Talk:Chinese ritual mastery traditions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Faism)
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
Is "Faism" a term invented for this article?
In checking the sources for this article which were available to me I could not find the term "Faism" in any English language study:
- 府城普唵法教法師儀式之研究 : 以台南和玄堂為例 = On ritual of Pu-An Fa-Jiao(普唵法教): the case study of Hexuan Taoist Altar in Tainan / WorldCat and 法教與民俗信仰學術研討會論文集 are in Chinese -- do they give "Faism" as a translation?
- Note 6 is mistaken: jiao (Sannai jiao) Encyclopedia of Contemporary Chinese Cultureis quoted as the source for 閭山法教 Lushan fajiao but in fact gives 閭山教 Lushan jiao. The article adds the character 法, which changes the meaning of the term.
- Note 7 for "Pu'an faism" Encyclopedia of Contemporary Culture Pu'an jiao does not mention Pu'an faism.
- Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Chinese Religions found no results for Faism.
- China: A Religious State found no results for Faism.
- Pas Historical Dictionary of Faism found no results for Faism.
- The external link is dead
- Google Search “Faism” found only the Wikipedia article and “What is Chinese Faism? - Yahoo Answers,” which actually means “Chinese Fascism”
So I'd be happy if someone could point out an English language source for this term!
- The main source that I have used for the title of the article is the academic publication of the Folk Religion Society of Taiwan "Faism and Folk Religion", which is the official translation in English of the title of the Chinese publication. Since the topic has not been covered in Western academia (as a separate phenomenon of Chinese religion), I think the Chinese source is a good starting point. Moreover, I don't see the reason for the many tags "not in citation given", as I have re-examined the sources and the informations expressed are indeed in them.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- You haven't found "Faism" in those books because they talk about "fashi" or "Redhead Taoists". China: A Religious State, Wiley-Blackwell Chinese Religions, Historical Dictionary of Taoism. Maybe I am too flexible, but I don't see any problem in the use of a source that discusses the same topic of the article even though it uses a slightly different terminology, especially in the case this difference in terminology is explained in the lede.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have expanded the article and the definition of the phenomenon of the fashi. I am unsure if keep "Faism" as the article's title, or move it to "Chinese ritual mastery traditions" or similar, which is broader, less restrictive, than "Faism".--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Aethelwolf Emsworth, for your thoughtful and detailed reply, which helps me to see what you had in mind even though it does not answer all my questions. We could discuss whether the terminology is "slightly different" between, for instance, "閭山法教 Lushan fajiao and 閭山教 Lushan jiao," which seem to me to be very different.
- Another reason to object to Faism as a translation of 法教 is that most readers who are familiar with Chinese thought will assume (as I did at first) that it is somehow connected to Legalism 法家.
- In any case, the article should fit WP:English and WP:COMMONNAME, which your citation of a translation of one article in Chinese does not meet.
- But it would be fine if you moved the article to "Chinese ritual mastery traditions" or similar and removed the references to "Faism" in the linked articles.
- All the best! ch (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- When I discussed "slightly different terminology" I didn't refer to names of the Lushan school, but to the alternatives "Faism", "fashi", "Redhead Taoists" et al. which refer to the same phenomenon of Chinese religion (i.e. ritual masters). Regarding the Lushan school's name in Chinese, if I inserted both the names 閭山法教 and 閭山教 it is for a good reason. "閭山法教" is used online and searching for it gives many results that are clearly pertinent to the topic.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)