Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brahmanism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep - content and accuracy needs to be debated on the talk page of the article.--Eloquence* 22:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Brahmanism
There is already an article for Hinduism. This article mostly consists of stuff in Hinduism article. Also it contains criticisms which have their own place in Criticism of Hinduism. Also there is an article for Brahmin. So this article is pointless and fit to be deleted as per WP:NPOV. Babub 11:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hinduism, as Brahmanism is the old term for the relgion in the West. It remains a plausible search term and such a redirect would politely remind the searcher of the current accepted name for the faith.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * redirect, unless someone turns it into an article on the history of the term itself. Any article beginning "X, popularly known as Y,..." self-admits that it should be a redirect to Y. The text appears to be essentially a copy-paste of the 1911 Britannica (including OCR errors), which figures, since Brahmanism would have been the current term in 1911. No merging necessary. dab (&#5839;) 16:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Hinduism. --Alex S 19:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect per above. SM247 My Talk  01:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup - Britannica has a distinct article on the subject.  As a concept "Brahminism" exists as evidenced by a simple Google search.  Britannica seems to classify Brahmanism as proto-Hinduism.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 02:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well we have Vedic religion if you want "proto-Hinduism". As far as the present situation is concerned, all scholars agree that Brahmanism=Hinduism.--Babub 05:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Both Vedic religion and Brahmanism have separate articles in Britannica. Vedic religion refers to the religion of IA people who moved into India around 1500 BC.  Brahmanism refers to the religion of ancient India that evolved out of Vedism. Specifically, "Brahmanism is distinguished from the classical Hinduism that succeeded it by the enhanced significance given in classical Hinduism to individual deities, such as Śiva and Vishnu, and to devotional worship (bhakti)." Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, this is not Britannica. The content here needs to pass Verifiability. I don't think there are any books written by the modern authors of today (other than the 1911 Britannica) that refer to Brahmanism at all. Anyway, the article itself says that Brahmanism is also known as Hinduism. BTW, the "IA" theory is seriously questioned by today's academics.--Babub 11:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed IA theory may well be questioned, but that doesn't negate the need for an article about it. WP:Verifiability says: "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers."  I consider Encyclopedia Britannica a reputable piece of published work and hence an entry for Brahmanism automatically means that it is worthy of a place here.  I'm not saying the content of the current article is perfect, but there still needs to be a separate article. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * comment. Brahmanism has an article in the current editions of Brittanica and Hutchinson. Nuttah68 11:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an article about IA theory already. Britannica itself specifies that the name "Brahmanism" indicates both Brahmins for which we already have an article and Brahman. On the whole, Brahmanism being applied to "proto" Hinduism is POV as per today's scholarly views. However, to give it a historical view as given by British missionary scholars, this is a good link from The History of the Devil, which as the title suggests, is a biased piece of writing.--Babub | Talk 11:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because a subject *can* come under the umbrella of an exsisting subject does not mean it should. Existing articles can mention the subject and link to this article for further explanation. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, when x=y, there is no need to refer to y seperately from x. I didn't say it can come under the umbrella of any article. The present article itself mentions "Brahmanism, popularly known as Hinduism..." --Babub | Talk 12:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that respected encyclopedias, that are much more space limited than Wikipedia, feel a distinct aricle is needed convinces me that there is sufficient difference and we are not talking x=y. My opinion stands that the article needs sorting out but belongs in. Nuttah68 13:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Brahminism is the term for certain real and distinct religious practices. To put it in somewhat simplistic terms, Brahminism is Hinduism as practised by Brahmins. It draws heavily from vedic and puranic traditions. On the other hand Hinduism is the collective term for all religious currents prevalent in the collective Hindu populace. To give just one example, while the worship of Sai Baba - a Muslim holy man of early 20th centuary - can certainly be called Hinduism, it will be too far fetched to describe it as Brahminism. Sisodia 04:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The "distinct" religion as practised by Brahmins comes under "Brahmin"; and, really, is Sai Baba even an argument for Brahmanism? We already have Hinduism.--Babub 05:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up. Hinduism is an overarching term, like Christianity. Brahminism is one aspect of this religion, like Roman Catholicism. Nuttah68 07:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out repeatedly, we already have Brahmin which covers the aspect supposed to be covered by Brahmanism.--Babub 11:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Brahmin should discuss merely the caste and its status. Hornplease
 * Which pretty much covers everything present in Brahmanism :). OTOH, if you're looking for the philosophy called "Brahmanic philosophy" by some authors, its already there at Hindu philosophy. We could mention this at the latter article.--Babub | Talk 15:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, I meant that there are some people who categorise the revival of Hinduism under, say, the Guptas, as that of a particular strand of thought that did not include several modern strands that are, for example, more inspired by the Bhakti Movement of the 11th c. So the point is that Hinduism as we know it is an agglomeration of not only forms of philosophy, but of practices and the consequent social structures; and there is place in WP for articles that examine all those various components. Hornplease 03:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I partially agree with your statements. I am getting the feeling we are merely confused over a few different words that describe the same thing. But how could the Gupta Empire (240-550 CE) have been influenced by the Bhakti movement (11th c)? You should refer to History of Hinduism. --Babub | Talk 04:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Would be interesting if we have sufficient information about the term itself, like how it originated, how it went into disuse, etc. That would make a good article, as dab suggested. An article on Brahmanism as a term is worth keeping, but on Brahmanism as a religion/sect is not, simply because there's no such religion/sect separate from mainstream Hinduism. For instance, religious followers are determined by self-description, and no one describes(/ever described) oneself as a Brahmanist. Also, there are hints of the authority of Brahmins being questioned even in the Rigveda (see article), and in any case, such authority has only slowly (first increased and then) decreased over centuries, so it would be hard to distinguish religious beliefs over centuries based on that parameter. deeptrivia (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect, but don't delete. utcursch | talk 15:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect--D-Boy 21:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nuttah. In addition, in response to deeptrivia, the fact that people self-identify themselves as Hindus does not mean that their beliefs cannot be systematised in some other way. Arya Samaj hinduism is distinct in many ways from other forms of Hinduism. Similarly, pure brahmanical Hinduism might be distinct in certain ways. A separate article on that would be of use. Hornplease 05:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We already have it at Brahmin.--Babub | Talk 15:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This contradicts your reply to my statement above. Hornplease 03:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, how?--Babub | Talk 04:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.