body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Religion vs Mythology[edit]

There should be an explanation of how parts of Shinto became labelled as a "mythology". It's like if some parts of Christianity became a mythology. When and how did this happen? Did America force upon Japan to describe it is a mythology after world war 2? Because many of these things were not considered a mythology in earlier times. I posted the same question on 1 January 2021 (see Archive 1) and got no replies. -Artanisen (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this completely, unfortunately I am in the same situation and do not know why how parts of Shinto became labelled as a "mythology". Treetoes023 (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Shrines[edit]

@Kpratter: I appreciate your recent addition of information on "Overseas shrines" to this article, but I am concerned about the article becoming excessively long, especially with the addition of information that is not critical for the general reader interested in learning the basics of Shinto. The article is already reaching the recommended article length as it is. Perhaps the information that you are adding would be more appropriate at a separate article called Shinto in the United States? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there is not yet enough content to warrant a separate article titled Shinto in the United States. However, in the future, if there is sufficient material, it can be considered for a split. Kpratter (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but a whole paragraph on Shinto in Hawaii is WP:Undue for an article on Shinto itself. The new paragraph should really be heavily condensed or removed if it is not going to be shifted to an article on Shinto in the United States. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added more information about shrines in Brazil. This expands the focus beyond the USA. Why do you believe that information about overseas Shinto practices is considered 'undue' for an article on Shinto itself? This is an integral part of the Shinto community. Kpratter (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that information on overseas Shinto is undue in itself; indeed, I personally added mention of Shinto in Brazil and the United States to the article to begin with, several years ago. The topic is certainly worth mentioning. However, the recently added information goes into too much detail on these particular issues. An article covering the totality of Shinto does not need a whole paragraph on Shinto in pre-WWII Hawaii, for example. I nevertheless appreciate the work that you've put in, and your use of good quality sources, so I suggest that we create an article on Overseas Shinto and move the newly added information there? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would greatly appreciate it if you could do this, as I haven't yet acquired the skills to create new Wikipedia articles from scratch. Kpratter (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. I'll also make sure that this article links over to Overseas Shinto. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Kami becoming Buddhist and anthropomorphic[edit]

'The kami came to be viewed as part of Buddhist cosmology and were increasingly depicted anthropomorphically.'

These are two very different processes that are hardly connected in any way, and the chronological order appears to be the opposite of the one that the wording here suggests. If the Kami were ever seen as anything other than anthropomorphic at all - a big 'if' - they surely must have become anthropomorphic before they had become widely viewed as part of Buddhist cosmology. Kojiki, the earliest written source about the Kami, already describes them as perfectly anthropomorphic, but there is nothing Buddhist in its depiction of them or in its entire narrative or cosmology yet, even though Buddhism itself was already known in the country by that time.

In general, I sense a strong agenda trying to push the message that, roughly, 'there has never been a non-Buddhist Japanese religious tradition, Japan has always been Buddhist'. Which is, of course, not true. I see no reason to refuse to call the pre-Buddhist Japanese religious tradition Shinto, but whatever one calls it, it clearly existed. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories