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.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 20, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 7, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
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:

Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. East Asia (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia Taoism (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taoism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaoismWikipedia:WikiProject TaoismTemplate:WikiProject TaoismTaoism Buddhism Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The resulting diff from what I've done. Vassyana 14:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree. I make some small mention of it in the article. I will create another subsection for it. Vassyana

I added a short stub section for Neo-Confucianism and switch order between sections to lead into it well and maintain the flow of the article. Vassyana 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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".

Traditional Taoism is strongly associated with Chinese traditional religion, which is distinctly polytheistic, but it could certainly be considered in some forms to be animistic. As the article mentions, panentheistic versions, and especially monotheistic versions do exist, especially in the West. This article is an overview of Taoic religion, particularly in its area of dominance. Finer distinctions and debates about categorization are best included in the main article of the religion in question. Vassyana 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

False. There are two clear strips of bright yellow, noticeable and clear in China. Reverting appropriately. Vassyana 11:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you simply reverted my edit about the map supposedly showing taoic religions. But your explanation simply does not hold. Where in that map's legend is bright yellow stated as a separate option? Please explain how you read that legend, as far as I can see, one coordinate shows absolute concentration of the religions covered, the other shows relative concentration of two options - one in its extreme yellow, the other in its extreme purple. Theres simply a lack of a coordinate to cover a third option such as taoic religions, hence theres no possilibity of it being represented on that particular map. Have you contacted the author of the map in question to confirm the claim? I will. --83.131.139.104 10:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I was contacted about this map; I did not create it, User:Dbachmann. But the legend as stated above is clear; it does not illustrate Taoic religions. I'll put up a map request below. -- Beland 17:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well written

The article reads well and it is quite informative without overwhelming the reader with too much detail.

factually accurate and verifiable

• The subsection on Taoism and Confucianism, first paragraph, third sentence, in which the Tao Te Ching is discussed needs attribution.
• The second sentence in the lead require some sources to support the assertions made.

broad in its coverage

Good coverage, and good summaries of existing articles as per Wikipedia:Content forking

follows the neutral point of view policy

No POV issues.

It is stable

Article is stable with no obvious or unresolved disputed

Images

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)[reply]

"The subsection on Taoism and Confucianism, second paragraph, second sentence, in which the Taoe Te Ching is discussed needs attribution." I am correct this refers to: "Historical Taoists challenged conventional morality, while Confucians considered society debased and in need of strong ethical guidance"? You mentioned the Tao Te Ching, so just making sure I'm clear. Vassyana 15:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being unclear on my request. This is the sentence that needs attribution:

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.

There is only once source used to address the possible relationship between Lao-Tze and Confucius. The rest lacks sources and/or attribution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Time for textbook digging, so I can avoid citing other encyclopedias. ;o) Vassyana 17:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitting the library this afternoon. I will revise the article accordingly tonight or tomorrow morning. Just wanted to update you. Vassyana 19:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Looking good, Vassyana. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It is looking good, Vassyana. I will do a second review later today. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is not the appropriate place to discuss the objection. If you take strong issue with the phrase Dharmic religion, please discuss it on that article's talk page. Vassyana 19:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why is this not the appropriate place? This entry links in the lead unnecessarily to an obscure termm that does not explain much. Andries 19:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source I used compares the Tao/Dharma/Abraham-based religions as comparable categories encompassing the "great faiths" of the world. The naming convention I use is the one found on Wikipedia. If you have an issue with the naming convention you should discuss it at Talk:Dharmic religion. Any further replies here will be ignored. Vassyana 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were misled by Wikipedia. I do not understand why this is not the right place to discuss this point. This entry can choose to link to "dharma" or to "Buddhism" and "Hinduism" instead. What term does the cited source use? Andries 21:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed (with google books) that the cited source ("A Comparative Sociology of World Religions: virtuosos, priests, and popular religion" by Stephen Sharot) does not have the term "dharmic religion" or "dharmic tradition" in the index, so I suspect the term "dharmic religion" in this entry is a free interpretation of the source. I may be mistaken though. Andries 22:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No problem. I'll include that in my edits later tonight. Vassyana 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I do not like Harvard style referencing in Wikipedia and will not use it here. It is a personal preference and it is not required by Wikipedia. Vassyana 23:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaken, but I think that most experienced contributors will agree that page numbers of books are important in many cases. (If the relevant page can be easily found in the index then I think it is not so important) I am not saying that all citations need page numbers for a good article, but at least a start should be made. Andries 00:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with Andries. In my opinion, page numbers should always be used when books are being cited. Otherwise how can we verify the information?Zeus1234

