Talk:Taoism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taoism has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Taoism Portal

This article is supported by the Taoism WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Taoism-related subjects on Wikipedia.
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.

This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] Women as theological figures

I have created the above page - contributions from those more informed about Taoism than I welcome.

Jackiespeel 16:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the Taoist Eight Immortals, Ho Hsien-ku, is a woman. Additionally, Sun Bu'er was a famous female Taoist master in the 12th Century. Her work "Secret Book on the Inner Elixir (as Transmitted by the Immortal Sun Bu'er)" discussed some of the particularities of female Inner Elixir cultivation. Taoist nuns usually have equal status with Taoist monks.

Multiplestars March,2007

[edit] Taoism on superstition

Hello, can anyone here who has a "high Tao" enlighten me on something? Is there any connection between Taoism and superstition? For instance, although most Taoists followers (the commoners) practise many superstition that are similar to Chinese folk religions such as burning Hell Banknotes for afterlife and so on, do Taoism really actually "endorse" or specifically encourage/instruct this kind of superstitious practises?? I am a Taoists (junior) with the Siu sect (called SiuTao), and I was under the impression that Taoists must use one's common sense to his/her fullest extent. It is important to improve one's own logic and therefore his/her "Tao". So, for us, something like burning hell banknotes are useless because our common sense indicates that dead people or deities would have no use for money even if we send them one. We made our own website is www.siutao.com. We are in Indonesia. I am an Indonesian ethnic Chinese btw.

ALso, if there are also other sects of Tao that have slight deviation of practises/understanding, it would be interesting to note some of them. How about Taoists on Taiwan?? Heilme 09:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There are probably as many different sects of Taoism as there are Taoists. Everyone sees Truth with different eyes, so what one person would call superstition makes perfect practical sense to another. Who can say? For me, Taoism as taught by Laozi and Zhuangzi is an eminently practical, concise, direct way to solve problems. Other people will prefer other systems. You have to investigate it for yourself, understand it for yourself if you want to get anywhere with it. A teacher is good, but a good teacher will only set you on the path, not walk it for you. Good luck! --Fire Star 21:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. You're right, different people will have different path that will suit them. It's just that sometimes we want and need to discuss each individual perception so we can help one another improve each other's "tao". Individual development is good, but since one tends to deviate if not guided properly, I think it's only right for those more experienced to set the less experienced back to the "right" path again. Therefore, I just would to question what other Taoists would think on these kinds of folk practices. Heilme 00:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Different practises, folk or not, can serve as disciplines to see through artifice. So, burning money can be seen as superstition or a way to feel closer to the ancestors who gave you your life, reinforcing your heart in the process. I've been lucky to have some powerful and caring teachers (all passed away now) and it helps my heart to pay them respect. Some people would see my placing incense in front their portraits as superstitious, I see it as a way to show my thanks to them for their gift to me, reciprocity. I agree that someone without an art, of whatever form, can go astray following their fancy (and most do), but that is their fate, and I can't let that stop me from getting to where I belong. Cheers, --Fire Star 05:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taoism -Superstition & Reincarnation

Taosim has been taken as superstition for reason that one of the principle schools who did possess certain gifts-powers in the past, have been abused by fake practitioners who were con-artists. Two subjects I hope to incorporate as an improvement to the Taosim page are, that priests who did possess these special powers did exist in the past, secondly the perception of Taosim in connection with these Shannanigans ought to be separated, i.e. what they did and what the Critics think they did and thus concluded it was also Taoism.

A second subject I hope to introduce would be the Reincarnation teaching of Laozi, an integral and intrinsic part of Taoism, and would include the 11~13 reincarnation of Laozi himself. This is no theory and not a thesis. Any genuine tutorials with real Daoist Practitioners would reveal this aspect of the Founding Father. Again this subject has been shredded by scholars in the past to cast a doubt on the existence of Laozi himself, who was the last incarnate of the 13 lives.

