East Asian religions was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The citation for how many adherents there are to a to a particular religion are grossly innaccurate and are from a Christian organization. They claim that there are only 4 million Shintoists because of self identification. As anyone who knows, many Asian religions do not require nor ask for self identification within the religious context. However the monotheistic religions typically do. I suggest that the statistic be removed, and have done so. In Japan alone, shinto is the dominant religion (85% or more) it would be more likely that there are 125 million Shintoists, and they are all also Buddhists (Mahayana) at the same time. Buddhism also has no requirement for self identification. In Asia, Japan, Vietnam, Thiland (A Buddhist Kingdom), Burma, India, Thibet, Russia, China, Cambodia, and Indonesia there are at least 1 billion non-self identifying believers who practice every day. This is clearly a Christian biased statistic. Please read the citation web site and review the methodology. It even claims as the source to be innaccurate. Takashi Ueki 17 May 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takashi Ueki ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
An update - check this citation out - it is also from Adherents.com, and contradicts their own statistic. " http://adherents.com/Na/Na_600.html#3614" They claim 4 million adherents to Shinto when the statistics from their own citation show between 77 million and 119 million, the latter and more recent being from the Library of Congress Statistics, who I am inclined to accept far more than a clearly Christian biased web site. (they accept advertising from Christian organizations). Takashi Ueki ( talk) 17:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I will be rewriting the Shinto Web page, and including the more accurate of these statistics.
I implore the Wiki community to reject the marginalizing of non-monotheistic religions through the writing of Wiki topics by baised monotheists. Takashi Ueki ( talk) 17:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious, just what exactly moves one to classify Shinto as a 'Taoic' religion? The 道 is there, yes, and there's a degree of overlap between Daoism and Shinto in terms of beliefs and ideology (if we even consider Shinto as having ideology), but I can't say I've ever come across any scholarly materials linking the two. I've certainly never met a Japanese person who would consider themselves a Daoist.
You may be a bit confused, they are using the term "dao" as a "way" or method of living, a following of a path, rather than the Dao as in the "Dao Te Ching". Daoism and Shintoism are only related in that the cultural influences of 5-12 century China had a very stong cultural influence on all societies around it. Japan was very influenced by the Daoist, Confucianist, and Buddhist influx of the 6th century onward through trade, religious exchange, writing systems, and popular culture. Japan borrowed the influences, but within a relative short period adaped them to Japanese methodologies that we see a great deal of today. I think that the discussion of Asian Religions being a group influenced by the "following of a path" may be accurate, but that does come from Buddhist traditions of central india circa 5th century BCE, as the Buddha walked and described following the "middle way" of belief or non-extreme ends of belief. The "way" - "dao" or "tao" (Chinese), "do" or "to" Japanese is a representation of defining a Religious system as a codified and teachable "method" of getting there from here. In some contexts that may be to nirvana, closer to the gods, more purity and better living, or esoteric knowledge. Takashi Ueki ( talk) 17:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I have placed editor notes into the main body of the article.
This is what I am looking at as a structure, for reference. Comments? Thoughts?
Vassyana 12:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added some more material to the article. Any feedback is appreciated. If anyone else has some ideas, by all means be bold. Vassyana 13:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The
resulting diff from what I've done.
Vassyana 14:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's quite good already. I do have one suggestion though. In China in around the 11th century, there was a merger between Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism (withe the advent of neo-confucianism). This created combination religion that is the ancestor of today's traditional Chinese religion. Because of this, the distinction between these faiths is blurred in China. Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere. Zeus1234 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Taoists venerate multiple Immortals and Masters quite the same way Catholics venerate multiple Saints as well as Jews and Muslims venerate multiple angels and prophets. The terms used are different in different languages and cultures but many of the practices are quite similar. Some people who don't know the essence of Taoism will call Taoism polytheistic while call the others monotheistic (It is clearly stated in Tao Teh Ching:"Tao gives birth to One. One gives birth to Two. Two gives birth to Three. Three gives birth to all the myriad things") . Usually Taoists won't mind this since they know it's just a name (" The name that can be named is not the eternal name"). But with the term "polytheism"'s connotations in some cultures, it will likely cause unnecessary misunderstandings for some uninformed and/or narrow-minded people, instead of lead people to seek the essence of a long-lasting tradition.
