to just link to one page. I'm not sure that this is a good idea (what's major?) but hey, if it unclutters one page ...

Should I include Scientology or shouldn't I? If we start to get into what might be called recently founded religions (sects, cults), we could end up with a list of hundreds of names, many of whom are the fearless leader of only a handful of people. Zora 14:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Scientology, in my opinion, grossly and unethically inflates its numbers by taking down the names of everyone who has ever walked in the door one time and listing them as a Scientologist forever.--Doovinator 04:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

If was me - and adding three names to each of Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and Abraham didn't take much time really:) I just thought it was a useful link as readers of Muhammad may have an interest in founders of all major religions rather than just an interest in articles on Islam.

We can define 'major' in terms of how many current adherents there are for a particular religion. That would stop arguments over who to add (it would also mean bye bye Mani (prophet)).

I've taken the opportunity to link this list in to a number of pages (see 'What links here') jguk 18:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While it should be based on adherent numbers we should also include those that did have massive numbers at one time. Zoroastrians and Manicheanans were very importants groups in their days. How about any group that has or once had more than 500 thousand adherents? How about a million? --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 19:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you know where we'd find a list of numbers of adherents to religions? It would allow us to determine a sensisble cut off. Also, are there even figures for the greatest number of living Zoroastrians or Manicheanans at any one time? I'm just trying to see if your proposed cut-off would work in practice. jguk 19:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adherents.com Has the most referenced list on the internet. Their numbers are a bit high but are equally high across the board. As for the other two religions their numbers were probably quite huge at times. ---The Sunborn

I have no problem accepting 150,000 as the cut off (having looked at the adherents.com website) - but I would like to keep the definition of 'major' specific. Saying the other two religions probably had quite huge followings isn't enough. I shan't remove them for now, but will await your comments.OK, this is the list on adherents.com - which says it takes its figures from what the respective religions claim.

• Christianity: 2 billion (included in our list)
• Islam: 1.3 billion (included in the end note)
• Hinduism: 900 million (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
• Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 850 million (nothing to add!)
• Buddhism: 360 million (included)
• Chinese traditional religion: 225 million (we have Confucianism, is this enough?)
• primal-indigenous: 150 million (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
• African Traditional & Diasporic: 95 million (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
• Sikhism: 23 million (included)
• Juche: 19 million (I don't really like calling this a religion - it's a political idea!)
• Spiritism: 14 million (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
• Judaism: 14 million (included)
• Baha'i: 6 million (included)
• Jainism: 4 million (included)
• Shinto: 4 million (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
• Cao Dai: 3 million (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
• Tenrikyo: 2.4 million (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
• Neo-Paganism: 1 million (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
• Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand (not included - but is there a specific founder to name?)
• Rastafarianism: 700 thousand (not included - should we add Haile Selassie? Was he really a 'founder'?)
• Scientology: 600 thousand (I suppose we should include L Ron Hubbard, unless we think the figure is grossly grossly exaggerated)
• Zoroastrianism: 150 thousand (included)

jguk 22:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've got an idea -- there is already a List of religions on which many electrons have been spilled. Link that to the list of founders page, with a note to the effect that many religions have no non-mythical founders. Zora 00:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed Joseph Smith

Someone from an anonymous IP added Joseph Smith (Mormonism). I removed this as a difficult and unclassifiable case. First of all, Mormon is a nickname -- the official name is Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. If Mormons want to refer to their church in shorthand, they'll say LDS, usually. Second, Mormons would insist that they are Christians and that their religion was founded by Jesus. They give a special status to Joseph Smith, but I'm not sure that they would call him the founder of a major religion. They would probably say that he RESTORED a corrupted Christianity -- in which case he'd have the same status as Luther or Calvin. We aren't putting founders of sects in the list, so I think it would be better to avoid Joseph Smith. Zora 02:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, Jehova's Witnesses is Christianity too, but Charles Taze Russell is still on the list. VolatileChemical 15:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

An important philosopher yes, but founder, no

Dear anon, I deleted your addition of Adi Shankara. I agree that he's an extremely important person, but he really can't be called the founder of Hinduism if he started just one school of thought inside an existing tradition. Zora 04:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Babawaba's edit

I reverted to the older version, with all the caveats. Babawaba, these caveats are necessary if the list is to be NPOV. Frex, saying that Muhammad founded Islam is wrong, in the eyes of Muslims. Insisting that the caveat be removed is insensitive. Ditto for a lot of the other caveats. I make this point as a Buddhist; I don't belong to any of the religions that would insist on the caveats. It's not as if the list were extremely long; we have the space to add a few words. Zora 02:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, Zora, the title of this page is "list of founders of major religions". A list means: the founder - the religion, nothing more. We should not add any opinions if we are to keep this NPOV. Its a simple list , no need to complicate it. --Babawaba 03:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Islam

I had changed the article by putting that according to Muslims Islam was started by Adam and not Muhammad. What I want to understand is that, what is that you consider as correct. A generally held misconception that Islam was started by Muhammad, or the truth where Islam actually came to an end with Muhammad, because he was the last and final messenger of more than 300,000 sent on earth. Alimustafakhan

He was the first to propose a distinct belief system that was different from all previous religions. This makes him the founder. --The Sunborn

No Muhammad said exactly the same things said by Moses and Abraham, there were a few changes in social laws. According to Oxford dictionary, Religion is, "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods or a particular system of faith and worship." The concept of God in Judaism and Islam is identical, so he did not teach a distinct belief system. If we go back to the definition of Religion, all those systems which either deny existence of God or do not comment on Him are technically not even religions, they are social systems. Alimustafakhan

Um, sorry, I'm a Buddhist, don't believe in God, but I believe I'm religious. Zora 04:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have made a kind of compromise, by removing Islam from the list and adding an expanation in the footnote. As I strongly believe that if something has to be said it has to be truth, otherwise not said at all. Alimustafakhan

Having to change the uniformity of the list for one fundamentalist is ridiculous. The part that says "the best known proponent" must be removed because we have removed "best known proponents of older traditions" from the list repeatedly in the past. However, from a scientific approach mohammed was definately the founder of Islam. The best way to fix this is to put a footnote and say "some groups may not consider Mohammed the founder of Islam". --metta, The Sunborn ☥ 06:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't Islam center around Muhammad's teachings? If so then he is considered the founder. Anker99 01:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and Jesus

I think an important correction needs to be made. Christianity was not started by Jesus. Jesus himself was a Jew for his entire life. Chrisitianity was started by Paul.

I agree... Jesus did not start Christianity. This should be corrected. Shane 09:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Paul can not be claimed as the founder. Paul was one of the apostles. While, he was among the first to work with the Gentiles he was not the only. Jesus is whom the religion is based upon. 12.220.94.199 23:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm strongly against putting Jesus as the founder of Christianity. If you found a religion, you believe in that religion. Jesus was born a jew, and he died a jew. Christianity I guess did not have a single true founder... Constantine the great helped in creating and spreading christianity. I believe this topic is too debatable. Perhaps it should just say "various"?

We keep having this argument over and over again. Anon, YOU may believe that Jesus lived and died a Jew, but Christians don't believe that. I'm not a Christian, BTW, I'm a Buddhist, and I would admit that it's possible that the historical Jesus was something other than the personage claimed by Christians. But this is not the place to argue that. If people click on Jesus or Christianity they're going to find the controversy. We don't need to present it here. This list is just a convenience for high-school kids doing reports for their world religions class :) It helps people find important religious figures. It is not the world court of who actually founded a certain religion. Zora 04:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken but doesn't Christianity "center" around his teachings? Anker99 01:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Abraham and Judaism

Another technical correction. Though Judaism is based on the teachings on Abraham, Judaism actually starts with Abraham's grandson Jacob AKA Israel. If we are to say that Judaism starts with Abraham, then we would be saying that both of Abraham's sons are jews and had the chosen blood. This would include Ishmael and his decendents (the Arabs). Therefore, Judaism and the Hebrew people started with Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham.

This is getting ridiculous

First we have a Muslim insisting that Muhammad did not "found" Islam, now we have someone insisting that Jesus didn't "found" Christianity and Abraham didn't "found" Judaism. This list is falling to pieces because the concept of "founding" seems to be inherently difficult in the context of religion.

I suggest that we change the page title and the header text. How about Biographical articles concerning significant figures in major religions or some such thing, and allow, um, five people per tradition?

Or perhaps we should just delete the #@$%#$@% page. If you limit the people to five, you have endless flamewars about who's the most important five. If you don't have any limit, you end up with an endlessly long page with entries like "Rev. X, who founded the Assemblies of God church in Y". Zora 02:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) (who is feeling kinda discouraged right now)

Listen, we have two choices, delete the page, which probably won't get by the vfd by the way, or ignore the hardheads and just put the proper things up. We could always screw with the people. After all, paul of tarsis wasn't his real name. He was Saul of tarsis. --metta, The Sunborn ☥ 03:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put L. Ron Hubbard on the list, like jguk said they have 600k followers and his suggestion that they should be on the list has not been contracticted since November 2004. That aside, I can't see why anyone in their right mind would dispute that Jesus Christ founded Christianity - very well, so St. Paul maybe established the first organized church around it, but it was surely Jesus Christ who founded the religion as such through his teachings. 62.253.128.13 22:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Was Jesus Christ the 'founder' of Christianity?

The title of the page is "List of founders of major religions" not "major churches" or "congregations" or something else to that effect.

As 62.* points out, Jesus did indeed found Christianity while St. Paul merely founded the first organized church around it. There are a number of separate congregations that follow the teachings of Christ and as such can be said to be Christians. Most of them, but not all, trace their roots back to the church founded by St. Paul (the Catholic church and all the other churches that broke off from that at some point in history).

So yes - this entry should read Jesus Christ.

Besides, the order of the entries seems to be alphabetized by the name of the founder for the first half of the list or so and then by the name of the religion for the second. This should probably be fixed. Thomas Horsten 23:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, NO. Christianity was founded according to the teachings of Jesus, but he was never a Christian. He was Jewish, and spent his entire life as a Jew. It was his followers that actually founded Christianity. Maybe this article should not be called "List of Founders of Major World Religions" and instead "List of Important Figures of Major World Religions". --Negative3 18:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Negative3. It is simplistic, and ignorant of history, to insist that Jesus founded Christianity. I think the idea that Paul founded Christianity is uncomfortable for many Christians from more evangelical traditions, so we are treading on very controversial territory here. We need more discussion about our terms before we can settle this one. Peeper 08:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be uncomfortable and wrong feeling to most Christians. Orthodoxers, non-Cafeteria Catholics, conservative Anglicans, and others. You might as well just say "Christianity is a crock anyway and we all know it." The Gospels we have several statements of Jesus indicating he was doing something new or a fulfillment. To list Christianity as being started by Paul would also get into the minepit of religions whose founders actual lives are not clearly recorded. For example Confucian thought as we know it was largely formulated by those after Confucius especially Mencius. There's nothing concrete to indicate Lao Tse existed at all or in least that he really wrote the Tao Te Ching. To pick Christianity alone to redact would be clear bias, so I'm glad it was never actually done.--T. Anthony 15:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I firmly believe that christianity is simply Mithraism-light as interpreted by Jesus. The "miracles" of Jesus clearly didn't happen so they should be seen as inventions of the gospel writers. The birth stories of Luke and Matthew don't even agree with each other and should be assumed to be apocryphal. Then there was Saul of Tarsus, who was more important to Christianity than Jesus. Without Saul the Christian sect would have died out as another failed Jewish messianic cult. No, without Saul the gentiles would not have been hooked. And to do that he had to remove the cumbersome Jewish cleanliness protocols. So I don't think there could be any one founder of Christianity. I doubt any religion has any one founder. I pick on Christianity because I know it best, being an apostate. --metta, The Sunborn 16:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

As long as your feelings as an apostate don't effect any article you're welcome to them. If it's just venting at the talk section then okay. I think you're wrong of course, but whatever.--T. Anthony 00:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Jesus didn't found Christianity. It appears that the majority here are in agreement on that fact. Should we change the article to: a) Paul b) Christianity is an interpretation of Mithraism

Shane 08:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Umm, so now we are going to get psedeuo-historical? Most don't agree that Christianity was based upon Mirthraism. And I've already covered Paul above. Most religions don't have "a" single figure. So I would suggest changing the article to "List of Central Figures of Major religions" 12.220.94.199 23:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

We should aspire to be more encyclopedic, and only include facts that are supported by evidence. All the evidence points to the fact that christianity started many years after the death of jesus. SO he can't be the founder of a religion that didn't exist in his lifetime. Maybe we should have a separate list of religions inspired by people. 203.143.238.107 08:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Are Mormons Christians?

Mormonism is listed separately and as such is considered a separate religion from Christianity. I don't know if this should be the case. They, Mormons, have a doctrine that is much off the wall from 'mainstream' Christianity but I doubt that they are any less Christian. As such whould probably be removed from a separate entry. --The Sunborn

Mainstream Christians and other non-Mormons do not generally view LDS/Mormons as Christians. This is because it is based on a different scripture (book of Mormon). LDS-followers themselves argue that they are indeed a Christian sect, in fact the only true Christian church, but this view is not widely supported outside their own religion. I can see an argument for both sides, but on a list like this IMHO it's better to be too broad than too narrow so I'd vote for letting him stay. TH 10:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another argument for keeping him: If we remove Joseph Smith, the next thing that could happen is that we start discussing whether Christianity is even a religion, since it is basically Judaism as redefined by Jesus Christ. If we go down get will be a half-empty and rather useless list. Now, on the other hand we might say "So shouldn't we include Martin Luther for starting the Reformation" but there I'll say no, because both Catholic and the various Protestant churches are based on the same foundation (scriptures etc.) and just represents differences in interpretation. So I vote to keep the list as is. TH 10:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jguk's crusade

Jguk arrived and changed everything to his prefered BC. I changed back. He reverted.

I've changed everything to BC/BCE. It's not showing up correctly, but at least it's an even-handed solution. Someone can fix the Wikipedia dating system so that BC = BCE = BC/BCE. Zora 18:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This is both ridiculous and offensive. First I am on no "crusade", which Zora knows full well is a loaded term. Please retract this ludicrous accusation.

Well, no. I think your actions (thousands of stealth edits changing BCE to BC) speak for themselves. Zora 01:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Second, all I was doing, as my edit summary makes clear, and as the diff of my change makes clear [1], is changing an article with inconsistent terminology to consistent terminology, as recommended in the Manual of Style and as endorsed by ArbCom.

Third, I ask Zora to refrain from his campaign to promote his preferred brand of US political correctness. This is an international encyclopaedia that should be capable of being read by all - not a resource for US academia, jguk 18:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

My vote is BC. BCE is turgid and pretentious--Doovinator 04:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Article Name Change?

There seems to be a lot of discussion as to who should be included in this list mostly because of the title being "List of Founders of Major World Religions". I would suggest the title be changed to "List of Important Figures of Major World Religions" or something similar. For example, Christianity was founded on the teachings of Jesus but he is also an important prophet in Islam, which this list doesn't reflect (although he is on the list of prophets of Islam). I think a name change would end a lot of the debate. --Negative3 18:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this would expand the list infinitely and render it largely useless (that is, if it is inherently useful!) With such an exhaustive list, it would be more rational to create separate pages for each religion. At least in the cases of Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity (the only ones I have much knowledge of), these lists would be very long. --Slow Graffiti 19:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Fox/Quakers and the Denomination Question

I've removed the recently added reference to Fox ( founder of the Quakers ), as he founded a denomination within Christianity, and not a new religion. This is consistent with the main article on Quakers treating Fox and his heirs as part of the broad Christian tradition. I'm very sympathetic to the idea that we should provide a way of understanding the different denominations within each broad religious tradition, but this article doesn't seem to be the place to do it ( pages on the individual religions generally describe the main denominations ). In deleting Fox ( and, earlier, restoring Joseph Smith per earlier discussion on this page ) I've tried to have in mind what a user with no prior knowledge of religion would find useful when viewing this page. That Fox and Smith were both important people is not in doubt, but the fruits of their actions were in some sense different, and my aim is to reflect this. I'm adding a sentence at the bottom of the article to try to clarify this. WMMartin 17:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

WMMartin appears to have little appreciation of how Quakers see themselves, including the fact that within Quakerism itself, the Quaker faith is understood as a new and vital tradition that is more a break with and something distinct from traditional Christianity than Latter-day Saints view themselves as. Be that as it may, I'll be perfectly content to not try to add Fox to this page, even though from a theological and sociological perspective, his inclusion is more proper than that of Joseph Smith. People unaware of this would do well to read the Wikipedia articles about Quakers. Interested readers are also referred to, well, just about any boko written by Quakers in the last 40 years. It does a disservice to George Fox and to Quakers generally to classify him as simply in the same category as Martin Luther or John Wesley, or even Joseph Smith, none of whom claimed to be anything but part of an already-founded religion. Because WMMartin need not fear that I'll try to add Fox, there is no reason to clutter up this page with a sentence that clearly belongs on the discussion page, and not on the article page: "Also note that in most religions there are several different traditions or denominations, which may have evolved or been founded at different times, by different people and in different places. These are described in the main articles for each religion." This sentence may well belong with a page providing a definition of what a "denomination" is, but it only clutters up a once-clean, and appealing-looking page whose purpose is to list religion founders.

You're quite right: I was underinformed, and just looked at the heading at the top of the article on Quakers, which refers to the Christian tradition. Having actually read the article and done some other background reading, I see your point. Indeed, at several points in Wikipedia's article the idea that Quakerism is a separate religion is explicitly used. It would be useful to hear other people's comments on this issue... WMMartin 17:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to thank WMMartin for trying to find the right solution to this question, and for posting a request for help on the Quaker talk page asking for help finding clarity on this discussion. You've touched on a rather sizable debate within Quakerism itself so others may disagree, but I'll provide my 2 cents. I don't believe George Fox had any intention of forming a religion, other than a refounding of the early Christian church. Any movement toward creating a non-Christian religion or movement happened later, and despite the intentions of Fox. Personally I don't feel it makes sense for Fox to be listed on this page, nor do I believe he would want to be seen as in equivalent to the other religious leaders listed here (particularly those from the Judeo-Christian tradition. --Ahc 00:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, all I can say from my own experience with the Society of Friends (not the Religious Society of Friends, as discussed in the talk page) is that there are those who feel quite strongly that Quaker thought is not a religion at all, but a belief. Belief is personal, religion is not. While many Quakers may feel they are Christians as well, in this view it's not necessary, or even particularly desirable, to belong to any religious group as a Quaker--Doovinator 04:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I am a non-Quaker speaking from a historical perspective. As Fox claimed to have recieved a direct revelation from Jesus Christ, I would say he belongs in the Christian tradition. As time has gone on, some have broadened the Quaker faith to something else. Historically speaking, it is impossible to deny that for the first two hundred years, Quakerism was solidly Christian (though not accepted as such by most other Christians). Fox was certainly not a founder of a major religion, and would not have seen himself that way, as Ahc said. Logophile 10:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Cao Dai and Ahmadiyya

Both of these have more members than Scientology according to reliable sources. Ahmadiyya is a kind of Islam, but separate enough to count if Mormonism is going to count. Also the Jehovah Witnesses, according to most estimates, are also larger than Scientology. Should I add their founders too?--T. Anthony 04:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding Tenrikiyo

Going by the above information they are apparently fairly large.--T. Anthony 05:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I put JW back

There are estimated to be 6 million of them. However I'm not sure if them or the Mormons should be listed. Aren't they both Christian denominations? Unusual ones perhaps, but still.--T. Anthony 14:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I would remove both Mormonism and 'JW' because they are denominations, sects - whatever term you would like to use - within Christianity. It doesn't mean that other Christians recognize them as fellow Christians. The important factor is self belief - they believe themselves to be Christians, and would claim Abraham, Moses, and Jesus as the founders of their religion. I'm sure there are similar separations amongst Hindus and perhaps other religions that differ just as much - Vaishnavism and Shaktism differ even on who they acknowledge as Supreme Brahman (as I understand it). Joseph Smith and Charles Russell did not 'found' their religions - they started their own reformations. These reformations may have separated them from contemporary Christians, but not from their common founders. As someone stated above, Luther and Calvin would be on the same plane. Thoughts? --Slow Graffiti 21:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I missed the 'Are Mormons Christians?' exchange above prior to writing these comments. It puts their inclusion more into perspective, but I'd still like more feedback about the issue. --Slow Graffiti 21:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be for that removal. I'm mostly willing to be broad in my interpretation of what religions are Christian. I'd accept Mormons, JWs, Christian Science, and even early Unitarians as Christians. (UUA, some Hicksites, and a few others I would not class as Christians as they seem to not class themselves that way)--T. Anthony 04:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's POV to class some Christian denominations as "non-Christian" for purposes of this list. Zora 05:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Confucianism is not a religion.

In China, Confucianism was a part of politic in the history and it is some kind of culture remains today. Today you almost can't find some Chinese "believe" Confucianism, because Confucianism is not a religion. Besides, in fact there was hardly relation between Confucian or Confucianism according history record. It's just like most people believe Frankstein was the monster today.

Confucianism is not a religion.

In China, Confucianism was a part of politic in the history and it is some kind of culture remains today. Today you almost can't find some Chinese "believe" Confucianism, because Confucianism is not a religion. Besides, in fact there was hardly relation between Confucius and Confucianism according history record. It's just like most people believe Frankstein was the monster today. --Gleader 19:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Confucianism is more of a philosophy, especially originally. However in time, and in places like Korea or Taiwan, Confucianism did develop many elements of a religion. Confucius and Mencius themselves emphasized the value of rites or ritual. Today there are various Confucian temples in parts of East Asia. Still Confucianism is more like a codification/reform of ancient Chinese religion that includes reverence for Confucius rather than a religion itself. Still I think it can fit, but there should be an explanatory note.--T. Anthony 05:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

BC?

It seems somewhat POV to use Christian dating (before Christ) for all the earlier figures. Wouldn't BCE be better? as at least showing that we're trying? Zora 04:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I like BCE better. Not sure what WP policy on dates is though. Шизомби 09:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears it's OK as long as you apply it throughout the article WP:MOSDATE#Eras. Шизомби 10:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Organization

I find the list to look a bit cluttered. I wonder if it should be broken up in some way, or converted to a table? Шизомби 09:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition

"The following figures are believed to have founded major religions or to have been the first codifiers or best known proponents of older traditions. In some cases, little or nothing is known of the figures; the dates are conjectures and some historians doubt that the founder, as described, ever existed."

Above it was disputed that Joseph Smith founded the LdS church, and past edits have been over whether Abraham founded Christianity and Islam. According to the definition above, Smith qualifies, but Abraham is sketchy. While C&I have adopted Abraham as a prophet, I don't think either of them hold him to be their founder, do they? Шизомби 09:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Islam holds Abraham to be a founder. He is said to have built the Kaaba and established its rituals. And I thought I put that Abraham was an inspirational figure for Christians? When I was being raised as a Christian (which I'm not now) I certainly heard a lot of talk about Abraham in Sunday school. Christians don't completely reject the Old Testament! Zora 09:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How can Abraham be held to be the founder of Islam, when they hold Adam to be the first prophet? I think I need to see a cite for your claim. Abraham is an important figure in Christianity, but I don't believe they hold him to be the founder of Christianity - that would be Jesus or Paul. As for "inspirational figures", that's not what the list is for unless you rewrite the definition. Шизомби 10:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Krishna

Krishna cannot be considered a founder of Hinduism, although is indeed a major part of the religion. Calling Krishna a prophet is incorrect, seeing as in Hinduism he is viewed as a God, usually as an avatar of Vishnu (or Vishnu as an avatar of Krishna, it varies)

I am removing it for the moment, please comment. Sfacets 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You did exactly the right thing, IMHO. Zora 15:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Hinduism is a complex religion, with no real "central" figure. 12.220.94.199 23:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Scientology

I have removed Scientology from the list. It cannot be considered major, 500,000 adherants (adherants.com) is far too few to make this a major religion. Sfacets 01:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Its a major religion - they claim 8 million adherents.--CltFn 02:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Claim being the keyword. Is there an official source that backs these claims? Also please fill in the edit summary if you revert an article. (which was why I reverted your revert)

Rather than get into a revert war, please find a reliable source to back your claims. Sfacets 02:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Here you go [2]. In general I would say that most membership numbers of most religions are quite bogus , as they are often nothing else but triumphalistic hot hair based on the wishful estimates or guesses of their own members. No one ever has counted memberships yet the numbers are thrown around as though they were facts. With that being said, Scientology is a household name , good or bad and has a presence around the world . Its a major religion--CltFn 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "adherents" is a good way to do this article. Perahps, define a major religion by influence. Scientology has very little influence in the world. I wouldn't oppose the inclusion of Scientology however. 12.220.94.199 23:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to remove Scientology, given the fact that its scriptures are copyrighted. The belief system of Scientology is explicitly not meant to circulate as widely as possible, as it is revealed only to those willing to purchase goods and services from the spiritual authority. Therefore, it only qualifies as a system of beliefs, and not as a religion that was given to mankind. 80.135.134.70 19:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, as far as world-view ideologies go, it's distinct from all the other major religions. Whether or not you have to pay for the knowledge has nothing to do with it. By the way, I'm not a scientologist. Cuñado - Talk 18:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Scientology can't be considered a church or religion for they have no God(s) that they worship because if I'm not mistaken but dont religions and churchs worship God(s). Anker99 20:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I'm a Zen Buddhist and I don't worship any gods. Zora 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with anon 12.220.94.199 - Scientology has a limited 'influence' because of its novelty. Also because of it's secretive nature, doubts arise on the truth of the claimed number of adherants. Unless a valid source can be provided backing up the claimed millions, Scientology must go. Sfacets 23:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the list above in the discussion article there are about "600 thousand" members. So can Scientology be considered more of a "cult" then a full on religion? Anker99 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason Scientology was re-added? I am removing it again until a rationale can be brought forward. Sfacets 11:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I think Scientology is as notable as Thelema and maybe moreso. Although I'd support Thelema being out or Scientology being in.--T. Anthony 09:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Moses

How can Moses be the founder, if Judaism already existed when he was around? At least 400 years before in fact...

• Abraham is claimed as the founder by Jews. I'm not sure about the 400 years date. 12.220.94.199 00:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We have weasel words at the top about "founder or first codifier". Moses could be considered the first codifier. Zora 09:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if you say Moses and the giving of the Torah are the founding of Judaism, the dating is all wrong. According to traditional Jewish dating the revelation on Mt. Sinai took place in the Hebrew year 2448 which correlates to 1313 BCE, making Judaism's "founding" in the 14th century. HOWEVER, there is a difference of 163 years between traditional Jewish dating and secular dating. Traditional Jewish dating has the destruction of the First Temple in 423 BCE while in secular dating it correlates to 586 BCE. Thus, using secular dating, the revelation at Sinai should be dating to 1467 BCE, the 15th century. I won't edit the article, but I suggest for the purpose of accuracy the article be changed to the 14th century (based on Jewish dating) or on 15th century based on secular dating. - Nate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.17.146.166 (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

sects vs religions

I'm going to remove Mary Baker Eddy and Wallace Fard. They did not create/found a new religion, they were in the category of sects or movements within religions. All the other people on the list actually founded a new religion, and claimed some sort of superhuman status, however you want to call it. Cuñado - Talk 20:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Likewise I removed religions that are non-notable and geographically isolated. I fail to see how they can be considered "major religions" when they have 2 million people, and 75% of them are in a single country. I also removed the Bab and the Babi Faith, because it is bound up with the Baha'i Faith, and today there are no Babis left as a distinct separate religion. Cuñado - Talk 20:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Renamed page to List of founders of world religions

Because it is less ambigious and we will be arguing until the cows come home as to what constitutes a "Major" religion.--CltFn 03:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's usual to consult with other editors before making such changes. Zora 03:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Like you consult other editors when you blank out sections from articles?--CltFn 03:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's editing, CltFn, and it's not the same thing as changing the name of an article. Is this some sort of vendetta? Zora 07:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article list Prophets who are not regarded as founders, i.e Abraham and skip Noah, the article needs to redefine its focus there is no real consistency here at all, what is the scope and purpose. It could probably be deleted or expanded into series of lists of Important figures associated with certain religious traditions. i.e. expand upon the List of religions otherwise it's a bit pointless really. New name proposed as seen from the contents, List of central figures of World Religions, and then we can do away with Adam, Abraham for greater consistency. Not all religions need have central figures, and then again we can choose wether we want to get into sub-categories of religious traditions or not as well --Tigeroo 10:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Christian Science

I have added Christian Science and it's founder to the list since it is quite clear that this is a religion separate from Christianity. It is only fair since the Unification Church and Mormonism's founders are also on the list. The Fading Light 03:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself very familiar with all three of those examples. The Unification Church is wildly different from the others. The Mormon church could be arguably a sect of Christianity, except that they have their own holy text and a line of recent prophets who they believe in. Mary Baker Eddy made no claim to prophethood and her writings are not put on equal status with the Bible. She is one of many Christian reformers of her time. A church was formed around her personality, but she only incorporated ideas of healing and medicine she gleaned from the Bible. It's one of thousands of sects. And besides that, it is not a world religion. There are very few followers outside of the United States. Cuñado - Talk 05:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing Confucianism

IshmaelBlues is continuing to remove the entry for Confucious, without justifying this, and, it seems to me, without reading the list of caveats at the bottom, one of which is that some people say that Confucianism is NOT a religion. It's arguable -- after all, Confucianism believes in a "Heaven" that requires the proper performance of religious rituals for the land to prosper. However, that is argued in the article to which we link. I think that in a borderline case such as this, it's better to include the tradition (which is, after all, followed by millions) and make it clear that it's disputed. Zora 08:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Krishna

Wasn't Krishna the founder of the Hindu Religion? Anker99 20:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Hinduism has no founder. Krishna/Vishnu followers (Vaishnavites) don't own Hinduism -- followers of Shiva, Durga, etc. would disagree. Krishna is a mythological figure (but then some of the other people in the list certainly are, IMHO). Zora 22:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The Baghavad Gita describes Krishna as a supernatural figure acting out a story on a battlefield. I think it's more accurate to say that there is no historical evidence of the life of a man named Krishna. He is believed by many people to be the "Prophet" or founder of the Hindu religion. You could say that all the Old Testament figures are mythological figures, because there is no evidence of their existence outside of Jewish scriptures. They likewise have fanciful stories of supernatural abilities, but they're listed as real people. Cuñado - Talk 00:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Adam

Adam was not the founder of a religion , he was a character in the mythology of Judaism and Christianity . And if you mention Adam , then you might as well mention Eve. --CltFn 13:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam is a fictional character, there is no evidence that he existed and most major religions consider him mythological, so I removed him. 203.143.238.107 08:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Title

If this edit is going to stay, then the page title should be List of founders of religions. We went over this discussion months ago. Most of those listed are not world religions, since they are isolated to a small geographical area or ethnic group. Also, Mary Baker Eddy founded a sect of Christianity, not a religion. She should be removed regardless. Cuñado - Talk 15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Eve

Eve would have to be one of the co-founders of the Abrahamic religions would she not.--CltFn 23:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User: Sfacets - Please make your arguments here as to why you took Eve off the list. --CltFn 23:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she is not considered to be a founder or one of the founders by any major religion. Sfacets 23:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Genetically she is a co-founder of the abrahamic descent, irregardless of what she is considered or not considered. Seems extremely one sided to only acknowledge Adam's side in the equation which depended on both of them.--CltFn 23:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It does, but then it isn't up to us to say that she is part f the foundation or not, it is up to the religion(s) in question. Sfacets 23:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Cao Dai?

Was Cao Dai removed because it's a local religion limited to Vietnam and Vietnamese immigrants? Because it numbers about 2 million. It might be as international as Christian Science, although limited more in ethnic terms.--T. Anthony 09:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Anton LaVey?

Many people consider him notable and he undoubtedly influenced culture. WerewolfSatanist 20:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism

I've added Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as the founder of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Other prominent Hindu denominations should be added in, I believe — for Hinduism is a collective term for a great variety of denominations that are, for all their doctrinal differences, for all practical purposes distinct and separate religions. —Raga 11:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure he founded Gaudiya Vaishnavism? That would mean nobody worshipped Krishna as the Supreme God before he did. Most Hindu figures don't even found their own sects. For example, Advaita was well established before Adi Shankara. He just popularised it. The Bhagavad Gita was written before Chaitanya Mahaprabhu so Gaudiya Vaishnavism may have already existed. A reliable source is needed for this. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DaGizza. Hinduism is not a hodgepodge as Raga puts it but rather an umbrella for different philosophies inspired by the Vedas.Bakaman 23:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Even Indologists like Max Muller understood this traditional religious scholar perspective:

In an introductory lecture on the origin of the Vedas to Europeans in 1865, the German Indologist Max Muller said, "In no country, I believe, has the theory of revelation been so minutely elaborated as in India. The name for revelation in Sanskrit is Sruti, which means hearing; and this title distinguished the Vedic hymns and, at a later time, the Brahmanas also, from all other works, which however sacred and authoritative to the Hindu mind, are admitted to have been composed by human authors. The Laws of Manu, for instance, are not revelation; they are not Sruti, but only Smriti, which means recollection of tradition. If these laws or any other work of authority can be proved on any point to be at variance with a single passage of the Veda, their authority is at once overruled. According to the orthodox views of Indian theologians, not a single line of the Veda was the work of human authors. The whole Veda is in some way or the other the work of the Deity; and even those who saw it were not supposed to be ordinary mortals, but beings raised above the level of common humanity, and less liable therefore to error in the reception of revealed truth. The views entertained by the orthodox theologians of India are far more minute and elaborate than those of the most extreme advocates of verbal inspiration in Europe. The human element, called paurusheyatva in Sanskrit, is driven out of every corner or hiding place, and as the Veda is held to have existed in the mind of the Deity before the beginning of time..." For quotation see: "Chips from a German Workshop" by Max Muller, Oxford University Press, 1867 - Chapter 1: "Lecture on the Vedas or the Sacred Books of the Brahmans, Delivered at Leeds, 1865", pages 17-18.

FYI, Vaishnavism was founded around the persona of Krishna, 3100BC according to traditional astronomical dating. However, Vaishnavism as a major religious movement was founded in India around 600BC, according to the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan's History of India (in 11 volumes), 11th edition 1996 Hulagu 00:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Hulagu

Krishna founded Vaishnavism? Where does that leave Hanuman who worshipped Rama before the arrival of Krishna according to Hindu mythology? And how about Narada? The Puranic legends place him before Kali Yuga. Either way, there was no founder for any Hindu denomination, whether you base the evidence on the stories or on history. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Gaudiya Vaishnavism refers specifically to the Vaishnava movement began in Bengal by Chaitanya Mahaparabhu, so yes, you can say he was the founder of that particular branch. Although, of course, the branch itself sprouts from the Vaishnava tree, which has no specific historical founder. There is a good description of Gaudiya history in this link. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 20:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gaudiya Vaishnavism is defined as the movement founded by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. That does mean however that Krishna devotees before Chaitanya like the Gopis are not technically Gaudiya but just Vaishnavas. :) I accept that particular sub-sects may have been founded by certain people but my point still stands on the major denominations and on cults that Hindu figures just developed but did not establish. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Chaitanya worships the Gopis, not the other way around. They only have eyes for Krishna as Shyamasundara ;-) Gouranga(UK) 11:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct: No Gaudiya Vaisnava would consider the gopis to be Gaudiya Vaisnavas. Adherence to Caitanya is a central element of the Gaudiya Vaisnava faith. In this vein, I believe that other Vaisnava-sampradayas that were clearly founded should be represented: Madhva and Ramanuja at the very least. (Though Caitanya, on account of his pronounced avatara-hood in the tradition, makes a stronger case for inclusion as a distinct tradition.) You may consult Caitanya's popular biography, Caitanya-caritamrita, to learn of the commonly known view that he did indeed set into motion something new. (Even if he obviously drew from older traditions.)

With the vast doctrinal differences between different denominations of Hinduism, it is a bit artificial to not grant them the "rights" of "individual religion", such as their having a founder, etc. For many of them, de facto founders can be identified all the same. And on the thought that many of them just developed pre-existing traditions, then well, the same can be said for example of Jesus, can it not? If I may make a profound theological statement here — "God is the founder of Religion", and off with those tables of founders, they all produced derivative works. (In fact, many Vaishnava schools trace their disciplic successions back to Vishnu.) —Raga 22:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Example from the list: "Numa Pompilius - Roman king who codified and organized the Roman religion". And lots more of those. In the name of fairness, then, we need to cut more slack with "codifiers" when it comes to Hinduism. — Raga 22:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is "Gaudiya Vaishnavism" a world religion??? I believe not. It is an branch of Vaishnavism , which is in turn is of Hinduism as are Shaktism, Shaivism, Ganpatya etc????--Redtigerxyz 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer?

The whole disclaimer at the bottom strikes me as pretty unencyclopedic. If people care about Wikipedia's policies, they should check the policy pages.

I'm sure that can all be rephrased in a slightly less... sycophantic manner, no? For example, just mention that some religions don't consider their founder a "founder", and leave it at that. --π! 10:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've given rephrase a try. Lessee. -- Fullstop 21:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Jainism

There can be only 1 founder - Lord Rishabha or Mahavira, not both.--Redtigerxyz 17:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

scope

since there is only a dozen (super-)traditions widely recognized as "world religions", and most list entries went beyond these already, I suggest it is best to expand the scope to "notable religious philosophies, traditions and denominations". This also avoids the tired "Muhammad is not the founder of Islam" debate. new religious movements are a dime a dozen, however, and we should either demand minimal notability (say, more than 20,000 adherents), or delegate these to a separate article. dab (𒁳) 10:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Socrates the founder of some unmentioned religion?

Because, the first section placed him in the Axial Age of founders, and I do not see a religious tradition based solely around Socrates. I replaced his name with Solomon, if only because there is mention of him in the article and the time period (~1000-900 BCE) is early enough to fit with Buddha and the others there. Notostraca 03:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

no, see Axis Age:

Jaspers' axial shifts included the rise of Platonism, which would later become a major influence on the Western world ... Buddhism, ... Confucianism ... Zoroastrianism, another of Jaspers' examples, is crucial to the development of monotheism. Jaspers also included the authors of the Upanishads, Laozi, Homer, Socrates, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Thucydides, Archimedes, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Deutero-Isaiah as Axial figures.

Socrates is the same to Platonism as Jesus is to Christianity, only that the former is named after Plato, not Socrates, and the later about the Christ, not Paul. Solomon has nothing to do with the Axis Age, he is just another Iron Age king installing a cult of a city god. --dab (𒁳) 07:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see that that section has been clarified and Platonic Realism is there. But, either the article's position on the founder of Judaism should be clarified or maybe Solomon should be acknowledged as being more than "just another Iron Age king." Then again, I am no expert on organized religion, I'm just trying to sort out factual inaccuracies (or in this case, a perceived lack of clarity). Notostraca 07:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

these "founders" all become more fuzzy the closer you look at them. Judaism is an ethnic religion and doesn't have a specific founder. Solomon may be the earliest identifiable historical ruler who institutionalized some kind of "proto-Judaism", but it would obviously be problematic to call him the "fonder of Judaism". Judaism-as-we-know-it originates with the Mishna, just as Christianity-as-we-know-it originates with Nicaea. The Pentateuch may reflect the mythology of the "proto-Judaism" practiced in Solomo's time, just as the prophetic books reflect the early Judaism of the second half of the 1st millennium BC. dab (𒁳) 12:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how Guru Nanak "founded" Sikhism

Nanak is the first of the ten Sikh gurus, but that does not mean that he founded it. As the word is usually understood, founding a religion means separating it from the other ones, and Nanak definitely never separated his followers from Muslims or Hindus. In fact, many of Nanak's practices were things that were eventually forbidden once Sikhism was founded - for example, fasting and going on pilgrimages. I believe that it was the last Guru who separated Sikhism from Islam and Hinduism. Epa101 (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Pentecostals and Seventh-day Adventists

Since this list apparently includes the founder of every major Protestant denomination, I've added Ellen G. White (Seventh-day Adventism) and Charles Parham (Pentecostalism). Should policy change and all the other major Christian denomination leaders removed, such as John Calvin, Joseph Smith, and Henry VIII, then feel free to take these two additions out as well. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC))

Marwa Itani

I want you to remove this pictures because God will put us in fier please follow islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.6.55.194 (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Judaism

I went ahead and added Moses as the founder of Judaism. Abraham and the Israelites before the Exodus may have worshipped YHWH, but they didn't have the Torah which [I'd say] is the main part of Judaism. I don't know whether to leave Solomon there, because if you consider Moses the founder, Solomon didn't play a big part in changing the religion, but since Ezra is in there I figured I'd leave both of them. Maybe both of them should be removed. 12.217.230.194 (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Only one person can found a religion; the others can just renew it. I am removing Solomon and Ezra. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

this is nonsensical. Please read the article. This isn't about the question of what consitutes "a (single) religion", at all. It's about founding figures of religious traditions, as already hinted at in the title. dab (𒁳) 18:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

List order

The founders have been listed in historical, date of birth order. Please help keep it that way when adding new entries, both for consistency and to make it easier for readers. • Astynax ^talk 18:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

LDS

Latter Day Saints aren't included in this list, or am I mistaken. Lilaac (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

it is listed as Joseph Smith, Jr./ Latter Day Saint movement / 1805 - 1844--dab (𒁳) 09:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter?

Why is Peter in the list? I understand why Paul is, but Peter (If anything should Peter and Paul not share the same box? Perhaps it could say. Peter and Paul, Paul codified Jesus Teachings along with Peter, the early Church leader.) I say this because Peter's teachings are not any different from Paul's or indeed known in any great detail. Peter did not found Catholicism it was the religion of Paul also- there is no such thing as Petrine Christianity...Gavin (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

you have a point, but "Petrine Christianity" is in fact used as a term in respectable literature.[3][4] Here is an author who sees the text of Galatians as reflecting a "severe struggle which took place between Pauline and Petrine Christianity"--dab (𒁳) 11:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The first one lists uses of the term in various books, that in it self doesn't mean that there is a religious tradition distinct from other versions of Christianity. I think what they are getting at is Peter's headship of the Church as opposed to say, James. The other two give hypothesis, not fact- Petrine Christianity is not a religious tradition, it is part and parcel of Pauline Christianity. (Note those sources also mentioned Johnainine Christianity, we don't have that in the list... Jesus founded the religion, Paul codified the religion, Peter Lead the religion. Gavin (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What I have done is merge Peter and Paul as they both followed Pauline Christianity (inclusion of the gentiles, end of circumcision etc) so if anything they are co-founders of the Pauline school of thought which has largely become modern Christianity. I have also added James the Just who is the one who opposed Peter and Paul on certain issues and led the Jewish Christians movement. Gavin (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

this makes good sense. We need to accept that some religious traditions aren't founded by individuals but by groups of individuals working in concert. --dab (𒁳) 09:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Founder/Promoter/Figurehead Issue

This is getting ridiculous, and this page is becoming a mess (and by the looks of this discussion page, has been for some time). The question of course is who do we list as the founder? The first main proponent from a historical perspective? The founder according to the religion itself? The prophet or the apprentice/prophet who wrote everything down and/or started the movement?

I suggest we list both, either in the Abraham/Muhammad format for Islam or Muhammad (Abraham) is some clear and consistent manner. I don't care which is first (religion's own idea of founder vs. outside/historical view), but it should be done consistently. Some example edits: Christianity = Jesus/Paul of Tarsus or Paul of Tarsus (Jesus) Mormanism = Jesus/Joseph Smith Sikhism = (???)/Guru Nanak (forgive my ignorance here on the Sikh view of founder)

Personally, I'd like to suggest the "First Proponant (Figurehead)" approach, akin to Plato (Socrates) and the relationship there, since most reading this page will belong to one religion only, and hence prefer the areligious historical view 90% of the time, and to avoid half the names being Jesus or Abraham. I'll give this a week so others can comment before I change the article. (August 7, 2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.251.170 (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

we'll just list any individual identified as the founder of some religious tradition, what's the problem? Note that a "religious tradition" may well be a denomination or sect, such as Luther for Lutheranism. dab (𒁳) 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What about Abraham, the Father of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, & Baha'i?--174.95.63.5 (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather than "fathers" or ancestors, this article is listing founders of distinctive religious traditions. It really doesn't matter that a new movement incorporates some pre-existing beliefs and traditions, the new movement represents a distinct new direction from what has gone before, even (as is often the case) when a continuation or restoration of something older is claimed. Regardless, I don't believe anyone places Abraham as founder of a religion, though he is looked to as a father/ancestor of various ethnic groups. For religious movements, Judaism would look to Moses, Christianity to Jesus (Christ), Islam to Mohammed and Bahá'ísm to Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Nuri (Bahá'u'lláh). Were the article concerned with an ultimate ancestor figure, then why not just say "Adam" (or "Eve").

If a reader wants information as to who founded Sikhism, they need to know about Guru Nanak; if a reader wants to know who originated the Church Universal and Triumphant, then they should be directed to articles about Mark and Elizabeth Clare Prophet; if a reader needs to know who is the founder of Islam, then the information is contained in the article on Mohammed. The founders' previous connections to and influences from pre-existing traditions would be mentioned in those articles. But it would be misdirection for a "List of founders of religious traditions" to substitute "influences" rather than the founder of a new movement.

Wikipedia's policy answer to the question "who do we list as the founder?" is simply that the article be verifiable by, reflect and cite what reliable sources already say. • Astynax ^talk 07:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Art of Living Foundation

Does this organization really belong on this page? The article for the organization represents it as a simple charitable foundation, rather than as a spiritual movement (IDing it as a nongovernmental organization, no listing of theological tenets, etc.). Seems like either this page or that one should change.--216.164.44.4 (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In future, please put new posts at the bottom of discussion pages. According to J. Gordon Melton, the Art of Living Foundation "is the vehicle for the teaching activity of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, a Hindu spiritual teacher". That seems to fit the criteria for this list. I've referenced the page covering the Art of Living Foundation in the article text. • Astynax ^talk 23:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodoxy

Eastern Orthodoxy was not founded by any one person. It is a religious tradition inseparable from early Christianity. It is as absurd as proposing a "founder" for Roman Catholicism. Both Christian traditions have their ultimate foundations in the teachings of Jesus.

Ilion301 (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

it isn't "absurd", it is exactly the sort of thing listed in this article, as explained in the lead. Or do you suppose that Lutheranism, Anglicanism, or any of the other Christian traditions listed do somehow not have "their ultimate foundations in the teachings of Jesus"? --dab (𒁳) 09:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

-- None of you has a clue what Jesus of Nazareth actually said or did. But there's no question that Eastern Orthodox is just as old as Roman Catholicism. They were the same thing until the Great Schism of 1064. Look it up. 76.113.64.124 (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

George Fox and the Quakers

Easily one of the most unique strains of Christianity ... but I didn't see it listed here. 76.113.64.124 (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A call for more references

Rather than discussing various syntheses as to who founded what, this article would be better served by providing citations for the founders claimed for each of the religious traditions listed. The article must reflect sources. Existing articles and lists already have sources for most everything here, although this list isn't entirely consistent with those other articles. To get things rolling, I've put in a few citations for founders. • Astynax ^talk 08:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

of course all items listed need to be substantiated by the content of the article linked. As long as this is ensured, inserting references is just a matter of a copy-paste job from the linked article. Please feel free to (a) insert references for valid entres and (b) remove entries that are unsubstantiated. --dab (𒁳) 11:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Moses?

if there is zoroaster we must include moses and zoroaster's historicity is much less than solomansIshmaelblues (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

if you read the Zoroaster and the Moses article, you will realize that this isn't the case.

The Old Avestan Gathas are composed by Zoroaster, making him exactly as historical as Homer: historical as the identity of the composer of an extant text. There are no texts by "Moses". The Pentateuch was compiled from oral tradition many centuries after the putative date of a potentially historical Moses. --dab (𒁳) 14:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

both are mixed with legend if we include zoroaster we must include moses. Ishmaelblues (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC) there are also portions of the bible supposedly composed by moses so again they are both semi legendary Ishmaelblues (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

no, you don't understand. Please (please) read the Mosaic authorship and the Zoroaster articles. It is immaterial whether Zoroaster was "mixed with legend". Jesus, Buddha and hell even Luther and John Smith, were "mixed with legend". That is not the question. The question is, was there a tangible historical individual that later could be "mixed with legend" in the first place. --dab (𒁳) 11:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what is the criteria for "Existence of a person."? Is the composition of extant texts the sole criteria? Is there any scholarly consensus on the same? Moses does seems to be a historical person. Only his date and aspects of his biography is doubtful. On the other hand, various Rishis seems to be quite farfetched.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Abraham?

Why is it in Abraham's category, Baha'ism keeps being deleted? Baha'ism is an Abrahamic religion also. Baha'is trace their lineage to Abraham, via his children by Keturah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splashen (talk • contribs) 03:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume that it was removed because someone hadn't heard of that claim and there was no WP:RS source given. You may want to include a tertiary reference to back the addition. There are very many areas of this article which still lack sources, but WP:V Policy requires references. • Astynax ^talk 06:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I already did provide a reference.--Splashen (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:CITE for information about how to format a citation. Someone may still challenge your source, see WP:V. • Astynax ^talk 19:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Judaism is the only religion that can actually be attributed to Abraham, though even that is a theological stretch. Nowhere in the Pentateuch is any claim made with regards to Abraham starting a new religion, rather it was Moses who set forth the law, which is the difference between Judaism and Islam. Christianity was founded By Jesus (Messiah) ben Joseph properly so. A religion is Founded by a person, irregardless of the claim to history. Moses founded Judaism, Christ founded Christianity, Muhammad founded Islam and Bahá'u'lláh founded Baha'i.

