Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universalizing religion


 * 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 was no consensus. Although there is a consensus that the page should not be kept as is I do not see a consensus as to what should become of it. This conversation can continue on the talk page J04n(talk page) 13:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Universalizing religion

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

neolo|gism sourced to Conservapedia! Theroadislong (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The source has been removed and replaced with Religion.wikia and a blog so no better. Theroadislong (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lack of evidence of the term being in widespread usage. —C.Fred (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge back to Major religious groups: Is an obvious uncontroversial neologism. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Above two !votes also support a redirect, as written below. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment There are a number of Google results related to AP Human Geography courses, mostly in the form of study guides for the AP exam. The |blog reference is a publication from a test prep company, not a personal or opinion blog, so it does deserve some weight. |Here is another example from a textbook publisher. It doesn't seem to be a neologism or made-up term, but there also isn't much coverage outside of a specific high school course. –dlthewave ☎ 23:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Added google book references. Merging it to Major religious groups misclassifies hinduism which is Ethnic religion, as per wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 01:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The very fact that it is part of K-12 school handout is the proof that our government feels that out kids should know about this very important categorization of religions.

This is my first major wiki article. Let me gather some more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 00:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added one more reference.

http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/staff/gyaccp/geography%20and%20religion.pdf

Quote from the article:

Classification There are various ways of classifying religions, and the most commonly used ones reflect differences in belief. From a geographical perspective it is more useful to distinguish universal and ethnic religions. Universal (or universalising) religions - such as Christianity, Islam and the various forms of Buddhism - seek world-wide acceptance by actively looking for and attracting new members (converts). Ethnic (or Park, C. (2004) Religion and geography. Chapter 17 in Hinnells, J. (ed) Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion. London: Routledge 5 cultural) religions, are very different in that they do not seek converts. Each is identified with a particular tribal or ethnic group. Tribal (or traditional) religions involve belief in some power or powers beyond humans, to which they can appeal for help. Examples include the souls of the departed, and spirits living on mountains, in stones, trees or animals. More broad based ethnic religions include Judaism, Shintoism, Hinduism and the Chinese moral-religious system (embracing Confucianism and Taoism), which mainly dominate one particular national culture.

Note that article classifies Hinduism as Ethnic Religion, so does Wikipedia.

Let me know if we have sufficient references.

I have added couple of sources from Google Books. Is it sufficient now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 01:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable term, article needs improvement. Excelse (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, reluctantly; these book sources demonstrate it's not a neologism (the oldest is from 1976). But some mighty improvement needed - the current mix of unsourced statements with statements sourced to blogs or school handouts is rather appalling. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * delete-redirect. I created the original redirect, this was never meant to be a separate topic. Redirect to proselytism ("Another name for a universalizing religion is a proselytic faith" Kaplan AP Human Geography 2016 p. 259) or if absolutely necessary convert into a referenced disambiguation page with Universalism. Note that this could be fixed without the deletion discussion, just do it. --dab (𒁳) 06:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No objection from me if somebody boldly redirects. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No objection from me either. Theroadislong (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Me too as well. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We have article for ethnic religions, which comprise , may be 30% of the population. Don't you think we need an article for something EXACTLY opposite to that which comprises 60% of world population? This article has philosophical and ontological implications as well, because each member of this category posits different TYPEs of ultimate realities that have acceptance for thousands of years without any alteration. I plan to compare and contrast them here. Now, I cannot include hinduism or universalism here , because they don't have a single coherent model of universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 02:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep We have numerous sourced articles on neologisms and jargon. See category Category:Neologisms and its subcategories by centuries and decades. Such terms can have their own impact on culture. If there is scope for expansion for this stub article, there is no need to delete or merge it to proselytism. Dimadick (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Where has it been determined that the availability of reliable sources for this can substantiate an expansion beyond the article's current state of a lot of OR using mostly unreliable sources? Rhinopias (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as an article, possibly reduced to the first paragraph. This is a definition of the subject as (apparently) used in academic work.  The rest of it is heavily tagged and seems to confuse ethical and ethnic.  Accordingly stubify.  I would add that the religious studies department at Lancaster University has a high reputation for the study of religion in general, as opposed to specific religions.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect I'm not sure of the best topic. It's an antonym of Ethnic religion but I don't see any content significantly beyond a WP:DICTDEF at this time. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect (to what? is the real question) According to 2 above, this is just a dictionary definition and the first paragraph could apply to any [major or fringe] religion, which all claim to be the truth or to know some kind of higher truth... The term is vague enough that it could encompass most world religions - more precise articles dividing them into multiple relevant categories already exist, see Religion. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I went ahead and boldly redirected, per what seems to be consensus above. Would anybody object to me closing this as bold redirect? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete-redirect to Major religious groups Cornelis Tiele. The relevant content is not enough for a separate article and the original idea of the current one appears to be WP:POVFORK.  A mention of universalizing may be adequate in the target article with a relevant source.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is for the keep. Keeping and removing everything except first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * keep as an article,

Key words here are "exclusive" and "portable". Hinduism claims to say the truth, but doesn't say it is exclusive. Same for various universalist sects of christianity. Judism probably just talks about only Jews as chosen people and hence it is not "portable". This distinction is well-known in academic circles. Somehow, Jainism omitted because it is not well-known and it doesn't fit well in narratives of conservatives and liberals. But, if you include Buddhism , it is no-brainer that you have to include Jainism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 01:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin — Realphi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll challenge your notion of consensus since there is clearly a large number of persons who say redirect, and neither of us is now a neutral party so I'll reinstate the AfD template on the article. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, the article could alternatively (if we don't settle on the original redirect to Proselytism, or in addition to that) be merged to Major religious groups, since in its current state it is a content fork and it would be better merged (if the information isn't already included in it, anyway). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

So tell me, what is the opposite of Ethnic religion?

Universalizing religions are started from the outset as a portable universal exclusive worldview. Hence, Hinduism , in spite of being Major World Religion , is not Universalizing Religion because it started as Ethnic Religion. Now, Hinduism can and does engage in Proselytism , but that doesn't magically make it Universalizing Religion. This distinction is well know in academic circles. Hence, Proselytism and Major religious groups are not proper substitute of Universalizing religion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 05:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why must there be an opposite to everything? Can't we live in peace and love and harmony and good music? - The opposite is Major religious groups - Universalizing religion is just not the most common name and per WP:COMMONNAME, the name of an article must be the most commonly used one in WP:RS - it's much more likely you'll hear somebody refer to "Christianism, Islam, Judaism, Budhism, ..." as 'major religions' than as "universalizing religions" and the concept of seeing one's faith as the exclusive true one as "proselytizing". Article in its current state is a WP:CFORK and needs to be merged or to go if there's no useful content - better spend your efforts on improving Major religious groups instead since it's mostly the same topic. And let's not get tendentious about "exclusive" or you making a straw man about Hinduism (me having never mentioned it) or proselytism, which was the old redirect and is not within the scope of AFD. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, you are making a false dilemma by implying everything is an ethnic religion or part of another unified whole, while there is clearly more than one category, see Religion. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the information that which religions are universalizing and which are not is beneficial for any serious seeker who wants to identify true religion. I agree that there are many ways to classify religions, but Universalizing and Ethnic is mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive classification and hence not a false dilemma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 07:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "True religion" is of course undefinable and a very personal opinion. The discussion should be closed (and consensus evaluated) by a competent neutral person, ideally an experienced administrator.  Participants should not close it and an article creator cannot be neutral to assess consensus.  Please see WP:CLOSEAFD for more information.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "True religion" is a personal opinion. My point was that a person who is trying to form an opinion about which is a "true religion" should be presented with all the facts from all the points of views. Existence of the category of religions called "Universalizing Religions" is a fact. Existence of the category of religions called "Ethnic Religions" is a fact. Sure, there can be varying opinions about which religions belong to which category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 13:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The very fact that people cannot agree on which page to redirect to is the proof that "Universalizing Religion" needs a separate page and doesn't correspond to any of the existing pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