I welcome any suggestion that could make the above even more acceptable to the readers of the page.

It will never be acceptable, I'm afraid, as it involves a point of view that goes against scholarship, and relies upon a set of religious beliefs. Wikipedia doesn't allow this sort of editing (see Wikipedia:neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mel Etitis is correct, we have to rely on academic research rather than the opinion of any given sect or teacher for content, unless it is an academic historical or contextual study of the sect in question. Many don't see an explicit belief in reincarnation until after the influence of Buddhism, and there is very little indisputed textual evidence for such before that time. --Fire Star 17:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Points noted regarding Laozi's incarnates and acceptability. But central to practitioners of Daoism to the folks 1000 or 2000 years ago was a hereafter, a very structured herafter, instrinsic to Daoism that was not in Laozi, Daodejing or Zhuangzi. Any descriptions here would be historical, rather than a empirical scientific check. In the same light what Firestar mentioned about scholastic research on Daoism is not conducive to putting what we now regard as superstition today, on historical records that can no longer be verified. Fivestar's assertion that Reincarnation cam after the intro of Buddhism into China is also tainted, without knowing what Daoists have to say on the same. Alex 23Feb06 GMT+8hr

I'm afraid that I don't completely follow everything that you say, but if you're saying that the new material would report on later religio-Taoist beliefs neutrally, and that it would be well-sourced and cited, then of course there'd be no problem adding it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Could I have your consideration on the revised intro as follow:

Taoism also written as “Daoism” generally stands for:

(1) The philosophy and wisdom in the Dao De Jing and other teachings by Laozi 老子 , the founding father of Daoism 道祖.

(2) Practitioners in the past with special gifts and powers derived from the understanding of Taoism;

(3) The ancestral and deity worship as in the Chinese folk religion, and general adherence to the De attributed to the Dao de Jing consisting of eight core qualities namely filial piety 孝, sibling-kinship 悌, loyalty 忠, honesty 信, courtesy 禮, honour-integrity 義, modesty 廉 and humility 恥.

Taosim also collectively embodies two Chinese terms Daojiao (道教) and Daojia (道家). The character Tao 道 (or Dao, depending on the transliteration scheme one prefers) literally means "path" or "way", but in Chinese religion and philosophy refers to the Absolute, the First Cause or the First Mover. The compound Daojiao refers to "Daoism" as a "religion" and Daojia refers to the activity of scholars in their studies. It must be noted that this distinction is itself controversial and fraught with hermeneutic difficulty by scholars, the taxonomy commonly used preclude one from the other. An example would be the Cave Man metaphor used in Plato's Republic would deem this to be metaphysical analogy rather than religious in nature. In Taoism it would be both.

Taosim has spawned many offshoots over the 2500 years history, which include the Shinto faith in Japan. And some uncertainty exists today over the origin of Taosim, Laozi and the Daodejing, especially in view of some of the new scrolls unearthed in Mawangdui Changsha in 1973 which gave different date and text to Daodejing. These materials ought to be taken as what the Dead Sea Scrolls and the gnostic Nag Hammadi gospels are to Catholicism, is to Taoism.

Essential to the teachings of Taosim is a structured heaven and hell structure much more descriptive than that in Catholicism adjudicates in both realms for the deceased and living, and a set of guidelines on Causality and cyclical Reincarnation. Scholars who discredited similar concepts in other religions find the same equally unconvincing in Taoism however under the same definition, Taoism would be the most liberal of all religions. In brevity it preaches a way of life and a way for all humanity to better themselves, their families, their country and their dominion 修身齊家治國平天下, in that order, rather than an exclusion of all other beliefs. Teachings of the Taoism thus have interwoven with those of Confucius and with Buddhism.

I Ching 易經, Chinese alchemy 煉金術, Special Gifts and Powers 五行奇門遁甲術, Chinese astrology 星象學, , several branches of Chinese martial arts, Chinese traditional medicine or TCM, fengshui 風水學 and many schools of qigong 氣功 are some derivatives in Daoist's teachings in (a) and (b) above. Like some aspects of Christianity these Taoist derivative-wisdom have been discounted heavily in the last century as being unscientific. This would be an area best left as faith in a Religion and as Esoterism of Taoist teachings.

to start off Taoism is"...the name for..." when Daodejing specifically refers to naming and categorization of Tao is ironical. All comments welcomed. Alex 24Feb06

I think that this, generally, would be a much improved lead for the article. It needs some copyediting and I would suggest omitting the comparisons to Catholicism and the comment about it being discounted in the last century as being unscientific. Sunray 09:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is so fraught with factual errors that creating a point by point counter respose would be ridiculous. It's as if you've heard of the pieces, but forgot how they fit together.--Dustin Asby 07:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Aside from considerable copy-editing, including bringing usage and transliterations into line with current usage in the article, I have some specific worries, including:

"wisdom" is both vague and PoV;
what ground is there for the claim that "Taoism" is used to refer to "practitioners in the past"?
the explanation of what "tao" means is much too simple, and shouldn't be presented as uncontroversial;
the claim about Shinto having its origins in Taoism is false; Shinto borrowed from Taoism, as it borrowed from other traditions;
what are the other "many offshoots"?
claims like "Taoism would be the most liberal of all religions" (even aside from the puzzling use of the conditional) should be avoided, as both PoV and impossible to justify;
the last paragraph is obscurely worded, but (as per Sunray) comparisons with Christianity are best avoided, especially in the summary.
to question the fact that "Taoism" is a name for various things is peculiar; whatever Lozi does or doesn't say about naming, the fact remains that "Taoism" is a name. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, to your queries:

(1)Wisdom: This is to be followed-up in subsequent texts;

I don't understand this, I'm afraid. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The proposed texts are in the intro-lead, wisdom will be explained later in additional paragraphs.

(2)As mentioned earlier, these Practioners have been documented in the annals albeit they were not recognized by ivy-league scholars;

First, you miss the point; the word "Taoism" can't be used to refer to a group of peopl. Secondly, I'm not sure what the "Ivy league" reference has to do with it, but if scholars don't recognise them, then neither does Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:No original research).--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Point noted.

(3)Every belief systems in Japan, including the UN-recognized Nicherin Shosu, originated from China, willing to discuss this separately if you have further doubts;

No, it's not a matter for discussion; your claim is controversial, to say the least, and we don't include that sort of claim. You might, if you can provide a reputable citation, say something like "so-and-so writes that..." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What belies this "controversy" may be a case of lack of scholarship on the Japanese Religious origins. Point(3) is as you may say an assertion, but Shinto was based in Taoism, I will find the appropriate citation.

(4)Taoism being liberal- this goes back to the definition of Religions and what some of the prominant schools preaches, including exclusivity;

Again, you miss the point; it's a claim that's both vague and impossible to justify. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Intended as an intro, I hope to get further when given a chance, in the subsequent texts.

While Alex's statement is very likely false, it still can be measured. Liberal has a meaning, albeit a political one, and one could systematically compare the values and practices of every religion to that meaning.--Dustin Asby 07:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

(5)Noted- Catholicism & Christianity thrown in to balance the general-superstitious-feel this page originally had, ie to show that similarly in other beliefs certain unexplanable and or parallel counter-arguments are prevalent.

People understand that religious beliefs are often faith base without a comparison, especially a vague one. Also, superstitious is a term with a very precise meaning in academics. A superstition is "a belief that is kept despite the self realised irrationality of it." Please be sure to use the term appropriately.--Dustin Asby 07:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

(6)Noted, the proposed change was meant to be subtle about Taosim being a anme or what it stands for.... Alex 25Feb06-0930

Well, it wasn't terribly subtle I'm afraid, and it was PoV.

