This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hornplease (talk | contribs) at 00:04, 3 September 2007 (→[]: how?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:04, 3 September 2007 by Hornplease (talk | contribs) (→[]: how?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Dharmic religion
- Dharmic religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
obscure neologism, though the subject of Buddhism and Hinduism is well researched, hardly results for google books. The main source for this article seems to be WP:Fringe books by David Frawley, so any redeemable contents could be merged there. See
- Talk:Dharmic_religion#Please_do_not_remove_request_for_citations and
- Wikipedia_talk:Hinduism-related_topics_notice_board#Dharmic_Religions
Andries 17:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: closely related category for deletion is here Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_2#Category:Dharmic_religions. Andries 19:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and discuss possible move to Dharma in religions or other suitable name. The subject is encyclopedic. Also, I would avoid making claims of WP:FRINGE in reference to Frawley. Google books is not a library (at least not yet) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I think there is good reason to classify the books by david Frawley as fringe. A mere glance at the book titles gives already some indication. Andries 17:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you do not believe Frawley is fringe, take it up at the fringe noticeboard. I certainly intend to remove him as a reference from any article not in his specific area of expertise, which is the teaching if yoga, unless I am wrong. Hornplease 00:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I think there is good reason to classify the books by david Frawley as fringe. A mere glance at the book titles gives already some indication. Andries 17:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Dharmic religions being part of a classification of religions (as this article assert
s-ed) is not attested by reliable sources. Or redirect to Dharma, which more or less covers what this article currently does and which is pretty much what the famous Frawley reference(page 27) merits. Doldrums 17:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC) - Delete or redirect per Doldrums. --Strothra 19:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or redirect. The phrase seems to me to have sufficient currency to justify the article. Johnbod 19:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- On what basis, precisely? Hornplease 00:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Having come across the term dharmic religion, I came upon this article last week and found its existence invaluable. I was looking for information on Dharmic religions and would not have looked for the Dharma article since I would assume that is about a concept rather than a group of religions. --Dajanes 21:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. "Dharmic religion" is a neologism. The religions discussed have multiple points of contact, the concept of dharma being only one of them, as they all emerged in a common intellectual and philosophical milieu. There have been comparativist studies of various aspects, but no academically well-known source has been cited. (Frawley and Klostermeier are dilettantes, Guenon and Cousins are tangential, etc.) This is an OR puff job, with any salvageable material belonging in other pages such as Dharma. rudra 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It is difficult to believe that the commonality among these religions has not been discussed by academics - if this isn't the name for it, then there must be another similar name this could be filed under. Providing a taxonomy of related religions is a basic building block of the study of world religions. MarkBul 22:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: If there is a name for it, (I doubt it) then it is not "dharmic religions". Andries 22:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep- Dharmic Religion is a used term and it disambiguates religions from Abrahamic religions. Sfacets 23:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per discussion on WT:HNB concerning this issue. Gizza 23:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per Sfacets, we use "Abrahamic religions" and don't consider it an "obscure neologism". Just seeing the term "Dharmic religions" used in a text made instant sense to me as a religious student. Also, bad "idea" to remove the term from the articles which use it, and then nominate it for deletion...bordering on bad faith. I notice other users have also pointed out your "personal crusade" and told you to stop trying to remove the term from every article that uses it. Sherurcij 23:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is not a bad idea to remove a neologism from an article that uses it. It may have 'made sense' to you as a student of religions, but we cannot guarantee it would make sense to everyone, and further, we need a reliable source to tell us that it makes sense before it can be used everywhere. Hornplease 00:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism, possibly politically motivated. Less than five hits on google scholar. According to User:Buddhipriya on the Hinduism noticeboard "...its absence from a sampling of well-known works suggests to me that it is not widely used. I did not find it in the indexes of:
- Kulki and Rothermund, A History of India
- Keay, India
- Thapar, Early India
- Basham, The Wonder That Was India
- Zimmer, Philosophies of India
- Chatterjee and Datta, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy
- Radhakrishnan and Moore, A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy
- Flood, The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism
- Conze, Buddhist Thought In India."
My own response on that occasion was: "6 links for "Dharmic tradition" on Scholar (1 on JSTOR), 18 on books, most of which talk about Gandhi, and only 4 of which use the phrase in the sense in which Encarta does." "No results on Lexis, less than 10 results for DR on Google News Archive from reliable sources. One throwaway Encarta reference is insufficient for an entire article title. Meanwhile, the article itself is merely a collection of stubs about Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism, with little or no real analysis, obviously, since there are no reliable sources on which to base this analysis. The Buddhism and Hinduism article is better, but here, again, there isn't any organic analysis. This is a neologism. I am now convinced." This was in mid-June. I have waited this long for any major further information; none has come to light. Let it be clear: there is absolutely no justification for perpetrating the hoax that there is reliable research linking these religions in this particular fashion. Obviously comparative studies have been done, but implying that Dharma means the same thing across these religions, that this is their main point of correspondence, etc. etc.... all original research. Hornplease 00:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Categories: