Talk:Temple of Heaven
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Temple of Heaven article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"Wonder of the World"
I feel that Tian Tan does not warrant the "Wonder of the World" tag, and category, as it does not appear as such on any such list I have been able to find. --Shannonr 11:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Changing image to Wikimedia Commons 'TempleofHeaven-HallofPrayer.jpg' due to no copywrite being on the current image, this one is of higher quality and resolution but perhaps a less majestic view.. revert if needed. --Aika 22:44, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
If we added the Manchu name for the Temple of Heaven, which was not even built during the Qing Dynasty, should we also add Mongolian, Tibetan names too? Since they were part of the "multi-ethnic" Qing Dynasty also. Why make it an exception. --220.127.116.11 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Welcome to the discussion, anonymous! You are right, the Temple of Heaven was not built during the Qing. But it was taken over by Qing, which ruled China for almost three hundred years and I wonder why If you type Bécs into Wikipedia, you get redirected to Vienna. If you type Dagö, you get redirected to Hiumaa in Estonia. Mulitlingual countries and empires are not the exception, but the norm. I wonder why adding Manchu names makes you so uncomfortable? --Niohe 22:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
But the Hungarian name "Bécs" is not included in the first paragraphs of Vienna's main article, but the Manchu name for Temple of Heaven is, why is that? I doubt all the places in Austria would have Hungarian names on the first few sentences of their articles. Plus, you can't compare China during Qing Dynasty to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was then split-up into smaller countries and divisions. China on the other hand, isn't, and it has its official language. Perhaps you could also do something similar like the Vienna article, create an template and adding multiple names onto it.--18.104.22.168 22:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is a bit tiresome, but if you want to deitalicize the Manchu name in this article and other articles, that's fine with me. A new template it a good idea, but there are many articles on multi-ethnic empires, some of which makes use of italics for multilingual names (Austria-Hungary) and some of which do not have any templates for multiligual headings like the Hungarian article for Vienna. Please teach how to make one, if that makes you happier. Finally, drawing parallels with other empires like the Austro-Hungarian Empire or with other holy places like Hagia Sofia does not suggest that these entities are identical. And I do think we need to recognize the fact that the Qing Empire was a multi-ethnic empire, just like all its contemporaries. --Niohe 23:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I deitalicized it because it looks "Awkward". The Chinese characters and Pinyins are not italicized, so why should it be italicized? Another thing, the majority of Istanbul's residences speaks Turkish, and the majority of Bejing's residences does not speak Manchu, that is why the Turkish references to Hagia Sophia are important and Manchu references to the Temple of Heaven, the Forbidden City and the various city gates of Beijing are not. Want to created a template, use a webpage design guide (CSS or XSL Transformations). You are the one who wants to add these names. --22.214.171.124 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, as said, similarity does not suggest identity. Smyrna was founded by the Greeks, but has a Turkish majority now, hence multiple names in the Wikipedia entry. The heading looks a bit awkward, why don't you correct that? ;-) Why are Manchu names relevant for Chinese place names and cultural relics? Simply because the Manchus ruled China for hundreds of years and actually gave many of the names that are now considered quintessentially Chinese. The Gate of Supreme Harmony is one of them. After the fall of the Qing, many of these names were removed. By the way, how can you be so sure that the Forbidden City and other relic are identical with their Ming counterpart? Again, the reason we perceive it this way is the fact that teh Forbidden City underwent a re-sinicization after the fall of Qing. Anyway, it's great that we are having a discussion. Thanks for the tip by the way. --Niohe 23:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the Manchu language has plenty of Chinese as well as Mongolian loan-words, that is because before the Manchu conquest of China, they had already underwent tremendous sinicization, just as Jurchens did. Go read the Britannica's entry on Chinese history.--126.96.36.199 23:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- The point being? Not everything in China is derivate of Han Chinese culture; Manchu having plenty of Chinese loanwords doesn't make it less Manchu. The fact that English is full of French loanwords (I counted to six French loanwords in your paragraph above) doesn't mean that the French can claim everything Anglo-Saxon for themselves. Besides, I wouldn't quote Encyclopaedia Brinnatica as the final word on Chinese history. Historians have moved beyond simplistic Sinicizing narratives long ago. If you are curious, please read Edward Rhoads Manchus & Han (Univ of Washington Press, 2000). --Niohe 00:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Without the Normans conquest of England, we wouldn't even be able to speak English today. Old English (Anglo-Saxon) is very different than the contemporary English we are speaking. English in its present form (albeit its Germanic origin) are very much shaped by the French/Romance languages introduced by the Normans. I personally think, because Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, its English version should use sources that are considered legitimate, scholarly as well as authoritative in the English language. Britannica as well as other encyclopedias are probably among the best examples. Individual authors personal research could be found everywhere, but they do not register the same kind of credential a major publications does.--188.8.131.52 01:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Again, I don't exactly get what you want to say with your digression on the origins of modern English, since it seems to support my original point, not yours. As for the book I quoted above, it is in fact a major publication from a respectable academic publishing house. These are the kinds of works you would read when writing or updating Britannica articles and it does not count as original research quoting such works. None of the Manchu "stuff" I have entered is particuarly controversial or even original. All you need to do is to check a Manchu dictionary or a recent work on Chinese history. --Niohe 01:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
My point in the above post is, Yes, the French can claim plenty of stuff to themselves when it concerns modern English, including most of the words we use in the English dictionary, not the other way around. Read your original post. --184.108.40.206 01:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I got that. But what is the implication of your point to the editorial policies of Wikipedia? What I wanted to say is the fact that a given language has plenty of loanwords doesn't necessarily make it less "native" and more "foreign". I would say this holds for both English and Manchu, for instance. --Niohe 01:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not saying Manchu is not its own distinctive language. It obviously is, "native", like English if you want to put it that way, since it belongs to the Altaic linguistic families and Chinese is Sino-Tibetan. On a personal question, if you don't mind me asking, are you Japanese Niohe? It seems like you are quite interested in the Japanese involvement of Manchuria as well as the history of Manchukuo and the people involved in it. Anyway, we'd better end our conversations here or change subjects since none of the discussions is actually about the "Temple of Heaven". Take care. --220.127.116.11 02:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, I don't mind you asking, but I'm not Japanese. I have lived in both China and Japan, and I take great interest in the intricacies of both Chinese and Japanese history. Are you Chinese by any chance? Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion! If you want to continue the chat, please post to my Talk page --Niohe 02:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The article says ""the House of Heavenly Lord is nicknamed the 'Echo Wall' because a person at one end of the wall can hear the voice of a person at the other end of the wall"
I just visited the House of Heavenly Lord, and despite the many people yelling and clapping towards the wall, I could not figure out where it would make sense to try the phenomenon . It is not clear what end means, since it is a circle with one entrance and 3 buildings in the middle. I can only think of an elipse and its two foci as notable in this respect. This might be a myth and a chance to dispel it, or a chance to be more informative. Andy Rosa 01:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Ends" refer to the parts of the wall nearest the main gate. These days, these are the only parts accessible to anyone trying the echo since there is a fence going around the rest of the wall preventing you from going right up to the wall.
- From experience - yes, it does work. two people standing on either side of the gate speaking into the wall hear each other as if they were next to each other.--Sumple (Talk) 02:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What rituals were practiced?
For such an important and central location as the Temple of Heaven in China, it is amazing how little information there is on the rituals and beliefs relating to the site. There is obviously something missing. Where are the books or texts which describe the rituals that were practiced there? If this is a major site of Chinese religion, where is a description of what took place there? What religion was practiced there? Details? Links? Sources?
- The actual practices are not actually related to a religion, as one may say, but rituals done to honor the heavens (by the emperor,) hence its name. The rituals are quite simple. Kneeling, bowing, and burning incense (amongst other common actions of respect) are done. This temple was made because of the Chinese belief of the "mandate of heaven." In terms of Chinese history, it, and its affiliated beliefs, is not actually a religion, but more like a respect given, like one given to parents. This could be said to derive from Taoism and Confucianism, which are actually not religions, but more of moral guidelines or philosophies. Akira2 (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I translated the relevant content from Chinese Wikipedia zh:天坛. On the website of the Tiantan Park, I found more materials so I added a footnote there. However I feel that further verification is needed. Can anyone find more citations for this part? Waltigs (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)