It's very important, before making major changes to articles, to make sure that you've understood Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I've provided a number of good places to start at various places above. Wikipedia only includes material that can be cited as appearing in other reputable sources; it doesn't allow original research, however compelling the author thinks her arguments. This is a majot limitation on what can be added, and can be frustrating, but it's not negotiable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I will see how I could rework some of the above. Alex 3Mar06

[edit] Recent major changes

I'm afraid that I've had to revert user:Alexchua's changes again. For some reason you're changing correct English grammar to incorrect, removing internal links (wikilinks), and adding material that's false to the best of my knowledge (e.g., "Taoism" isn't used to refer to Taoist practitioners in the past). You're also adding material that is not neutral. Please discuss these changes here if you want to defend them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I noted the definitions of Taoism has worsened to include "b) ....the Zhengyi ("Orthodoxy") or Quanzhen ....." If Wikipedia is to strictly abide by its canons, it would be worthwhile to banish references to any particular schools claiming exclusivity to orthodoxy such as the two mentioned- whether they are prevalent in the USA or not. A salient fact relating to the general disunity wrt Taosim arises from various sectarian-infighting. Alex-12 July06

[edit] Rival schools?

"Originally belonging to rival philosophical schools, these motifs entered Taoism by way of Neo-Confucianism." Apparently I've gotten different information then the person who wrote this. As I understand when it both Taoism and Confucianism developed these pre-existing ideas were taken advantage of or included. The I-Ching for example far predates both of these schools and wasn't introduced into one from another.--Dustin Asby 07:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect to Daoism

I see that this article was recently redirected to "Daoism." While I'm all for accurate transliteration, I think it is arguable that this word has been used in English with the "Taoism" spelling for such a long time that one might consider it the preferred English spelling. Certainly "Taoism" with a "T" seems to be the more common spelling. I would set up the redirect the other way: from "Daoism" to "Taoism." Also, this makes it harder to find the lengthy article history and talk archive. My two cents. Crypticfirefly 03:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and reverted that edit for two reasons: cut-and-paste moves are bad, and a move as likely controversial as this should be discussed. If the proponent of the move still wants to do that, please advertise the proposal on requested moves. Jonathunder 03:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorder Content

I believe that this article could be improved by reordering so that the section "Beliefs" preceeds the sections on "History" and "Adherents".

Many people have worked hard on this article, and I am just a casual visitor. Hence, I will refrain from making the change myself. Just the same, sometimes an outsider (editor, proofreader) can make useful comments simply because he was not a part of the creation process. I hope that my suggestion merits consideration.

I turned to this article with only the most basic understanding of Taoism. (This, I think, is the level of readership we should be gearing to in our encyclapedia project). My initial interest was naturally to gain an operational definition of Taoism. Material on historical development and relationship with other systems are unquestionably worthwhile, but are of little use to a reader at a loss for context.

Thank you for your attention!

--Philopedia 21:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geedanged Huge Picture

There is a geedanged huge picture in the middle of this page. EFF WHY EYE

[edit] three part yin/yang

There is also sometimes seen a three part yin/yang, in relation to Taoism as well as Buddhism, what does that signify? Chris 01:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling normalization

There are some problems with different spellings throughout this article. Can we please choose one scheme and stick to it? I'd make the changes myself, but I don't know enough about the Chinese language to know which set of spellings is "preferable". For example, in the History section, we have both:

Lao Zu/Laozi
Dao De Jing/Tao Te Ching

This can be quite confusing for someone who has little familiarity with Taoism. Brianski 07:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the world uses Hanyu Pinyin, the official system used in China. This gives us: Laozi, Zhuangzi, Daodejing, Daojiao, etc. Note that there is no hyphenization. One disclaimer--the real system uses tone markings, which are almost always omitted in English.

Older material uses Wade-Giles, or some bastardized form of it: Lao-tse or Lao Tzu, Chuang Tsu, Tao Te Ching, Taoism, etc. I would say to keep "Tao" and "Taoism" because these have effectively become English words, but to place it alongside Dao (for the Chinese) and so on. Laozi and the Daodejing, I would leave in Hanyu Pinyin, even though many people are used to Wade-Giles. ==== —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dawud (talk • contribs) 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] External links

Since it was getting hard to tell which websites were already linked, I cleaned up the external links.

Three were duplicate links from the same domains:

Two weren't about Daoism:

One link was dead:

Taoist Restoration Society

Keahapana 01:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] looks good

This article looks very good keep up the good work.--The Gnome King [ 00:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question

This site [1] claims that Taoism 'partitions Heaven into thirty-six sections because there are three-hundred and sixty degrees in a circle.' Not knowing much about Taoism in general I was wondering if this is an accurate and complete statement.Number36 01:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Taoism

For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of a new article, Religious views on masturbation, at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft, especially the section User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Taoism! After it looks good on user space, it can be posted on to article space. CyberAnth 08:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

I think this is an excellent article in most regards, but there is one glaring issue: Lack of citations. I'm placing the nomination on hold for seven days to give time for citations to be added. See WP:CITE for instructions on how to do so. I'll be watching the page, so you can let me know either here or on my talk page when they're in place; if I don't hear from you, I'll check back in a week. Shimeru 02:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA-related discussion

Listed as "A-Class", wondering if the consensus is that it really belongs there. Badbilltucker 19:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right to question whether Taoism deserves its A-class status. I only looked at the article briefly, but noticed that there are no in-line references. Considering that A-class articles are higher on the scale than GAs, this is a red flag. Do you know how a case like this is normally dealt with? ike9898 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally, by changing the class, like this.Badbilltucker 14:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, they generally change the status to Failed good article above and take it off the list.

Added some footnotes, but I don't have access to many texts for a couple of weeks, and so me adding more is unlikely to happen in the near future.Zeus1234 23:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The additions are a very good start. More are needed, but I commend you on the quick response. I realize that the holidays might interfere with efforts to cite the article, and I will extend the hold an additional week if necessary, since an effort is clearly being made. Thanks. Shimeru 02:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've done pretty much all the footnoting I can by using the three books I currently have (Maspero, Schipper and Robinet). When I have access to a library again (the first week a January), I shall get the other books on the reference list and attempt to cross reference the rest of the information. There are two books that my library does not have (Chang and Ni), so I will likely not be able to reference any of the new age stuff. Hopefully someone else will be able to do that.Zeus1234 21:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In light of the terrific work you've done over the past few days, I'm going to pass the article. I trust that you'll cite the other sources as soon as you can, further improving the article, and I think what you've already done makes it acceptable according to the GA criteria. Citations may still be a little sparse, but that will be remedied soon, and the article itself is well-written and comprehensive. I think it's well on the way to becoming a Featured Article. Once you have the extra citations in place, a Peer Review would make a good next step. The areas I would suggest looking into:

Some of the History subsections are a bit short, especially Three Kingdoms. Can more be said here?
Take a look at WP:MOS and try to ensure everything is in line with it. For example, try to avoid "scare quotes."
A copyedit aimed at removing redundant or unnecessary words might be helpful. The prose is good as is, but it might be possible to make it even better.

Congratulations again, and thanks to you and all of the page's editors for the hard work. Shimeru 23:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not much information on Tao philosophy

The article doesn't give much information on taoist philosophy. How come it state Laozi as teacher of Budhdha? Buddha was born before 560 BC, much before Taoism started and he never went to China and life of Buddha is much better known historically to be relegated to such cynicism. -skant

The article says that some people claimed Laozi taught Buddha. Of course it is unlikely, but it still reflects what people believed long ago.Zeus1234 14:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daojia vs. Daojiao