http://stepekaphumangeography.weebly.com/uploads/2/8/4/1/28419347/religion_universalizing_vs_ethnic_2017_-_2018.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 14:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That is where the fallacy of your reasoning lies. Religions can be more than just "Universalizing" (which seems to correspond mostly with major religions, except maybe for some tendentious details which I don't really care about) or "ethnic", even if the two terms are mutually exclusive. Also, "The very fact that people [...]" - ad ignorantiam: you are asserting that because there isn't a consensus (proposition hasn't been proven true) where to redirect (and again, if people agree that there should be a redirect, a competent administrator can probably figure out which is more appropriate amongst the proposed) that the article shouldn't be redirected (proposition is false). "True religion is a personal opinion" - exactly, no place on Wikipedia since it would probably be in breach of either WP:NOR or WP:NPOV! "[...] who is trying to form an opinion [...]" WP:NOT - Wikipedia isn't here to help people form opinions but to inform them of the facts as published in reliable sources. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If redirect, where?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC) The two options which seem to stand out are Proselytism (i.e. what the article was before the recent additions) or Major religious groups (which is what the article seems to be a WP:CFORK of). The article 'creator' (so-called because the true creator only made it as a redirect), seems to object on the grounds that the exact definition of the term does not match either of those "totally" and that there must be an opposite to "Ethnic religion", and that opposite would be this. Although others have commented a lot, I'll just point out that the last point is a false dilemma, despite the author's claim that the two terms are exhaustive (which they are not - there are surely religions which neither claim to be limited in scope to a national/ethnic level or engage in proselytizing - an example which comes to mind quickly is Quakers). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added some more contents now. Realphi

" Ethical religions fall into two subcategories. First are the national nomistic (legal) religions that are particularistic, limited to the horizon of one people only and based upon a sacred law drawn from sacred books. Above them are the universalistic religions, qualitatively different in kind, aspiring to be accepted by all men, and based upon abstract principles and maxims. In both subtypes, doctrines and teachings are associated with the careers of distinct personalities who play important roles in their origin and formation. Tiele found only three examples of this highest type of religion: Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism. Tiele’s classification enjoyed a great vogue and influenced many who came after him. Nathan Söderblom, a Swedish archbishop who devoted much energy to problems of classification, accepted the division of higher religions into two great groups but used a varied terminology that pointed to some of the characteristics of the two types of religion. "

Realphi —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Added reference of Encyclopedia Britannica Realphi  —Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Pings don't for work for IPs While I appreciate the good faith effort to find sources, Britannica again offers no support for "Universali[stic] religions" behind the short statement you quote above (proper practice would also be to indicate it is a quote more visibly by citing the source, ex. "quote" ). Britannica simply states Tiele's classification was historically important, but that it is only one form of "Morphological classification". Also, Britannica does not support content currently in the article in that it only names Islam, Christianity and Buddhism - and it gives different characteristics. The paragraph about "Ontological views" remains unsourced OR. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, still doesn't solve the issue of Quakers which obviously fit neither category... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And, article content is already covered in Universalism, as above - a redirect to that or either of the previous options would be possible - I suggest we list this at RfD. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I included Jainism in the list because early studies of Jainism considered it as a sect of Buddhism and didn't list it as separate religion.

https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:120127&datastreamId=FULL-TEXT.PDF page 50, footnote 39

Regarding quaker, there will always be some fuzziness about these classifications and all cases may not be covered, but It would probably cover 99% of the population.

You have removed the Ontological View section. So, that issue is solved.

Most of the other material comes from - Realphi

Added a neutral reference that proves that Jainism is oldest personally founded religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 00:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Neutral" - not really just no: author is obviously Christian (as is the "magazine" - and it otherwise fails to meet WP:RS criteria) and goes on to criticize it based on some biblical passages: "Superiority of Chrstianity 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God' (Psa. 14:1, 53:1). First, of the many discrepancies and illogical positions held by the founder and proponents of Jainism, [...]"
 * Ignoring that neutrality issue, "Oldest personally founded religion" is irrelevant to the idea of Universalism or to this AfD - and the source actually says that Jainism isn't anymore a 'universal religion': "One can see the expressed hope for a universal religion in some of the Jain literature, but that plan has been abandoned." 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The page says:

"It seems the founder supposedly received divine encouragement to propagate a religion of supreme benefit to the whole world, but as we will see throughout, many ideas have been dropped."

Later he sites the dropped idea:

"Jain monks and nuns soon left the homeless approach Mahavira preached and began living in monasteries."

So ,the dropped ideas don't include dropping the idea of "propagating a religion of supreme benefit to the whole world" Realphi (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That's cherrypicking. Source (despite it not being reliable) obviously also says, in the first paragraph "One can see the expressed hope for a universal religion in some of the Jain literature, but that plan has been abandoned." 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Digambara monk]s] belonging to the [[Digambara sect of Jainism don't live in monastries and are rightly called homeless ascetics. Moreover, many Jain texts are still not published and very few are available to English readers. Therefore, scholars are not rightly able to understand that Universality is deeply associated with the Jaina scheme of things. -Nimit (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * *Keep, I thing there is scope for such an article to exist on English Wikipedia.-Nimit (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please look at number of views after the article was created and before the article was created. This means people are definitely interested in this article. Realphi (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Page views do not imply notability or suitability for inclusion in Wiki - WP:POPULARPAGE. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, I thing there is scope for such an article to exist on English Wikipedia.-Nimit (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC) ( copied because it appeared in content discussion by mistake)
 * Redirect. A search reveals a striking absence of online reliable sources that mention this phrase, supporting power~enwiki's assertion that nothing is present in reliable sources beyond a dictionary definition. There are a couple book sources used in the article and apparently some on Google Books, but it's interesting that "AP Human Geography" is one of the most prominent results and is also used in the article (my favorite is this class presentation). It doesn't seem to be a recent word, so its absence in prominent descriptions of major religions off-wiki is telling, and supports a mention on Major religious groups (plus maybe Religion) but a redirect to Proselytism per Dbachmann. A greater incorporation of it beyond its mention on one or two articles would be undue weight. A bold redirect will apparently not suffice for Realphi, who seems to be on a quest to introduce this term to the world (as it is currently barely used on-wiki outside of their efforts) without the ability to add it verifiably. Rhinopias (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me ask the same question again, what is opposite of Ethnic religion? It is called "Universal religion" or "Universalizing religion" Realphi (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ! 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge content to either Cornelis Tiele or Comparative religion: The term "universalizing" is by no means accepted across academia. Its major importance is probably in the study of history of religions, as part of a 19th century theory developed by Tiele, working largely from ideas of William Dwight Whitney. If using Britannica as a source, however, we find that Tiele contrasted "universalistic" with "national" (not "ethnic"), and that both terms were part of his "spiritual-ethical" group, contrasted with a "nature" group (polydaemonistic magical, theriantropic polytheism, anthropomorphic polytheism). We should be very careful not to assume that "universalizing" is the same as "universalistic." And we should be EXTRA careful not to confuse the terms "ethical" and "ethnic," for according to Tiele, both the universalistic and national (which might be read as "ethnic") groups were considered part of the "ethical" group.


 * These terms all come with their own problems. Despite how important they may have been to the study of the history of religions in the 19th century, they can often be traced to the (often biased) views of one individual, and have at times been used to show how some religions are somehow better/higher than other religions. Thus, I feel that the relevant and well cited info from this article would best be merged with the Cornelis Tiele article. Or if not, a "morphological" section of the Comparative religion page could be created where this information would fit nicely. Mark Froelich (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

So, you feel that, it is okay to have an article about Ethnic religion, but not its opposite? Realphi (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If your question is directed at me (uncertain, as you didn't address it to anyone)... yeah, I feel that would be alright. Just because there is an article about religions "associated with a particular ethnic group," that doesn't mean we need an article for "religions not associated with a particular ethnic group." See, the use of "universalizing religion" that you seem to be promoting is not mutually exclusive with "ethnic religion." For example, what would call a religion that is not associated with a particular ethnic group, and does NOT proselytize? It fits in neither group, as currently defined on Wikipedia. The two categories are not mutually exclusive, and they are not opposite. Mark Froelich (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mark, a universalizing religion generally, but not necessarily proselytize. I didn't include the "proselytize" part in the article initially but everybody forced me to put proselytizing part. Also, I wouldn't say Cornelis Tiele was biased, it is just classification from morphological point of view. If Tiele is biased, then Major religions category is also biased because it excludes minor religions. Realphi (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Realphi, someone "forced" you to put in a part about proselytizing? Who forced you? As an editor, if you feel that something shouldn't be in an article (especially something which defines the main topic), don't put it in. But the fact is, regardless of who put it in and why... it's in there now. And this creates an "apples and oranges" effect of making the two terms not mutually exclusive. But even if you took the "proselytizing" part out again, they still would not be mutually exclusive. For example, we have that universalizing religions claim "to know abstract principles and maxims of the interaction of entities in the universe exclusively." If this is somehow in direct contrast to ethnic religion, that implies that ethnic religions do NOT claim to know abstract principles and maxims exclusively. Again, apples and bananas. What if you have a religion which is tied to an ethnicity which claims to know such principles and maxims? Conversely, what if you have a religion not tied to any ethnicity which makes no claims on such principles and maxims? Neither fit into the scheme you (and others) propose, and it breaks down.


 * As for Tiele being biased, I'd say he likely was, just by his terminology. In both the "nature religions" and "ethical religions" categories, he classified certain types as "higher religions." Also, just his choice of the terms "nature" and "ethical" religions--it implies that "nature religions" either lack or have less concern for ethics than "ethical" religions. I'm not saying that Tiele is a bad person, or that we should forget his ideas. Tiele had his 19th century biases, and we surely have our 21st century biases. I'm just saying that his scheme would best be found either in his own page (Cornelis Tiele), or in the Comparative religion page. It is a flawed scheme which hasn't found a solid hold in religious studies. And the "universalizing religion" vs. "ethnic religion" contrast also breaks down for placing categories with non-mutually exclusive elements in opposition to each other. Cheers! Mark Froelich (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect per Dbachmann above. The scarcity, ambiguity, and quality of sources, imo, indicate that the concept is so esoteric as to be nearly fringe. There's no indication that this is a meaningful categorization used in academia today, at least under this name, and therefore lacks notability. Notability requires more than verifiability, it requires that the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and from the sources presented and from my own quick search I don't think this topic has crossed that threshold. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

If Universalizing religion is fringe, then Ethnic religion should also be fringe because they are defined as the opposite of each other, an any casual reader of religion will know. Realphi (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That's a logical fallacy. Just because they may be opposite (and even the sparse literature is unclear on this) doesn't mean both must have equal notability and therefore both must have articles. This frequency count for the two phrases indicates that "ethnic religion" is by far more widely used and more notable in the literature, hence why one warrants an article, while the other doesn't. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It used to be called "universal religion" before that term was appropriated for some other meaning:

frequency count Realphi (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This is an example of Cultural appropriation. Please restore it before it gets lost. Realphi (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

From one of the other users:

"Universalizing religion" is different from but related to the term "universalism", which is one strategy of being "universalizing" (i.e. absorb any possible pre-existing religion into your framework as a matter of principle, or phrased more negatively, water everything down to the point where all religions are the same anyway). It is not synonymous with "universalism". Realphi (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"Universal to Universalizing"

