Talk:Taoism

This is Wrong

on so many levels there are so many things in this article thar are just western romanticism or communist propaganda from China in the 20s when they began invading and destroying temples. 2601:2C1:8580:1160:C4DB:BAEF:B425:4AE6 (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KawhiKawayi (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by KawhiKawayi (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent spelling throughout

This article currently has 546 occurrences of words beginning 'Tao' and 362 beginning 'Dao', which is inconsistent to put it mildly. Having read the discussion above re pronunciation, shouldn't they all be Dao, apart from a few specific cases? Masato.harada (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No, the consensus in this article has been "Tao". There are some inconsistencies, but some instances of "Dao" may be in quotes, which shouldn't be changed. Remsense留 02:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're interchangeable. 76.145.181.225 (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Taoism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This article has been expanded a lot in the past year with a lot of useful information, but also a lot of fancruft, a lot of messy inconsistent style usage, and ultimately all this information in presented in subpar prose that does very little to actually inform the average reader. tens of hours would likely be required to get this back to a GA status. I might even start with a revert to a previous version of the article and readd information as justified, but I don't have the time for that right now. Remsense留 15:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delist A few notes: The "Scriptures" section has been vastly expanded into the current "Texts" section. A lot of this expansion is written in a way that does not provide a clear understanding of the significance or relationship between the texts mentioned. Some of them seem irrelevant just based on the article's own writing. The "Chinese classics" subsection begins "Taoism draws on numerous Chinese classics that are not themselves "Taoist" texts but that remain important sources for Taoists." and ends with an embedded list of seemingly non-Taoist writing.

A brief note from old GA version about pronunciation (The character Tao 道 (or Dao, depending on the romanisation scheme)) has been expanded into an entire section that is not clear and seems to indicate the pronunciation provided on the first line of the article is incorrect.

I started looking at the "Classification" section initially because of prose issues. The two bullets about translation would be so much clearer if they began with the words "dàojiào" and "dàojiā", rather than phrasing like "Firstly, a term encompassing a family of". I checked the first source online[1] and I don't see those quotes ("religion proper", "the teachings of the Tao") within the cited text. Also, that first cited text really deemphasizes the division noted in the Wikipedia article (The same quandary surrounds the related issue of daojia versus daojiao, the two terms to which the first entries in this book are devoted. Even though the origins of these terms may lie in mere bibliographic categories, Taoists have sometimes used them interchangeably to denote what we call “Taoism,” and sometimes separately to distinguish the teachings of the Daode jing (and a few other works including the Zhuangzi) from “all the rest.” While these terms do not seem to have raised major issues at any time in the history of Taoism, the questions that they have generated in the scholarly realm are largely products of their early flawed translation, or rather interpretation, as “philosophical Taoism” and “religious Taoism,” respectively. Based on the way of seeing outlined above, Taoism is not exactly either a philosophy or a religion, but rather a set of consistent doctrinal notions that have taken many forms and given rise to a large variety of individual and collective practices throughout the history of the tradition.) That division is highlighted again in the next prose section, "The distinction between Taoist philosophy and Taoist religion is an ancient, deeply-rooted one." and again cited to a source that does not seem to put weight on it (‘Taoism’ encompasses thought and practice as a ‘philosophy’, ‘religion’, or a combination of both.[2]). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you think it may be viable to revert the article to an early 2023 revision? Remsense留 06:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I pulled up the first version from 2023[3] and checked to see how the issues I noted looked a year ago:

• Chinese classics: This is just the I Ching at this point and the connection to Taoism is more clear.
• Classification/Categorization: More of an issue than the prose, is that the dichotomy expressed in the article wasn't backed up by the sources. I think that religion v. philosophy view is even more present here.

I wouldn't say that a revert to this version would fix all the issues, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Rjjiii, would it be a good start, in your mind? One that would turn this from probably just delisting, to a project that one or two people (including me, likely) could tackle to keep that from happening? Remsense留 06:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It'll depend on the section. Reverting Chinese classics back to I Ching resolves the "fancruft" issue there. The classification section had problems with writing against its cited sources earlier than 2023.[4] Good luck with the article, and if you ping me as you make progress, I'll strike my notes above, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii and Remsense: so what is the best course of action: delisting, restoring an earlier version, or both? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Remsense, is there a specific version that you find still meets the criteria? If you link to one, I'll take a look and respond back here. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, Rjjiii, I won't be able to look at this until Thursday, my apologies for starting something and not being able to finish it promptly. If someone else wants to take action in that time, it's within their right to do so. — Remsense诉 02:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries, take your time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, I am back—apologies. I will provide a substantive assessment shortly. — Remsense诉 00:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay! I think I have a plan.

1. Splitting. Taoist ethics, and maybe Taoist schools and Taoist texts should be their own articles, which should be related summary-style in this article. §History is far too in-depth—shuffle to History of Taoism, and summary-style further. I think if any glossary page on the site is justified, we should have a Glossary of Taoism.
2. Partial reversion (反) – with the early 2023 revision as a baseline, this can now be done section-by-section.
3. At that point, we can start to tackle some of the (I would say perennial) issues with clarity and definitions brought up by @Rjjiii.

— Remsense诉 23:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delist - there are too many problems with this article in its current state; it's too long, devotes too much attention to certain areas at the expense of others, has inconsistent referencing styles, includes un-cited material etc. It isn't Good Article quality. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revert

As I've just said in the GAR, tens of hours of work would be required to get this article back to what I would see as GA status. However, I think it may be far easier to start with a mass revert to the state of the article a year ago. Unfortunately, this would undo a lot of the worthwhile work by Javierfv1212 in particular, which would need to be reintegrated as appropriate. If this is agreed, I would be happy to do this work myself. I don't like suggesting this, but I wouldn't if I didn't think it wasn't the easiest and fastest way to save this article. Remsense留 15:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Taoism vs Daoism: "Taoism" is an historical "mispronunciation"

Michael Carr’s article, "Whence the Pronunciation of 'Taoism,'" in the note refers to the “mispronunciation with [t]” which it blames on “the Wade-Giles <t> romanization of the unvoiced unaspirated Chinese <t> in dào [tau].” (p. 58) Wade-Giles uses apostrophes to indicate aspiration, which “no uninitiated English-speaking person could guess how to pronounce.” He gives a precise explanation of differences but says the Chinese is nearer to “Dow.” (60)

He concludes: ”Because the clumsy Wade-Giles system became the standard Chinese romanization, “Tao” was misread as [tau], and this mistake spread into English borrowings from Chinese.” (p. 62) The note refers to Table 3, "Pronunciations of Taoism in British Dictionaries,” and Table 4 for American ones, but not as authority for correct pronunciation but as evidence of how widely this mistake has spread. Carr is writing in Dictionaries, a journal for specialists, and among his conclusions is that “a thorough purging of Wades-Gilesian misreadings is overdue.” (p. 68)

BTW, Carr's article is industrial strength, as Table I shows 17 historical dialectical pronunciations in 7 Chinese dialects.

Sometime when I have a decade to spare I will propose correcting Wikipedia usage. ch (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what precise point is being made here: do you want to characterize [tʰ] as a mispronunciation? I don't see any general justification for that: "Taoism" isn't a Chinese word, it's an English one, and words adapt to the phonetic inventories of the languages they're in. Most English words would never be realized with an unaspirated [t] at the onset anyhow. Remsense留 22:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, you are right that we say "Rome," not "Roma," and "Moscow," not "Moskva," and often "Chiang Kai-shek," not "Jiang Jieshi," though the usage is more and more to pinyin place-names, such as Guangzhou, not Canton. I just wanted to give more details here than I think the article needs in order to explain to more sophisticated editors such as you why I made the edit. Also Carr's article is a pretty thorough attack on "Taoism," so I thought it was relevant. If you are the one who found it, we are endebted to you.ch (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)