Every single academic book I have come across says that this division doesn't make any sense. While I think that the division should be mentioned in this article, the splitting of all the sections in Religious and Philosophical parts is silly. I will try and merge these sections together and remove references to religious and philosophical daoism from within.Zeus1234 21:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Initially, one could say that Taoists didn't note a "division", but as Westerners categorized parts of the religion the division was noted. Most writers who disparage the "so-called division" mainly see the later development of religious Taoism as the only "real taoism" a simple glance at the texts shows how broad a range of beliefs were held by those we would now call Taoists. From Lao Tzu (if he existed) to Zhang Daoling (who claimed Lao Tzu appeared to him) Taoism can be seen as a observed philosophical phenomenon or a "revealed religion" but both hold a right to the term "taoism". The various academic texts out there basically agree only in their disagreement, which is quite fitting.

[edit] Posted for delisting on Good Article Review

I've posted to WP:GA/R requesting that Taoism be delisted as a good article. You may seem my post and my reasoning at Wikipedia:Good_article_review#Taoism. I wished to notify those who monitor this article out of courtesy. Vassyana 15:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Taoist doctrine

The Taoism article incorporates now a far better description of the Taoist doctrine than "Taoist doctrine", in other words, it is a clean-cut content fork, which must be eliminated. Actually, the article was split off Taoism in mid-2005, with good intentions, but was forgotten and neglected since then, and instead "Taoism" "restored" this part in itself, and to a much better shape. `'mikka 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the "Taoist doctrine" is completely unreferenced, IMO there is nothing much to merge:

certainly merging the summaries of The Three Jewels, taiji and Wu wei (and some unreferenced speculations about them) is just waste of time.
Further, the section Taoist doctrine#Rituals actually says nothing about rituals, but rather about the ubiquity of Taoism in Chinese culture (again, unattributed musing).
So the only useful piece is Taoist doctrine#Taoist places of worship (merged from Taoist places of worship, so if merged, this redirect must be re-redirected), again, unreferenced.

My first emotion was to nominate it for deletion altogether, but then I thought that probably experts may find something salvageable after all. `'mikka 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As a semi-expert on Taoism, and having edited the Taoism article extensively, I would completely delete the Taoist Doctrine article. There is nothing there that isn't said in the Taoism article, and what is there is completely unreferenced. Even the places of worship section is not worth salvaging into its own article, as it would only be a few lines longZeus1234 01:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lede changes

I have edited the lede to focus on providing an overview of Taoism, providing more details and removing most of the discussion about the difficulty in categorizing the various groups of Taoism. All of the removed material has been moved to a new section. Since other editors have expressed the importance of the controversy over distinction between Taoist sects, I made it the first section of the article. I think these changes let the lede focus more on an overview of Taoism, while still presenting the categorization difficulties at the beginning of the article. Thoughts? Vassyana 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's much, much better. I slightly modified your edit to correct what I perceived to be an error in the categorization paragraph, but other than that, it is good.Zeus1234 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Keep an eye on my edits. You seem to be very familiar with Taoism and any criticisms or corrections are quite welcome. Vassyana 05:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beliefs

I rewrote the beliefs section to better reflect an overview of Taoist beliefs, with subheading structure incluidng main article and more detail links. I moved the section near the top of the article, to present beliefs early on to the reader. I moved the Dedejing discussion present in the original beliefs section to a subsection under the scripture section. Thoughts? Vassyana 06:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, except that you need more references for the sections. One other thing, I think you should move the 'pu' section into the later Daode Jing section. Pu as a concept, at least in my opinion (I had never even heard of it until I saw it here, and had to look it up), is not important enough to merit its own section, and as a concept is only present in the Daode jing, and not in other texts (as far as I know). If you think otherwise please corect me.Zeus1234 13:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised you never came across the "uncarved block" before. It follows the principle-expression form of Taoist thought (yin-yang, wu chi-tai chi, tao-te). Wu wei is the princple, pu (or p'u or p'o) is the expression of it. Literature as diverse as Encyclopedia Brittanica and the Tao of Pooh focus on it. My reasoning is, if the "gold standard" encyclopedia and one of the most popular Western books on Taoism present it as a distinct article and complete chapter (respectively), it's certainly notable enough of a belief to merit its own subsection. Make sense?