I think it is more correct to call Taoism " pantheistic" or " panentheistic" or even " nontheistic" depending on what you mean by "theos".
I reverted the changes made by User:71.224.215.111. The change from faiths/religion to traditions is POV and unsupported by the sources which clearly state that Taoic religion is religion. The pantheism/panentheism claims are unsupported by the sources which clearly state that traditional Chinese Taoism and chinese folk religion are polytheistic. The comment about Confucian doctrines predating Confucius is out of place and unsourced. Vassyana 17:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Also removed reference to Christianity. While the influence of terminology is interesting, it is not directly related to Taoic religion. Vassyana 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
according to the legend of the map, this map does not show taoic religions at all, it has two axis, on one is a spectrum from something purpleish representing abrahamic religions to something yellow representing dharmic religons, in between being all possible relative percentages of one to the others, and on the other is the percentage of religious ppl of such mix in the population. So, there is no distinct light yellow collor shown there - the area indicated to as taoic religions is simply collored as low-concentration dharmic religion area. For the text below the picture to match the actuall picture, someone will first have to create the described map. Till then, I will delete the false claim that the map shows the prevailance of, among others, taoic religions on the world. -- 83.131.143.101 16:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Further the sources stated as its source dont include anything countable as a taoic religion, so again its impossible the map would represent it: Distribution of "Abrahamic" vs. "Dharmic" religions, generated from the data at en:Islam by country, en:Christianity by country, en:Jews by country, en:Hinduism by country, en:Buddhism by country. - Ill take this as a positive proof for the removal of the claim, and revert.-- 83.131.139.104 11:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The article reads well and it is quite informative without overwhelming the reader with too much detail.
Good coverage, and good summaries of existing articles as per Wikipedia:Content forking
No POV issues.
Article is stable with no obvious or unresolved disputed
Good use of images, could add some images related to Confucius
Once these minor aspects are addressed, I would support GA status. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The authorship of the Tao Te Ching is assigned to Laozi, who is traditionally thought to be a teacher of Confucius. [1] However, he appears to be reacting against Confucian doctrine, which potentially suggests the text arose after Confucianism. Zhuangzi reacted to the Confucian- Mohist ethical disputes. Zhuangzi's "history of thought" casts Laozi as a prior step to the Mohists by name and the Confucians by implication.
Update. Converted most references to specific page references. I will finish the rest later today, along with adding the couple citations requested. I have also added two images to accomodate the request for Confucius images. Also added a well-sourced statement about probable mythical nature of Laozi and Zhaungzi per concern noted below. Thank you for your patience. Vassyana 16:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The only missing citation is for this assertion: "However, he appears to be reacting against Confucian doctrine, which potentially suggests the text arose after Confucianism." You can remove it, and when you find a source for it, re-add it. That we I can proceed and do a second GA review. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I reworded the statement in far more neutral language and provided a source. All the references now are directly referenced to page numbers. Anything else I might have missed that needs to be tightened up while the GA review is on hold? Vassyana 13:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The entire framework of dividing world religions into Abrahamic, dharmic and taoic seems flawed to me. This for two principal reasons:
1) Any division has to follow one criterion only (we cannot, for example, divide human beings into black people, philosophers and women, for we would be following three criteria: race, profession and gender). Abrahamitic refers to a founding patriarch; dharmic and taoic to fundamental principles. There are fundamental principles in the Abrahmitic faiths too (torah, vocation, salvation history, love, etc.) which could be cited. In the dharmic religion of hinduism, on the other hand, there are the very patriarchal figures of the rishis. In contrast, R.C. Zaehner's division of western 'prophetic' and eastern 'mystical' religions is a far more consistent one, the division being among the central personages in each tradition, the first transmitting a saving message whereas the latter pursues a transforming experience.
2) A second difficulty is even more serious. To contrast Indian and Chinese religious traditions by appealing to the supposed contrast between dharma and tao is like contrasting the two main political parties in the U.S. because one champions a republic and the other a democracy. Dharma, in deep and significant ways, can be rendered in Chinese precisely as tao, and vice versa. Why chose that which is perhaps most common between the traditions in order to contrast them?
On hold. The link to
dharmic religion in the lead is flawed because the term is unusual. I prefer instead the far more common words Hinduism and Buddhism.
Andries 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the paragraph quoted above has a few problems. You need to mention that it is uncertain whether Laozi or Zhuangzi even existed as historical people. At the moment, the entire paragraph is founded on the suppostion that the two are historical figures, which is not nescessarily the case. I would change it myself, but I wanted to run this by you first, so you can make modifications if you would prefer. Zeus1234 21:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the reference should mention page numbers. The reference section may have to be split in two sections i.e. notes and references. Andries 22:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The lead should not link to dharmic religion, because that is an unusal term, both in everyday usage as in religious studies. Andries 19:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not replace the term with the more common words Hinduism and Buddhism? Andries 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's some books showing use of its synonym "Dharmic traditions". Vassyana 21:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not know much about the subject, but classifying Confucianism as a form as Taoist religion does not seem to be undisputed, but this nowhere reflected in the article that states as a fact "The three major Taoic faiths are Taoism, Confucianism and Shinto"
Andries 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Now you are just being ridiculous. The article does not assert that Confucianism is a form of Taoism. Please stop this inane nitpicking. Also, again if you find the term "Dharmic religion" problematic, you may take it up on that article's talk page. Vassyana 23:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the term "Taoic Religion" the correct term? I have studied the religions of China for over ten years, and I never heard that term. Is there a citation to verify the term? Also I think that "Tao" should be changed to the pinyin "Dao." Chinese-English are using pinyin. It will make it easier to look up Chinese words. Thanks John196920022001 12:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
(talk) 14:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Asia may be able to help! |
Expanding or creating a similar map to Image:Abraham Dharma.png which shows Taoic religions would be informative. -- Beland 17:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Using the global designation "Taoic" seems to give primacy to Taoism among these religions. Are Shinto worshippers aware that they are part of a "Taoic" religion, or may they rather view Taoism as a "Shintic" religion?
Basically, I think this article's title involves some POV assumptions that ought to be clarified and sourced. Dybryd 00:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
no. the article cites lots of sources, but it does not make clear whence it takes the term "Taoic religions". The article was created in February by Dawud ( talk · contribs), without citing a source. The present article seems to suggest the term is due to Sharot (2001), "pp. 71-72, 75-76". Is it? Then we shoud state up front that this is a neologism due to Sharot. The term certainly does not appear to be in wide use
In any case, Wikipedia may not coin neologisms, no matter how sensible or useful they are. When writing articles about neologisms, you need to make clear whose neologism it is. dab (𒁳) 10:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It turns out Sharot (2001) is amazon-searchable. There is not a single incidence of the term "Taoic" in the book. On pp. 71ff., Sharot is discussing " Chinese religions". Something is fishy here. The very topic of this article appears to be simply made up by Wikipedians. I'm afraid I'll have to tag this as OR until sources are cited. -- dab (𒁳) 10:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
ok, this seems to be just a problem of terminology. We should dump the "Taoic" as an unsourced neologism. The terminology section claims that "Tao religion", "Taoic tradition" and "Tao-based religion", "Tao-based faiths" are synonymous terms. None of these are sourced, or in apparent use. It also claims "Far Eastern religion", "East Asian religion" and "Chinese religion" are synonyms. These terms do see some use, and I suppose we should just {{ move}} this article to Far Eastern religions. -- dab (𒁳) 10:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on East Asian religions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
East Asian religions was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The citation for how many adherents there are to a to a particular religion are grossly innaccurate and are from a Christian organization. They claim that there are only 4 million Shintoists because of self identification. As anyone who knows, many Asian religions do not require nor ask for self identification within the religious context. However the monotheistic religions typically do. I suggest that the statistic be removed, and have done so. In Japan alone, shinto is the dominant religion (85% or more) it would be more likely that there are 125 million Shintoists, and they are all also Buddhists (Mahayana) at the same time. Buddhism also has no requirement for self identification. In Asia, Japan, Vietnam, Thiland (A Buddhist Kingdom), Burma, India, Thibet, Russia, China, Cambodia, and Indonesia there are at least 1 billion non-self identifying believers who practice every day. This is clearly a Christian biased statistic. Please read the citation web site and review the methodology. It even claims as the source to be innaccurate. Takashi Ueki 17 May 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takashi Ueki ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
An update - check this citation out - it is also from Adherents.com, and contradicts their own statistic. " http://adherents.com/Na/Na_600.html#3614" They claim 4 million adherents to Shinto when the statistics from their own citation show between 77 million and 119 million, the latter and more recent being from the Library of Congress Statistics, who I am inclined to accept far more than a clearly Christian biased web site. (they accept advertising from Christian organizations). Takashi Ueki ( talk) 17:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I will be rewriting the Shinto Web page, and including the more accurate of these statistics.
I implore the Wiki community to reject the marginalizing of non-monotheistic religions through the writing of Wiki topics by baised monotheists. Takashi Ueki ( talk) 17:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious, just what exactly moves one to classify Shinto as a 'Taoic' religion? The 道 is there, yes, and there's a degree of overlap between Daoism and Shinto in terms of beliefs and ideology (if we even consider Shinto as having ideology), but I can't say I've ever come across any scholarly materials linking the two. I've certainly never met a Japanese person who would consider themselves a Daoist.
You may be a bit confused, they are using the term "dao" as a "way" or method of living, a following of a path, rather than the Dao as in the "Dao Te Ching". Daoism and Shintoism are only related in that the cultural influences of 5-12 century China had a very stong cultural influence on all societies around it. Japan was very influenced by the Daoist, Confucianist, and Buddhist influx of the 6th century onward through trade, religious exchange, writing systems, and popular culture. Japan borrowed the influences, but within a relative short period adaped them to Japanese methodologies that we see a great deal of today. I think that the discussion of Asian Religions being a group influenced by the "following of a path" may be accurate, but that does come from Buddhist traditions of central india circa 5th century BCE, as the Buddha walked and described following the "middle way" of belief or non-extreme ends of belief. The "way" - "dao" or "tao" (Chinese), "do" or "to" Japanese is a representation of defining a Religious system as a codified and teachable "method" of getting there from here. In some contexts that may be to nirvana, closer to the gods, more purity and better living, or esoteric knowledge. Takashi Ueki ( talk) 17:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I have placed editor notes into the main body of the article.
This is what I am looking at as a structure, for reference. Comments? Thoughts?
Vassyana 12:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added some more material to the article. Any feedback is appreciated. If anyone else has some ideas, by all means be bold. Vassyana 13:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The
resulting diff from what I've done.
Vassyana 14:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's quite good already. I do have one suggestion though. In China in around the 11th century, there was a merger between Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism (withe the advent of neo-confucianism). This created combination religion that is the ancestor of today's traditional Chinese religion. Because of this, the distinction between these faiths is blurred in China. Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere. Zeus1234 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Taoists venerate multiple Immortals and Masters quite the same way Catholics venerate multiple Saints as well as Jews and Muslims venerate multiple angels and prophets. The terms used are different in different languages and cultures but many of the practices are quite similar. Some people who don't know the essence of Taoism will call Taoism polytheistic while call the others monotheistic (It is clearly stated in Tao Teh Ching:"Tao gives birth to One. One gives birth to Two. Two gives birth to Three. Three gives birth to all the myriad things") . Usually Taoists won't mind this since they know it's just a name (" The name that can be named is not the eternal name"). But with the term "polytheism"'s connotations in some cultures, it will likely cause unnecessary misunderstandings for some uninformed and/or narrow-minded people, instead of lead people to seek the essence of a long-lasting tradition.
I think it is more correct to call Taoism " pantheistic" or " panentheistic" or even " nontheistic" depending on what you mean by "theos".
I reverted the changes made by User:71.224.215.111. The change from faiths/religion to traditions is POV and unsupported by the sources which clearly state that Taoic religion is religion. The pantheism/panentheism claims are unsupported by the sources which clearly state that traditional Chinese Taoism and chinese folk religion are polytheistic. The comment about Confucian doctrines predating Confucius is out of place and unsourced. Vassyana 17:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Also removed reference to Christianity. While the influence of terminology is interesting, it is not directly related to Taoic religion. Vassyana 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
according to the legend of the map, this map does not show taoic religions at all, it has two axis, on one is a spectrum from something purpleish representing abrahamic religions to something yellow representing dharmic religons, in between being all possible relative percentages of one to the others, and on the other is the percentage of religious ppl of such mix in the population. So, there is no distinct light yellow collor shown there - the area indicated to as taoic religions is simply collored as low-concentration dharmic religion area. For the text below the picture to match the actuall picture, someone will first have to create the described map. Till then, I will delete the false claim that the map shows the prevailance of, among others, taoic religions on the world. -- 83.131.143.101 16:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Further the sources stated as its source dont include anything countable as a taoic religion, so again its impossible the map would represent it: Distribution of "Abrahamic" vs. "Dharmic" religions, generated from the data at en:Islam by country, en:Christianity by country, en:Jews by country, en:Hinduism by country, en:Buddhism by country. - Ill take this as a positive proof for the removal of the claim, and revert.-- 83.131.139.104 11:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The article reads well and it is quite informative without overwhelming the reader with too much detail.
Good coverage, and good summaries of existing articles as per Wikipedia:Content forking
No POV issues.
Article is stable with no obvious or unresolved disputed
Good use of images, could add some images related to Confucius
Once these minor aspects are addressed, I would support GA status. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The authorship of the Tao Te Ching is assigned to Laozi, who is traditionally thought to be a teacher of Confucius. [1] However, he appears to be reacting against Confucian doctrine, which potentially suggests the text arose after Confucianism. Zhuangzi reacted to the Confucian- Mohist ethical disputes. Zhuangzi's "history of thought" casts Laozi as a prior step to the Mohists by name and the Confucians by implication.
Update. Converted most references to specific page references. I will finish the rest later today, along with adding the couple citations requested. I have also added two images to accomodate the request for Confucius images. Also added a well-sourced statement about probable mythical nature of Laozi and Zhaungzi per concern noted below. Thank you for your patience. Vassyana 16:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The only missing citation is for this assertion: "However, he appears to be reacting against Confucian doctrine, which potentially suggests the text arose after Confucianism." You can remove it, and when you find a source for it, re-add it. That we I can proceed and do a second GA review. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I reworded the statement in far more neutral language and provided a source. All the references now are directly referenced to page numbers. Anything else I might have missed that needs to be tightened up while the GA review is on hold? Vassyana 13:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The entire framework of dividing world religions into Abrahamic, dharmic and taoic seems flawed to me. This for two principal reasons:
1) Any division has to follow one criterion only (we cannot, for example, divide human beings into black people, philosophers and women, for we would be following three criteria: race, profession and gender). Abrahamitic refers to a founding patriarch; dharmic and taoic to fundamental principles. There are fundamental principles in the Abrahmitic faiths too (torah, vocation, salvation history, love, etc.) which could be cited. In the dharmic religion of hinduism, on the other hand, there are the very patriarchal figures of the rishis. In contrast, R.C. Zaehner's division of western 'prophetic' and eastern 'mystical' religions is a far more consistent one, the division being among the central personages in each tradition, the first transmitting a saving message whereas the latter pursues a transforming experience.
2) A second difficulty is even more serious. To contrast Indian and Chinese religious traditions by appealing to the supposed contrast between dharma and tao is like contrasting the two main political parties in the U.S. because one champions a republic and the other a democracy. Dharma, in deep and significant ways, can be rendered in Chinese precisely as tao, and vice versa. Why chose that which is perhaps most common between the traditions in order to contrast them?
On hold. The link to
dharmic religion in the lead is flawed because the term is unusual. I prefer instead the far more common words Hinduism and Buddhism.
Andries 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the paragraph quoted above has a few problems. You need to mention that it is uncertain whether Laozi or Zhuangzi even existed as historical people. At the moment, the entire paragraph is founded on the suppostion that the two are historical figures, which is not nescessarily the case. I would change it myself, but I wanted to run this by you first, so you can make modifications if you would prefer. Zeus1234 21:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the reference should mention page numbers. The reference section may have to be split in two sections i.e. notes and references. Andries 22:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The lead should not link to dharmic religion, because that is an unusal term, both in everyday usage as in religious studies. Andries 19:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not replace the term with the more common words Hinduism and Buddhism? Andries 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's some books showing use of its synonym "Dharmic traditions". Vassyana 21:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not know much about the subject, but classifying Confucianism as a form as Taoist religion does not seem to be undisputed, but this nowhere reflected in the article that states as a fact "The three major Taoic faiths are Taoism, Confucianism and Shinto"
Andries 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Now you are just being ridiculous. The article does not assert that Confucianism is a form of Taoism. Please stop this inane nitpicking. Also, again if you find the term "Dharmic religion" problematic, you may take it up on that article's talk page. Vassyana 23:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the term "Taoic Religion" the correct term? I have studied the religions of China for over ten years, and I never heard that term. Is there a citation to verify the term? Also I think that "Tao" should be changed to the pinyin "Dao." Chinese-English are using pinyin. It will make it easier to look up Chinese words. Thanks John196920022001 12:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
(talk) 14:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Asia may be able to help! |
Expanding or creating a similar map to Image:Abraham Dharma.png which shows Taoic religions would be informative. -- Beland 17:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Using the global designation "Taoic" seems to give primacy to Taoism among these religions. Are Shinto worshippers aware that they are part of a "Taoic" religion, or may they rather view Taoism as a "Shintic" religion?
Basically, I think this article's title involves some POV assumptions that ought to be clarified and sourced. Dybryd 00:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
no. the article cites lots of sources, but it does not make clear whence it takes the term "Taoic religions". The article was created in February by Dawud ( talk · contribs), without citing a source. The present article seems to suggest the term is due to Sharot (2001), "pp. 71-72, 75-76". Is it? Then we shoud state up front that this is a neologism due to Sharot. The term certainly does not appear to be in wide use
In any case, Wikipedia may not coin neologisms, no matter how sensible or useful they are. When writing articles about neologisms, you need to make clear whose neologism it is. dab (𒁳) 10:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It turns out Sharot (2001) is amazon-searchable. There is not a single incidence of the term "Taoic" in the book. On pp. 71ff., Sharot is discussing " Chinese religions". Something is fishy here. The very topic of this article appears to be simply made up by Wikipedians. I'm afraid I'll have to tag this as OR until sources are cited. -- dab (𒁳) 10:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
ok, this seems to be just a problem of terminology. We should dump the "Taoic" as an unsourced neologism. The terminology section claims that "Tao religion", "Taoic tradition" and "Tao-based religion", "Tao-based faiths" are synonymous terms. None of these are sourced, or in apparent use. It also claims "Far Eastern religion", "East Asian religion" and "Chinese religion" are synonyms. These terms do see some use, and I suppose we should just {{ move}} this article to Far Eastern religions. -- dab (𒁳) 10:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on East Asian religions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)