Acreditation again goes to the following: In Judaism the founding of the law is the founding of the Religion, thus Moses is the founder, though Abraham is the father of Isaac the father of Jacob who was named Israel. Baha'i traces it's origin to Abraham through lineage but sites no true founder beyond Bahá'u'lláh as Bahá'u'lláh claims to be of the blood line of Abraham. This claim is not that Abraham started the movement but that Bahá'u'lláh has a claim to his inheritance as a possible Messiah (forgetting about the Messiah coming from the house of David ben Jesse). On these grounds I will be Moving Judaism to Moses, and Baha'i to Bahá'u'lláh. Daniellis89 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal

I removed two "founders" from the article. Enheduana was not the founder of the cult of Inanna, the cult was well established by the time she was appointed as priestess. She could be included in an article "first known followers of religious traditions", but this article is about founders.

Also, Pharaoh Ahmose did not found anything, the ancient Egyptian religion changed continually, with different gods gaining prominence in different periods. Ahmose was from Thebes, that city's god was Amun, that's why this god gradually became more important than others, but it was a long process, and his worship did not begin with Ahmose. "Quasi-monotheistic worship of Amun" is definitely incorrect. Apart from the Atenist reform, which didn't succeed, ancient Egypt was never monotheistic. – Alensha ^talk 20:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting the removal of "Haile Selassie" as the founder of Rastafarianism. I am basing this suggestion on the following.

[] Rastafarians believe Haile Selassie to be God. They chose him as their representation of God, however, he has never aligned himself with the Rastafarian religion. I believe that until his death, Haile Selassie claimed to be a Christian. Not to be daunted, Rastafarians continued in their claim that Haile Selassie is their God. An enlightening piece can be viewed here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdAXGmYRSlY.

[] It is said that the first person to suggest that Haile Selassie was God was Mortimer Planner (spelling errors possible). He has been credited as being the originator of Rastafarianism by many. However, discussing the founder of Rastafarianism may itself spark a "religious deabate".

There are quite a few books on the subject of Rastafarianism that may shed some light on this interesting religion. It is quite possible that Rastafarianism may be a class unto itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.220.90 (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Haile Selassie, as this entry is without support. Reliable sources point to Marcus Garvey as being the instigator, with Archibald Dunkley, Robert Hines, Joseph Hibbert and Leonard Howell being the first to take up the torch and develop the religion. • Astynax ^talk 17:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Definition of "religious tradition"

This article is a bit of a mess. That is honestly understandable, given the rather required vagueness of the defining parameter. How exactly do we define "religious tradition" for the purposes of this article? For instance, would Handsome Lake qualify as the founder of his tradition, even if that tradition is, more or less, dead today? For that matter, what about Homer, who is thought to have perhaps founded the tradition of the Olympian gods? And, for that matter, what about Anthony of Egypt, the founder of the monastic movement in Christianity? Or Saint Dominic, founder of the tradition of the Dominican orders?

I honestly think that, while the list here is not a bad idea, it would be extremely helpful if we were able to come up with some set definition of terms of inclusion, otherwise it will basically always be subject to real and potential argument. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The opening of the lead section gives us a fair start: "This article lists historical figures credited with founding religions or religious philosophies or people who first codified older known religious traditions. It also lists those who have founded a specific major denomination within a larger religion." The first statement is valid and good. The second is more questionable. If it is retained, full weight needs to be given to the word "major" and the term "denomination" may not be the best choice. Its strength is that it requires the existence of a structured social group with a particular sense of its own identity. Its weakness lies partly in the fact that in some cases what grew out of the founder's initiative was not a single denomination but a family of denominations and mainly in the equating of "tradition" with denomination. I suggest that in this context tradition should be assimilated to "distinctive ethos" and that we should put a good deal of emphasis on the theoretical component implicit in the phrase "or religious philosophies" and require some very distinctive, original and innovative contribution to the new denomination.

So far as Handsome Lake, Homer and Anthony of Egypt are concerned, I would exclude Anthony of Egypt on the grounds that his example and influence were highly significant, but he was not the earliest monk and his contribution was mainly to provide a certain amount of coordination and a good deal of individual spiritual direction to groups of hermits who lived in the same neighbourhood. I would exclude the other two as well, in my opinion Handsome Lake does not meet the major denomination requirement and Homer neither founded nor codified a religious tradition (he seems to have been someone who passed on basic concepts even if he did so in an extremely attractive package).

Perhaps the best way forward is for me to comment on some entries in the list that I consider should be eliminated:

1. Paul, Peter and James the Just should be removed because the concept of Jewish and Pauline Christianity is largely a theoretical enlightenment construct. I fully admit that the tendencies existed but they were never true denominations within the religion founded by Christ and Paul rejected the concept of a Pauline Christianity.
2. Arianism and Pelagianism were attempts to (re?)define the theology of the early Christian Church which failed to gain general acceptance. Similar concepts have re-emerged from time to time, but there is no real line of transmitted tradition as such.
3. Eutyches never codified anything: Kelly describes him as the "aged and muddle-headed archimandrite". The Monophysite Churches became a separate tradition as a reaction against the Chalcedonian Definition of 451 which "codified" the doctrine of the two natures in a way they felt was unacceptable.
4. Aimee McPherson was not enough of an innovator to have founded a distinct religious ethos; she might also fail the "major denomination test". [Note: These comments are illustrative of my main position: any discussion of them as proposals for elimination would be better placed in a separate section.]

Could we work along the following lines?

To be included in this list, the founder must be be a historical person who is reliably credited with either

1. Having founded a religion or religious philosophy, or
2. Having first codified and systematized an existing religious tradition.
3. Having innovated within an existing religion in such a way as to produce a major new denomination or family of denominations with a distinctive ethos and underlying philosophy.

Jpacobb (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we have to go back to policy here. There shouldn't be some test that we decide to impose, but rather what should determine inclusion is that reliable sources say that a person is a "founder" (or equivalent term) of a religious tradition. That said, the term "religious traditions" seems to be vague to the point of being nearly invisible to readers doing searches (why not "Founders of religious movements" or "Religious innovators" or ???). I see one of the main obstacles being that the current structure of the table is just a chronological list, which doesn't afford any way to group, and thus show any continuity between, various threads within faiths. To me, it would be far easier to grasp the interrelationships of various movements if the table were subdivided into hierarchical sub-groupings (dictionaries and encyclopedias of religion are often organized in this way). Thus, and only as an example, Dominic as founder of the Dominican order might be an entry under Monasticism, which might be an entry under Catholicism, which in turn might be an entry under Christianity. Tables are not my forte, but I believe such a table might even be sortable (e.g., alphabetically by movement, by derivative movement, on date, alphabetically on name). I agree that some of the current entries are very questionable, though the bases for challenging and removal should be because of a lack of broad support in reliable sources. • Astynax ^talk 06:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we can start with concrete borders here. First, both the founder and the tradition should be sufficiently notable. For our purposes, and since this is a list article, we can mandate that they have an associated Wikipedia article. Not a subsection in an article, or only a redirect, but an actual article documenting the person's biography and the religious tradition he founded. Also, we can require a reliable source. It can be debated whether this can be any secondary source, or if we should require a scholarly publication, or merely prefer that over say, a People Magazine article. Let's make a narrow list of well-defined terms that we can accept from that reliable secondary source. Religious tradition, religious movement, Christian denomination, religious sect, religious philosophy. Comments? Elizium23 (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Elizium has a good point. So too do Jpacobb, about including only "major" groups, and Astynax, about maybe grouping them by related articles rather than chronologically. My biggest reservation is about the possible/probable OR in declaring something "major". Would for instance groups which have existed for a long time in an isolated area count, like maybe some Oceanian traditions, or would we want those which have had some global impact, or maybe would groups whose significance as religions is not particularly impressive but which have been significant players in major historical developments be included. Any thoughts? John Carter (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The word "traditions" in the title is part of the confusion, at least for me. The lead doesn't help eliminate the fuzziness inherited from the title. Something more on the lines of "movement" (in place of "traditions") in the title and lead would at least give more definite boundaries to what is eligible to be listed. I concur with Elizium23 that each movement should at least have an article in which appears referenced material verifying that it IS a religious movement and WHO founded it. Not all founders have enough source material available on which to construct much of an article, and some stubs and short articles on founders have been merged into the article on their movements, so requiring a separate article for a founder seems too limiting, provided that the article on the movement contains a referenced mention of the founder. I also agree that we don't want to create a situation where edit warriors seek to finesse notablility for the list (the notibility rationale for the article for the movement should be enough to get it on the list). Finally, I wonder if it wouldn't be more effective to merge this list with List of religions and spiritual traditions, using a table structure that would allow readers to sort on the header of their choice (thread of religious tradition, date, founder). List of new religious movements is set up to do that by clicking on the arrows in the headers, and might offer an example of how to reorganize the list here. • Astynax ^talk 18:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I really like the idea of merging this article into List of religions and spiritual traditions, including a new column for the founders. Other opinions? John Carter (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a fine idea, there is too much duplication and overlap not to consider it. Elizium23 (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Various comments

1. Merge: I have no objection in principle, but careful negotiation may be necessary since the suggested page covers rather different ground. Also, merging does not solve the major problem which is what should be on the page rather than where the page should be found.
   
2. Tradition v Movement v Denomination: There are no standard definitions of these terms, therefore 'RS' is unlikely to solve the problem. (Is Methodism a denomination, or a tradition/movement covering at one time several denominations, e.g. in England historically the Methodist church, the New Connection, Independent Methodists, Primitive Methodists, Bible Christians, Wesleyan Reformers? Movement is an elastic term: in Catholic Pentecostalism, René Laurentin uses it of the large-scale charismatic movement, the Franciscans and the Jesuits, and the much smaller "Tower of David movement". Tradition for all its vagueness, has in some contexts seems to be used as a functional equivalent for a "large-scale movement".
   
3. Notability and RS: given the apparent tendency to set the criteria for notability on the low side and the probable variations among RS, including the shades of meaning given to 'founder', I would say that the existence of Wikipedia articles as suggested above should be a necessary, but not in itself a sufficient, requirement.
   