On the references, I agree that it needs more citations. I will point out that I am working on that. The old beliefs section, including the Tao Te Ching material, only had one citation. I've worked that up to nine in the current section. I think that's some improvement. ;) I will be adding more references over the next day or so. I will finish referencing the section before I move on to more changes. Vassyana 15:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I trust your judgement. Leave it there if you think it's important.Zeus1234 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recent changes

How do other editors feel about my recent edits to Taoism? Am I moving in the correct direction? Does anyone have any comments or concerns? Vassyana 08:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to verify the section about sriptures that you wrote later today. The source seems iffy to me. Also, you really need to use pinyin for everything but 'Tao teching', 'Taoism' and 'Tao' and 'I ching.' I can convert it for you, but the article needs to be consistent in its romanization, and you are using both systems. Otherwise, it's very good.Zeus1234 12:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I modified the scripture section extensively. I disagree with that source you had about what it considered important texts after looking them up. I kept the one that I thought was important enough to merit inclusion. I also added a section about commentaries to the Daodejing.Zeus1234 01:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good revisions. I particularly like the addition of the information about Tao Te Ching commentaries. Why did you disagree with the source? Did you find other sources that contradicted it? I don't necessarily agree with everything I added/revised. I simply went with the sources, particularly in that instance. (Interestingly, most of the unreferenced material you removed was "left over" from the old version of the section. I was trying to accomodate the previous editors and retain some of previous version.) On the romanisation, I'm not sure it should be consistant throughout. I think it should be case by case and go with whatever system is most predominant in common sources, in relation to the particular word or phrase being used. We should use whatever will be most familiar to a reader and allow for the easiest verification. If a word or title predominantly is used with one particular system, that's what we should with, in my opinion. Of course, as always, you're welcome to some grains of salt with my thoughts. :) Vassyana 02:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't trust that source because it was a textbook, and not written by a specialist. The section about the scriptures that I looked at did not have any context, and I had to search through the index of the Daozang to find what he was describing. While they are not unimportant, IMO, there are far more important texts in the Daozang. As for the romanization issue, Wikipedia recommends using Pinyin at [2]. As someone who has looked at a great deal of recent scholarship on China, nearly everyone uses Pinyin for everything (except in a few special cases like, Taoism, Chiang Kai-Shek, Sun Yat-Sen and Tao te Ching). The only people that seem to use Wade-Giles now are people who are unfamiliar with the topic (i.e. writers of textbooks) or who are virulently anti-PRC. Wade-Giles is a bad system, it doesn't correspond with real-life pronuciation (i.e Dao vs. Tao. It is pornounced Dao). I never use Wade-giles in real life and only use it on Wikipedia when I am writing Tao, Taoism, I Ching or Tao Te Ching. There's my rant. Don't feel like I'm forcing to convert stuff you've written, but I will probably convert it myself.Zeus1234 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think textbooks are a bit more reliable, generally speaking, because they are (usually) based on fairly well-established research/facts. However, I can understand your point in this instance. On the W-G/pinyin issue, I will accodomate WP:MOS-ZH and your concerns. I was just explaining my view of why I did what I did. While MOS-ZH is under development, I think it provides a good guideline. Also, thanks for your active feedback, revisions and copyediting. They are sincerely appreciated and will help improve this article. I'm glad you agree with the general direction of the revisions and rewrites I am doing. However, I'm always open to criticisms, improvement on my work and questions. Please keep them coming! Vassyana 03:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed a whole section about texts that was in the 6 dynasties section. While the informatio was not bad, I don't think it belongs in a section about history. I think that the section about the apocalyptic text would be better served in an expanded form in its own article.Zeus1234 03:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good thought. Vassyana 03:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/o/Talk%7ETaoism_7352.html"