I am adding pages numbers to the references. I was simply saying that I have no desire to split footnotes into references and notes as per the Harvard style, due to personal preference. I apologize for not being clear. Vassyana 09:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Does not seem to be that unusual. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unusal when compared to e.g. "Hinduism". Andries 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, "dharmic religion" plus "dharmic religions" yields four results in google scholar, while "abrahamic religion" plus "abrahamic religions" yields 580 results there. Andries 20:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? No one is asserting that Taoic religions are Abrahamic. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that it is an usual term then I think that it would be easy to find multiple scholarly articles, encyclopedia entries, or books about the term. I cannot find them. Andries 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not replace the term with the more common words Hinduism and Buddhism? Andries 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it encompasses more than those two religions. Also, you must realize there are many more sources for the Abrahamic faiths available online than for the Dharmic faiths. This is true individually and as a group. Additionally, Western scholarship has unsurprisingly focused more on Western religion. Finally, the "Google test" is very often a poor method of research. It is a useful tool, but not the end-all be-all. This is particularly true of Google Scholar and Google Books, because much of the books listed are not available for viewing and searching, and they only represent a very small fraction of the literature available. Vassyana 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the other religions are very small in numbers, so we can as well write "Hinduism and Buddhism" instead of dharmic religions. Andries 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that not one of the sources used for the entry dharmic religions uses the term! Andries 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there is some truth in the statement that the emphasis in "Western scholarship" is on "Western religion", but you are exaggerating matters. Andries 19:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term is widely used as "dharmic tradition". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be convinced to a great extent if somebody showed multiple scholarly articles, encyclopedia entries, or books about the term "dharmic religion". Andries 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some books that use the term. Dharmic is the appropriate adjective form of Dharma. It's easy enough to find it widely used on the web, even excluding the terms "wiki" and "Wikipedia".

Here's some books showing use of its synonym "Dharmic traditions". Vassyana 21:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that the term is used on forums, but that is not what I asked for nor are they suitable sources for Wikipedia. Andries 21:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the following sources that do not mention the terms "dharmic religion" or "dharmic tradition".

1. "Dictionary of religions" by Hinnels published by Penguin 1997

2. "Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion" by Schumacher and Woerner Shambala Boston 1994

Andries 21:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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"

from http://adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

"Recent figures for the number of "Chinese religionists" include 220 and 225 million. Barrett (World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001) classified 384,806,732 "Chinese folk-religionists," 6,298,597 "Confucianists" and 2,654,514 "Taoists," or about 394 million total.

In comparative religion texts Confucianism, Taoism and Chinese Buddhism are sometimes addressed in three separate chapters, and sometimes treated in one chapter as "Chinese religion." Even today there are very valid reasons for distinguishing Taoism from Confucianism, and distinguishing both from Chinese Buddhism and non-scriptural Chinese folk religion."

Andries 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Then what does the sentence "The three major Taoic faiths are Taoism, Confucianism and Shinto" mean? (I admit that I do not know much about the subject). Andries 23:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was a bit confused by the difference between Taoism and Taoist faith. Andries 23:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Even people who study it in-depth find it a bit confusing. ;o) The prevelence of syncretism in East Asia can make distinguishing things, and even using "proper" terminology, quite difficult. To make it even more complicated, many people in East Asia not only practice syncretic faiths, but openly acknowledge being having multiple Taoic and Dharmic religions at the same time. Confused yet? :oD Vassyana 19:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A foundational work in the grouping of the Tao based religions is Religion in China: Universism a Key to the Study of Taoism and Confucianism, by J. J. M. de Groot. It was originally published in the early 20th century. Another important work is The Comparative Study of Religions of the East (excluding Christianity and Judaism) by Edwin Oliver James. Formal religious studies departments and comparative religion scholars have struggled on a "proper" name for this body of religions. So, it is difficult to find a name that will appease everyone. If you have a better suggestion, I'd welcome it. On the term itself, I will hit the library tomorrow and grab a few references for you. Vassyana 14:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are competing definitions or use of terms, we could simply list these and attribute them to the notable proponents of these terms or definitions. ≈ jossi ≈