Sri Chinmoy: Discuss

I have questioned the inclusion in this listing of Sri Chinmoy because (i) the tradition does not figure as an article – the link to 'x' is to the article on the 24th letter of the alphabet –, (ii) having read the article on Sri Chinmoy, I consider that, whatever his impact as a person, he did not found or codify anything that could be considered a specific 'tradition' for the purposes of this article. Jpacobb (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, until we have a RS tying him to a specific sect or tradition. Melton lists Chinmoy, but only as an influence on Frederick Lenz in forming the Disciples of Rama. Beit-Hallahmi doesn't seem to mention him. • Astynax ^talk 02:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sri Chinmoy is founder of different modern parts of religion tradition. How meditation -> meditation centers ( worldwide), sport popular trough Challenging Impossibility a disciple from him Ashrita Furman or the World Harmony Run. --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand the above to mean that Sri Chinmoy is a notable 'influence'; but this is not enough to meet the requirements of the opening paragraph of the lead section. Until there is proper well-documented article on the tradition or movement he founded, I consider there can be no reasonable case for his figuring in this particular list. Jpacobb (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Or the founder of Self-Transcendence 3100 Mile Race. --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Vedic Religion and Hinduism

This article tries to make a distinction between Vedic Religion and Classical Hinduism as being two separate religions. Further, in the tables there is no row for both Vedic Religion and Classical Hinduism.

Hinduism is a learning and evolving religion that has foundations in Vedas and draws from the Puranas. It it is incorrect to break Hinduism into two separate religions Vedic Religion and Classic Hinduism as this article purports.

Unlike western religion Hinduism is not bound by a single leader nor by a specific set of rules. It was and continues to be a tradition of beliefs that is evolving with the times. The term Hindu was applied in more recent times but the nomenclature has not disrupted the continuation of its tradition.

Hinduism is the foundation of Dharmic Religion and has significantly influenced Buddhist and Jain Religions and has also learnt from them and gone through several reformations in its long history.

It cannot be truly classified with religions that have a Single Spiritual Leader and specific written rules book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellasitis (talk • contribs) 05:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That's some great information. Do you have some documentation, in the form of reliable secondary sources? Scholarly published books would be a good start here. Elizium23 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Will add secondary sources as requested. Please allow some time. Also, see section below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellasitis (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Polishing lead section

The wording of this paragraph seemed confusing and it contained a number of errors, including the following: Abraham was not a "founder" in the sense defined in this article (see Pico's edit); Lutheranism is a family of denominations, that is of specific ecclesial bodies (churches = denominations), each of which has its own shades of doctrine and practice and is self governing; Nestorius was not a "nestorian" and did not codify "Nestorianism" (see note to that effect in article). I have tried to put the essential main points without making statements which could well be questioned such as the inclusion in the list of "Pauline Christianity". Jpacobb (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent Edits

User:Splashen has made recent edits which can be seen here These changes fall into three groups and I will comment them in turn, but first I want to ensure we are clear as to the meaning of "religious tradition". The lead section uses the word "denomination" which I take to be a synonym for tradition and to refer to a group of people with a specific religious identity and recognised at the time as such and identified by the founder's name by either the group itself or outsiders in general.

1. These edits reintroduce four names: Abraham, Moses, Solomon and John the Baptist as founders of Blood-right of inheritance; Judaism; Builder of 1st Temple; and Mandaeism + proto-founder of Christianity, respectively. The first and third (Abraham and Solomon) are not founders of denominations. According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Judaism arose from the situation produced by the exile in 586 BC, which is in line what the entry in the list for Ezra states and Edwin Yamauchi states that "most recent studies ... relegate John the Baptist to a later stage of the Mandaean traditions" and goes on to give examples.(Pre-Christian Gnosticism, 1971, pp 124,125, see also Mandaeism#Chief prophets) The fact that Abraham and Moses are influential and important religious figures does not in itself justify their inclusion in a list of founders.
2. The edits also remove a series of foot-notes (mine) warning the reader that the relationship between the historical person and what is understood by the religious tradition with which their name is associated is in some cases highly questionable if not certainly mistaken, as in the case of Nestorius. The edit also confuses notes on Ezra and Zoroaster with bibliographical references after I had separated them into a separate listing.
3. The lead section has been altered in a way which is incompatible with the assertions made above (for example, Nestorius did not codify Nestorianism – see eliminated note and Lau comments that the "evangelical, Lutheran humanist Melanchthon to a large degree gave Lutheranism its peculiar stamp – Luther SCM 1963 p.26) but perhaps it would be advisable to leave this until there is agreement on the preceding two points.Jpacobb (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

What qualifies as a "religious tradition"?

I fear that the post-1800 section of this article might become inflated by the inclusion of ephemeral movements. Here are a few initial thoughts as to how this might be avoided. The term "tradition" implies persistence in time, possibly second, third, and fourth generations. However, it would be an oversimplification to make duration the only criterion for inclusion: the Unification Church (Moonies) is a relatively recent but a widely diffused phenomenon and has been the subject of serious academic study. I suggest that the basic requirement for inclusion should be that of notability properly understood as having been the subject of academic attention. Some criteria which might normally be very relevant are questionable in this situation: (i) recognition by governments may simply be a right that any miniscule group can obtain on demand; (ii) mention in the media can be the consequence of the need for headlines. (ii) a string of web-sites as sources may simply be multiple sources related to the subject (?as in the case of Marshall Vian Summers?). Another entry which might be worth evaluating is Missionary Church of Kopimism. Jpacobb (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Super Mega Church Of The New God

Three different anonymous IPs have recently inserted this organisation at the end of the listing of "Founders of religious traditions", one of which has since been blocked. The entry has been removed by three different experienced editors (see here for details). The grounds for my action were and are "No evidence of notability". If this is reinserted I suggest as suitable protection for the page (¿no access for IPs, registered editors only?) Jpacobb (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The entry was reinserted again by anonymous IP 82.3.162.127. This IP has already been reverted once by User:Dougweller. The entry appears to be idle vandalism in that no evidence of notability is forthcoming, neither the alleged founder nor the Church are linked to articles in Wikipedia and the date of birth given for the founder is 2009. I am not prepared to get into a cycle of repeated reverts, whoever justified and some sort of administrative action seems to be needed. Jpacobb (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've also found no hint of such an organization in any reference, so it is not notable and almost certainly deserves a rollback. • Astynax ^talk 23:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Just revert it, I don't think it's something that at the moment requires protection. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Charles Taze Russell

Charles Taze Russell was NOT the founder of Jehova's Witnesses. He founded the Zion's Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and it operated under this name until his death in 1916. Then the movement underwent some divisions, giving rise to a number of post-Russelian groups. One of the groups that emerged was led by JF Rutherford who only adopted the name "Jehova's Witnesses" in 1931. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.254.223.28 (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Abraham is only a myth

There is no historical or archaeological evidence of Abraham. This article is for characters that if they existed, should remove its name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham#Historicity_and_origins

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.79.194.90 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

And we cannot simply put "Israelites" in the founder column for Judaism; that's too vague and oversimplifying it. "Founder" implies just a person. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, we're settled on the Abraham issue, and I apologize. I know that doesn't make up for it, but still. However, saying that naming a group as a founder instead of an individual is too vague doesn't seem too vague. I disagree, for example, on this page we identify Sant Mat as the founder of the Bkharti movement, Sant Mat was not a person, it was a proximate group of people flimsily held together by the establishment of a religious movement. We do not know among Sant Mat who specifically established the Bkharti movement, but we keep it on the page because there is clear evidence that, while the term isn't referring to the single founder, it can be clearly established that someone in this group began the tradition in question. Therefore, I don't see how Israelites is loose or vague, without even mentioning plenty of archeological evidence has been provided that a group of late Iron Age II Palestinians (who are indeed referred to for the sake of namekeeping as the Israelites), founded Judaism in a primordial henotheistic form in the late 18th century BCE, and we have just about the same amount of evidence that Sant Mat existed that the Israelites (not Jacobian Israelites) existed. So, I'm going to go ahead and re-add the Israelites. If you have thoughts, consult me. 67.85.35.183 (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The israeli people have his history since 1200 b.c. the bible since 745 b.c. and judaism since 586 b.c.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.79.194.90 (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

So, first off, those dates are not remotely correct, maybe. I don't know what the hell "A.C." is. "After Christ" maybe? Secondly, articles on THIS WIKI date earliest Hebrew occupation of Israel to the late 2nd millennium BCE, a mere half a millennium before your dates. The pagers you linked do not support your claims in the slightest. I don't know what to tell you. 67.85.35.183 (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm speak spanish, my english is basic. But israeli people exist since 1200 b.C. is archaeological — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.79.194.90 (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay then. Then I guess you're right then. 67.85.35.183 (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)″

But judaism is since around to 586 b.C. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism#History — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.79.194.90 (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Technically that's only monotheistic Judaism. Judaism began as a henotheistic religion, not monotheistic. I'm using those dates because the monotheistic dates are already being used for Second Temple Era. 67.85.35.183 (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You don't have evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Judaism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.79.194.90 (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding "Israelites || Judaism || Israelian || c. 13th century BC"

The above discussion is honestly hard to follow because of the lack of indentations and unsigned comments. Please respect the WP:TPG, I've already told one of you that. Start the discussion now onwards from here. Warned both of you about edit warring too yet it continues. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"I have evidence that the Israeli people was polytheistic (Because they were indigenous Canaanites). Israel in 1200 B.C. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel#Early_Israelites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Yahweh_and_the_rise_of_monotheism was polytheistic the archaeological evidence says, only in the Babylonian exile that true Judaism was formed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Judaism and this article is of people that founded a religion, no of a clan or ethnicity." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.79.194.90 (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Religions change. Judaism was polytheistic (or monolatristic, whatever you want to call it) and then it was monotheistic, it was never not Judaism. It doesn't make it not Judaism, it just doesn't make it modern Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BedrockPerson (talk • contribs) 18:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"There is no archaeological evidence in the 13th century B.C. about Judaism. In the 8th century B.C. the bible was created, yahwists were led by Hezekiah and began Judaism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.79.194.90 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

By that logic, Judaism began in 583 CE with the Babylonian exile, which doesn't make any sense because the worship of Yahweh (i.e. Judaism) had been around for thousands of years. Any worship of Yahweh is Judaism, no matter how primitive or contradictory to modern Judaism. (P.S. how do I sign?)