Also, there is no bias here as Cornelis Tiele is not implying that all Universalizing religions are better than Ethnic religions or vice versa. Only thing to conclude here with high certainty IMHO is that, THERE CAN BE ZERO OR EXACTLY ONE UNIVERSALIZING RELIGION THAT CAN BE TRUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs)
 * Would you please sign your comments? It's easy - just enter  or click right next to the "Sign your posts on talk pages:" notice... Thanks! 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge content to either Cornelis Tiele or Comparative religion For reasons of presentation rather than principle. There are about 5 good sentences of information in this article, but that information will be better presented in a context that makes its relevance more clear - either in the article about the theologian who used this classification or as part of a broader discussion of the classification of religions. -- LWG talk 14:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should just stop beating the dead horse, but as a matter of consistency: "It is not synonymous with 'universalism'" - in addition to being an argument without argument (of course, it's not the exact same meaning, but what should we do with that information?), merging 2 articles together does not imply either term is synonymous to the other. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Cornelis Tiele and add a few sentences to that article (e.g., in the "Works" section) outlining his classification scheme. I don't think the content in this article is clear enough to warrant merging; better to write new prose from scratch. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

So, here is what has happened:

Earlier, "Universalizing Religions" were called "Universal Religions". Now, Hindus had a big problem with this word "Universal Religions" for obvious reasons.

[Vivekananda] on Universal Religion: "You hear claims made by every religion as being the universal religion of the world. Let me tell you in the first place that perhaps there never will be such a thing, but if there is a religion which can lay claim to be that, it is only our religion and no other, because every other religion depends on some person or persons. All the other religions have been built round the life of what they think a historical man; and what they think the strength of religion is really the weakness, for disprove the historicity of the man and the whole fabric tumbles to the ground. Half the lives of these great founders of religions have been broken into pieces and the other half doubted very seriously. As such every truth that had its sanction only in their words vanishes into air. But the truths of our religion, although we have person by the score, do not depend on them."

As time passed and with the evolution theory and big bang theory, western elite in general came to conclusion that Christianity is not true religion and hence were not very enthusiastic about spreading Christianity all over the world. Also, they were aware of violent methods used by it to spread worldwide. So, the meaning of the "Universal Religion" changed from exclusive religion to inclusive religion where anything goes in the name of religion. More important objective was to stop religious violence than to identify true religion, because probability of existence of a true religion was zero anyway.

But, american conservatives were not about to let go. So, they reclaimed the sparsely used word "Universalizing Religion" as the replacement for the old meaning of the word "Universal Religion".

Looks like in asia, the word "Universal Religion" is still used in the old sense. When I added the adjective "universalizing" in the Wikipedia Islam article, the maintainer changed it to "universal". Also, one of the other Jain commentators on this page used the word "Universal" instead of "Universalizing".

So, even if "Universalizing Religion" is sparsely used word, it actually represents the word "Universal Religion" in the old sense and this page should use the frequency count of "Universal Religion" to decide for notability. The subject matter is still the same even if the word used to represent that subject has changed. This is an example of [Semantic change] of the word Universal religion.

Also, people have claimed that wikipedia only has facts, but not opinions. Look at these two versions of wiki page of the same item and see for yourself how opinions can be created from facts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dharmic_religion&oldid=174099691

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dharmic_religion&oldid=179052999

Also, general opinion of majority of educated people is that probability of existence of true religion is zero. But, I would argue that anybody who dig little bit more will realize that probability of Atheism or Buddhism or Jainism being right are equal.

See : http://fearlessbooks.com/SecretScience.htm

Realphi (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As a general rule of thumb (haven't checked the links), WP can have opinions, if and only if they are properly attributed to their source (and not the invention of a Wikipedian). As for the rest, stop beating the dead horse. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. While I believe and have already voted that the article should be kept, I am doubtful if is going to contribute well. These edits make article look like an essay. Excelse (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

, Are you commenting on my english writing ability or on the authenticity of the material I used in contributing the edits?

One of the edits you mentioned is correcting grammatical mistake, IMO. Other edit is taken directly from one of the sources.

Thanks

Realphi (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Essay-like. Got it.

Thanks

Realphi (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2018 (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.