(talk) 14:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section discussing the use of terms. I avoided going with a list because of the sheer number of variations and usages of those terms. I hope the section I added is sufficient to cover the topic. If it is lacking, please let me know and I will improve it. Vassyana 14:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the use of pinyin, see Tao Te Ching and Laozi, the former does not use pinyin, the latter does. So it is not an established standard that we use pinyin in WP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The good thing is that we can use redirects, such as Dao De Jing and Lao Tzu to accommodate both romanizations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Daoism-Taoism romanization issue ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using Pinyin or Wade-Giles is a matter of preference. As someone who has learned Chinese, I hate Wade-giles because it does not correspond very well actual sound. Pinyin is gradually taking over, and hopefully will kill off the remaining wade-giles transliterations that are still used.Zeus1234 21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I proposed using pinyin is because I am learning Chinese, and the dictionaries and glossaries I have all ues Pinyin. The reason why I am learning Chinese is so I can better understand the I Ching (Pinyin Yi Jing). The text the all English translations of the I Ching are based on is a text in the 1700s. I find the Chinese classics intriguing John196920022001 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, everything should be in Pinyin, but some people get very prickly about it (because apparently it is 'a tool' of the communist government).Zeus1234 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The good thing, Zeus, is that we can have both romanizations in Wikipedia, by the use of redirects. So those that prefer Pinyin, can find their way around, and those that know better Wade-Giles, can also navigate and search for articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I notice that when I google "Taoic" the first result is this article, and all the others are either mirrors or they refer back to it. Dybryd 00:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Taoic," as I understand it, comes not from "Taoism," but from "tao," the belief in which, or a similar concept under a different name, characterizes the religions called "Taoic," in a similar way to how the word "Dharmic" refers to religions that hold a belief in Dharma. The fact that "Taoism" and "Taoic" are similar words is not by design, but by coincidence. If you can find a better term that groups these religions in a similar fashion, especially one in a good source, then put it here so we may discuss its use as opposed to "Taoic." However, for now, "Taoic" suits things just fine, and does not present any POV problems as I see it. 63.224.140.114 22:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can resolve a POV issue simply by saying that you don't perceive one. If no authority outside wikipedia has applied the term to group these religions in this way, then we have no justification for making such a judgment. I am restoring the POV tag. Dybryd 05:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are revisiting a discussion regarding the terms dharmic and taoic. Additionally, the very first section of the article body (which is well-referenced), discusses the problem of this group lacking a universally used name in references. It is simply coincidental, not a POV issue, that one of the religions is named in English after the central principle shared by all of these faiths. Also, the Shinto project not only seem non-offended by the article, but proud of it. Regardless, if you have an alternative suggestion, it's welcome. Vassyana 07:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Assertion is not consensus.

The basic problem here is that Wikipedia appears to have created an original classification system with original terminology. That's just not on, whether it's offensive or innocuous. The term needs to be sourced outside Wikipedia, or it doesn't rate mention on Wikipedia. It's no more my place to "suggest an alternative" than it is yours to create this one.

If in fact the term CAN be sourced to notable authorities outside the Wiki, then by all means do so, and make it clear that it is THEIR perspective the article describes, rather than the original ideas of John Q. Wiki-editor. Dybryd 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article is already sourced. The problem of terminology is also sourced. Again, if another term is preferred, please state which. Otherwise, this is an issue that was already covered and is sourced in the article. Also, regarding consensus, remember that silence is the ultimate measure of consensus. Since this had a GA review and has been monitored by multiple WikiProjects, this article has certainly gotten attention. Two people raised the issue. One dropped it when a terminology section was created to explain the issue. The other was more focused on "dharmic" as a problematic word. So, indeed, the silence has confirmed consensus. However, consensus may change, so changing to another term is not out of the question. Vassyana 22:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't see anything wrong with using the term 'Taoic'. I think the onus should be on the person who opposes the term to come up with an alternative rather than complain about the current term and offer no solutions. Zeus1234 01:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

in the light of the deletion of Dharmic religion in favour of Indian religions, I am moving this article to "East Asian religions". --dab (𒁳) 11:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know more about the issue than what I just read herein, but it seems to me your move is correct. However, it's left the article a bit messy in spots; I'm doing a few edits to smooth it out more (and fix up the English along the lines that I prefer). I'll try not to actually change any info, tho (except replacing 'dharmic' with 'Indian')Eaglizard 08:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220182953/http://www.asia.msu.edu/eastasia/China/religion.html to http://www.asia.msu.edu/eastasia/China/religion.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]