User talk:SelmaEs/sandbox
Some remarks[edit]
Dear Selma,
I have read your first draft of the Wikipedia-article about "New Age Orientalism". And I do agree with Ernst, that – in this form – it is not a good Wikipedia-article. The content of a Wikipedia-article must be encyclopedic. That means – among other things – that it must be good structured:
- begin with a lead, that gives a summary of the content of the article and that explains the notability of the subject
- the subject must be well defined. What are you describing?
What is meant by "New Age Orientalism"? Is it a concept, coined by Lopez in 1994, to describe a new form of "Orientalism" that emerged …… ? What is the specific content of this concept? Why did it emerge? Does it only apply to religious debates or does it have a wider scope? Does he mean "Orientalism of a new age" (as he states in his 1994 article) or does he mean "Orientalism of a New Age style" (like McDermott is describing).
- My confusion is partly caused by the fact that especially in the first paragraph there is not even one reference to a source. I suppose you made a kind of excerpt from the 1994 article of Lopez. Is this the only source for his "concept"? For me this text looks more like an opinion piece than like a scientific text. Do other scholars use the concept?
- Excuse me. I'm just an economist, I don't have any background in these subjects. But a Wikipedia-article about 'New Age Orientialism' should be understandable to me. That's the essence of an encyclopaedia.
One other remark:
- Please make a link to the 1996 article of Lopez:
https://tricycle.org/magazine/new-age-orientalism-the-case-tibet/
Many greetings, and good luck, --Dick Bos (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)