Talk:Taoism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been proposed below that Taoism be renamed and moved to Daoism.

The proposed move should have been noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Discussion to support or oppose the move should be on this talk page, usually under the heading "Requested move". If, after a few days, a clear consensus for the page move is reached, please move the article and remove this notice, or request further assistance.

Maintenance use only: Add to WP:RM {{subst:RMlink|Taoism|Daoism|REASON|section={{{section}}}}}
Good article Taoism has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles 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 reassessment.
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.
Good article GA 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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Archives:

  • 1 (through May 2004)
  • 2 (May 2004 - July 2005)
  • 3 (August 2005 - December 2005)

Contents

[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

A black man scorn chinese culture very seriously. They also scorn chinese people and hate chinese. They live in california sillicon valley east bay. One of them is Darrot Bagget who is extremely scorn chinese. Including Daoist they hate. They have kong-fu and black magic. I don't know where they from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.172.103.3 (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[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:

  1. "wisdom" is both vague and PoV;
  2. what ground is there for the claim that "Taoism" is used to refer to "practitioners in the past"?
  3. the explanation of what "tao" means is much too simple, and shouldn't be presented as uncontroversial;
  4. the claim about Shinto having its origins in Taoism is false; Shinto borrowed from Taoism, as it borrowed from other traditions;
  5. what are the other "many offshoots"?
  6. 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;
  7. the last paragraph is obscurely worded, but (as per Sunray) comparisons with Christianity are best avoided, especially in the summary.
  8. 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)
I concur. As of today, Taoism is by far the more common spelling. --lk (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. "Daoism" is the pinyin romanization of the word, and the correct pronunciation is not with a hard 't'. For the same reason that the Wikipedia article on "qi" is not spelt "chi", we should redirect to Daoism. zaiken 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, about the argument of qi vs chi, there's a couple issues with that example:
  1. The spelling chi is actually a misspelling of the Wade-Giles Romanization of 氣/气, which should nominally be written ch'i, with an apostrophe.
  2. The actual page of qi is preferred over chi because of the sheer number of other pages called Chi; the Greek letter, for instance.
As to the confusing nature of the Tao spelling, again you can argue for Wade-Giles; without the apostrophe, it's supposed to be pronounced the same as Dao in Pinyin. No Romanization system is perfect. I say go with what most people searching the English-language Wikipedia seem to prefer, or what most of the sources use. A short article or small section in this article saying that "Daoism" and "Taoism" are one and the same, and why, would be much more beneficial, and then include a hatnote at the top of the article summarizing as such? My $0.02... Mendaliv (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I checked out the requested moves page, but according to that page's description this is not an appropriate discussion for the page. If we can reach a consensus here, we can proceed accordingly. zaiken 21:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
My $0.02 would be to go with Daoism, with a note at the top like Mendaliv suggested to explain that it is the same as "Taoism". Pinyin is the most common Romanization system, and the pronunciation is more instinctual for English speakers. Furthermore, since the adoption of pinyin, "Daoism" has been becoming more and more commonly used. Shimawa zen (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm strongly in favour of a switch to Daoism.Zeus1234 (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that it's time to propose changing "Taoism" to "Daoism" on Requested Moves. However, this involves interpreting two conflicting WP rules: the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) convention is to "use pinyin not Wade-Giles" versus the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is to "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Here's an example of editorial discussion about moving "Lao Tzu" to "Laozi". Keahapana (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2008 (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:

Keahapana 01:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like a formal discussion of links to be added. This is to prevent abuse since this is the major taoism article and would like it cleaned up. I do have issues with the 3 links that already added and believe an editor with better skills will find replacements. the second and third link provides translated text but it's also crossposted in the sub articles of the taoism articles which also have better links.

  • First Link - This appears more to be an article. A well written one with good footnotes and references but I don't particularly see anything notable or meritable that isn't already included in this article. If anything it may or should be incorporated with the main article with a reference link.
  • Second Link - sacred-texts.com is listed in a few articles but I'm generally not happy with the google ads and the fact they are selling a cd. If someone can find a better link it would be better in general for this article.
  • Third Link - This looks to be personal webpage. The longevity is questionable. The problem is doubled because it has duplicate data that is found in the tao article (taoist canon links).

