Talk:Daoism–Taoism romanization issue

Writing systems Redirect‑class Low‑importance

	Writing portal This redirect falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taoism (inactive)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Taoism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaoismWikipedia:WikiProject TaoismTemplate:WikiProject TaoismTaoism articles

China Redirect‑class

	China portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Daoism–Taoism romanization issue redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Pointless

this is a rather ridiculous page. Maybe it could be deleted? The "issue" is just a matter of which romanization system is used. The problem of interpretation results in English speakers not knowing the systems and using an English spelling pronunciation. Also the phonetics of word-initial voiced stops are not so accurate (as Angr above mentions). – ishwar (speak) 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an outgrowth of several-year-old arguments here on Wikipedia. I suggest we merge any material worth keeping with Romanization and either delete this or make it a redirect. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong, but I don't see any reasons to merge, excluding individual disinterest in the topic. This article meets inclusion criteria, and seems linguistically, sinologically, and lexicographically informative. In addition, as Bradeos Graphon mentions, there are in-house Wikipedia reasons (note the numerous internal links) not to merge. Since the internal arguments over Daoism/Taoism and Daode jing/Tao Te Ching are ongoing, new and future editors (for instance) will continue needing this article. Could we find someone expert in phonological terminology to correct the inaccuracies about voiced/voiceless stops? Best wishes. Keahapana (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and question

Kawmi鏡, thank you for fixing the IPA formatting. On earlier versions of this article, I used [t̥aʊ] instead of [t⁼aʊ] for the voiceless unaspirated Chinese 道, but now I'm confused whether it should be [taʊ], [t⁼aʊ], or [t̥⁼aʊ]. Which is correct? Keahapana (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good article but technical

I found that the article was written very well with plenty of footnotes. In keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines, there is no original research and the tone is not polemic. I don't understand why the article was flagged at the top for being written like a "magazine" article. The accusation itself is odd--magazine pieces are not necessarily biased. They can run the gamut from opinion to factual. Maybe the critic means that it is written like an opinion piece? But this isn't the case; I don't really detect a bias. The only criticism I have is it is a bit pedantic but given the pointless stuff people write about (Texas Longhorns, etc), this seems like a worthwhile article. Ian Johnson (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]