Yahweh was God of people israeli in the 8th b.c. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Iron_Age_II_.281000.E2.80.93586_BCE.29:_Yahweh_as_God_of_Israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.79.194.90 (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The creation of judaism in 13th Century is not archaeological

The name "Israel" first appears in the stele of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah c. 1209 BCE. The Mesha stele (c. 830), left by a king of Moab, celebrates his success in throwing off the oppression of the "House of Omri" (i.e., Israel). It bears what is generally thought to be the earliest extra-biblical Semitic reference to the name Yahweh (YHWH), whose temple goods were plundered by Mesha and brought before his own god Kemosh. There is a general consensus among scholars that the first formative event in the emergence of the distinctive religion described in the Bible was triggered by the destruction of Israel by Assyria in c. 722 BCE. Refugees from the northern kingdom fled to Judah, bringing with them laws and a prophetic tradition of Yahweh. The founding myth of the Israelite nation is the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt under the guidance of Moses, followed by the conquest of the Promised Land (Canaan). However, there is little or no archaeological or historical evidence to support these accounts, and although they may in part originate as early as the 10th century BCE, according to the Wellhausen hypothesis they reached something like their present form only in the 5th to 4th centuries BCE. During the 8th century BCE, worship of Yahweh in Israel stood in competition with many other cults, described by the Yahwist faction collectively as Baals. At its core, the Tanakh is an account of the Israelites' relationship with God from their earliest history until the building of the Second Temple (c. 535 BCE).

All the archaeological evidence, without falling into cognitive biases and fallacies. It indicates that the Bible, the monotheistic worship of Yahweh and Judaism dates from the 8th century B.C. Before the 8th century B.C. is of religion Canaanite, Egyptian, Mesopotamian or other entities Semitics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Judaism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahwist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezekiah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.79.200.96 (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Judaism is from judah

The kingdom of judah is from the 8th century a.c. in this era the bible was created, the monotheism, the culto to Yahweh, the yahwism and hezekiah that promoted the cult of Yahweh and the judaism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Judah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.79.224.133 (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not meet our reliable sourcing standards. We do not use original research, either. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the most archaeological evidence, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed, 2001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.9.132.210 (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please use the logic and reason

Israel has existed since 1200 BC, this does not mean that Judaism too. That is a fallacy of division and affirming the consequent, is ilogical. The judaism follow to Yahweh, so every the cult of Yahweh is Jewish. But the Canaanites had to Yahweh as a god and were not Jews. In the 13 century BC, Israel was monotheist until the 8 century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.79.213.243 (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Do not link to copyright violations. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok excuse me, i'm sorry. Is my error, but in this section. I don't make copyright violations, I use the logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.79.213.243 (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you're using edit warring, which makes us not care at all what your position is. Your "logic" is worthless if you can't edit cooperatively. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Cult to Yahweh in the 13th century B.C.?

Canaan existed from 2500 to 1000 B.C., and Israel, the Hebrew language and the Yahwism emerged after the collapse of canaan, It is impossible for there existed before 1000 B.C., although Yahweh comes from El does not mean that already existed worship Yahweh. Already it existed worship Allah (Islam), jehova (Christianity) or Baha (Baha'i Faith)? Even the supreme god of the pagan Arab religion was called allah, an association of names is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.104.114.102 (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with 186.104.114.102 contribution . Link between "Cult to Yahweh" and judaism is not relevant. No common aspect in any subject ! If you really want to give an ancester to Judaism , Zoroastrism, the first monotheism discovered by jewish people during babylon exil is the closest ancester. Michel1961 (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Michel1961: The IP is confused and wrong. Canaan didn't collapse as it wasn't a political entity, it was the name of a region. "Hebrew developed during the latter half of the second millennium BCE between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, an area known as Canaan." according to our article Hebrew. But you are also confused, although right about the removal. This is a list of founders. The section 'Yahwists' didn't mention a founder and no one suggests Yahweh founded anything. It is certainly not an article about how Judaism developed out of other religions. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The opening sentence of the article reads "This article lists historical figures credited with founding religions…" (my emphasis). The subsection "Ancient (before AD 500)" has a note reading "only add HISTORICAL INDIVIDUALS" (not my emphasis). "Yahwists" is not a historical figure or a historical individual, it is the equivalent of listing "Ancient Celts" as the founder of Wicca or "Indo-Aryans" as the founder of Hinduism – pointless and redundant. User:BedrockPerson, your claim that your edits are "staff approved" is laughable, and the above discussion clearly shows no other editors are in favour of your addition. 124.148.103.22 (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

User:BedrockPerson Judging by your edit summaries, I think you're a little bit confused about some of the terminology on Wikipedia. The people on article talkpages aren't "staff", they are just called editors. "Staff" generally refers to the staff of the Wikimedia Foundation. That is why I was a bit snippy in an edit summary, because it sounded like you were claiming your reversion was approved by high-level management (which is hardly ever required). But please actually respond to the criticisms people are making about this edit. I notice the last three sections in the article archive (from July 2016) are also about whether Judaism has a "founder" that can be included in this article. 124.148.103.22 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

IP protection maybe needed?

This is getting to the point where it's insultingly annoying. Anyone for support? BedrockPerson (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Page Protection

The edit warring/content dispute is getting out of hand. I have fully protected this page for 48 hours. Settle this here on the talk page. If there is an issue with one or more editors inability to abide by consensus take it to ANI. Remember there are multiple avenues open for resolving content disputes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Including figures whose historicity is disputed is surely a violation of NPOV

This article clearly states that it includes historical figures, while "For legendary figures for which historicity cannot be established, see Culture hero." I've just seen the edit war over Abraham, whose historicity is certainly dubious, see Abraham#Historicity. But in this article Wikipedia states in its own voice that Abraham is a genuine historical figure. I've not checked the other listings but if there are any other dubious ones they should be removed. Doug Weller talk 09:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Added note to users prohibiting POV-violating edits

That way if someone edits the page with the intention of adding a figure like Abraham, they can't say they didn't know it was considered a violation of policy, at the very least. BedrockPerson (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Open discussion to help end NPOV violations (Draft)

Given the recent occurrence of yet another wave of biased edits, I've drawn up a rudimentary draft explaining the execution of Wikipedia policy on the page. I openly encourage others to help contribute to this page, especially those with better knowledge and...writing skills. Especially @Doug Weller:, since he has had more experience dealing with this type of thing than I have, by far. 16:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced content

I have removed unsourced content at the top of the article. This needs sources, preferably strong scholarly sources.

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations: "All content must be verifiable. The burden of demonstrating verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

It doesn't matter how well-established a concept is - if it's in the article, it needs a source. We don't ask readers to "just trust us." If a given statement is well-established, then it should be easy to find the requisite citations.

(By the way, at least some of the unsourced text may have may be presented in a too-definitive way. For example, the Axial Age (which was referenced in the unsourced text) is apparently a concept not universally embraced among scholars, as noted in our article on it. Frankly, my inclination would be to have a short and simple lead section. But if we're to have a long one, the least we must do it have it be well-sourced.)

--Neutrality^talk 00:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Short and simple and certainly not mentioning the axial age idea. Doug Weller talk 05:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Only individual founders?

I looked at some history from last year and some took up whether founders as groups should be included? I thought about this when i clicked the Sant Mat-link and it was a bit confusing since it wasn't a specific person. Just wanted to see if someone else think this should be discussed. ? --LialSE (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The lead does say "or people". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of founders of religious traditions

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of founders of religious traditions's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "birth":

• From Swaminarayan Sampraday: Williams, Raymond (2001). Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. p. 13. ISBN 0 521 65279 0.
• From Confucius: Hugan, Yong (2013). Confucius: A Guide for the Perplexed. A&C Black. p. 3. Archived from the original on 2017-04-16. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Dates of Vedas and Puranas, and the Authors

VEDAS : The Vedas are among the oldest sacred texts. The Samhitas date to roughly 1500–1000 BCE, and the "circum-Vedic" texts, as well as the redaction of the Samhitas, date to c. 1000-500 BCE, resulting in a Vedic period, spanning the mid 2nd to mid 1st millennium BCE, or the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age.

Michael Witzel gives a time span of c. 1500 BCE to c. 500-400 BCE. Witzel makes special reference to the Near Eastern Mitanni material of the 14th c. BCE the only epigraphic record of Indo-Aryan contemporary to the Rigvedic period. He gives 150 BCE (Patañjali) as a terminus ante quem for all Vedic Sanskrit literature, and 1200 BCE (the early Iron Age) as terminus post quem for the Atharvaveda.

Transmission of texts in the Vedic period was by oral tradition alone, preserved with precision with the help of elaborate mnemonic techniques. A literary tradition set in only in post-Vedic times, after the rise of Buddhism in the Maurya period, perhaps earliest in the Kanva recension of the Yajurveda about the 1st century BCE; however oral tradition predominated until c. 1000 CE.

Rig Veda manuscripts have been selected for inscription in UNESCO's "Memory of the World" Register 2007.

PURANAS : Vyasa, the narrator of the Mahabharata, is traditionally considered the compiler of the Puranas. However, the earliest written versions date from the time of the Gupta Empire (third-fifth century CE) and much material may be dated, through historical references and other means, to this period and the succeeding centuries.

The date of the production of the written texts does not define the date of origin of the Puranas. On one hand, they existed in some oral form before being written while at the same time, they have been incrementally modified well into the 16th century.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellasitis (talk • contribs) 04:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Nebuchadnezzar II didn't establish Marduk, Hammurabi did

That needs to be changed in the list, Nebuchadnezzar II merely continued the same traditions from before, which were established by Hammurabi, creator of the law code an Amorite who founded the Babylonian empire. The most Nebuchadnezzar II did was re-establish, but I don't think that's what this list is all about. Someone should change it or I will at a later time. Themetacognologist (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Judaism

There is no evidence that zoroastenism Influenced second Temple Judaism..its just theory because Both having jews and Persian relation in exile, Give145 (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Shaykism

Shaykism is listed as Islamic by its article. I am not sure if would qualify as a "major denomination" for this list. Elizium23 (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)