StopTaoSpam (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2007 (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 http://ezinearticles com/?What-is-Human?---All-About-Heaven!&id=75572 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:

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)

It seems that there is a consensus that the Taoism doctrine article should disappear, since almost all of its content is presently contained in the Taoism article. Since the merge tag has been up for at least three weeks, I think we should eliminate Taoist doctrine, create a redirect from it to this article and remove the merge tag. I will do that. Sunray 01:42, 17 April 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 [1]. 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)

[edit] Brokeness

Somebody broke the page, as this ain't right:

===Tao===

Main article: Tao

of Tao. Tao is compared to what it is not, like the negative theology of Western scholars.[1] It is often considered to be the source of both existence and non-existence "non action" (wu wei), emptiness (refinement), detachment, the strength of softness (or flexibility), and in the Zhuangzi such as receptiveness, spontaneity, the relativism of human ways re, due to a belief that nature demonstrates the Tao.[2] The flow of qi, as the essential energy of action and existence, compared to the universal order re are certain core beliefs that all the schools share.[3] ===Principles===of life, ways of speaking and guiding behavior.[4]<

  • first sentence starts in the middle
  • trailing angle bracket
  • "re are"
  • embedded heading

etc. --Belg4mit 23:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.Zeus1234 00:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review results

This article was Kept as a Good article by default because of a 1-1 result of no consensus, the discussion can be viewed at the now archived Good article review. IvoShandor 13:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronological Disorder

The subsection titled "Yuan Dynasty (1279–1367)" currently contains the following line: "While Taoism suffered a significant setback in 1281 when all copies of the Daozang were ordered burned, this holocaust gave Taoism a chance to renew itself. (...) One of its leaders, Qiu Chuji became a teacher of Genghis Khan..." Clearly this is misleading, as Genghis Khan was long dead by 1279, let along 1281. Dorfl 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed this part. Qiu Chugi was an advisor to Genghis before the establishment of the Yuan Dynasty.Zeus1234 16:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taoism one religion?

Is Taoism one religion; or rather a group of them? I’m confused. Angel2001 08:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a more a group of philosophical and religious movements that share certain core values.Zeus1234 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taoist God???

Do followers of the Taoist religion have several God's; or one, or none at all??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angel2001 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Like you I'm new to Taoism. I'm under the impression that all three of the above are correct, depending upon the individual Taoist. It's my understanding that the Taoism which involves temples and priests has various divinities, e.g. Kwan Yin. See [2] One thing is certain and that is that the eternal, nameless Tao is not an anthropomorphism. I have read several descriptions of Tao and have found Ellen M. Chen's to be the best: Chen, Ellen M. The Tao Te Ching: A New Translation with Commentary. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 1989. ISBN 1-55778-238-5. "Tao is the everlasting rhythem of life -- the unity of the polarity of non-being and being." (p. 52). Here is her translation of chapter 1:
    1. Tao that can be spoken of,
       Is not the Everlasting Tao.
       Name that can be named,
       Is not the Everlasting name.

    2. Nameless, the origin of heaven and earth;
       Named the mother of ten thousand things.

    3. Therefore, always without desire,
       In order to observe the hidden mystery;
       Always with desire,
       In order to observe the manifestations.

    4. These two issue from the same origin,
       Though named differently.
       Both are called the dark.
       Dark and even darker,
       The door to all hidden mysteries. (p. 51).
The book begins with a scholarly introduction, and Chen's commentary follows each chapter of the Tao Te Ching. There is also a comprehensive bibliography, Chinese glossary, and index. Everyone working on this article would benefit by reading this book. I bought mine from Amazon based upon its five-star reader reviews.--Nonpareils 05:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polytheism?

"Most traditional Chinese Taoists are polytheistic. Nature and ancestor spirits are common in popular Taoism." These two sentences contradict eachother. The beliefs described in the second sentence are more closely related to animism. Also, the world "shamanism" used later in the paragraph supports the use of the term "Animism" rather than "polytheism." I'm going to change it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JustinInSpace (talk • contribs) 14:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Animism and polytheism are not mutually exclusive. Shamanism is not dependent upon animism. Additionally, syncretism is widespread to the point of common condition in Asia, blurring traditional distinctions of theology and philosophy from a Western perspective. I have mildly altered the language to reflect that most English-speaking readers expect a distinction. Vassyana 20:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I see, one of the main reasons I wanted to change it was because Taoism's "Pantheon" is far different than the Western ideas of polytheism (i.e. Greek, Norse and Egytian mythology.) I'll have to look up syncretism, I admit. Thank you for your thoughts though.

[edit] Big change

I have split the history section from the main article. It is now located at History of Taoism. It is generally well-referenced and has plenty of room for expansion. The main Taoism article was long and needed to be pared down. No information has been lost. Due to the wide availability of sources, notability and already existing structure & referencing, the history material is suitable for a separate article. I have left a summary style section in this main article with a standard main article link. Cheers!

[edit] Muddy Thinking and Vague Language

This article needs to be re-researched and rewritten. There is much too much secondary source material by Westerners, some of which is flat out "New Age." There is a big distinction between religious Taoism (Taochiao) and philosophical Taoism (Taochia). Religious Taoism is well organized, has several sects, is China's indigenous religion, originated during the Han Dynasty, and is now international. There is a Taoist temple in Chicago. Philosophical Taoism is much older. It survives in the form of a few texts written in a very old style of Chinese. The meanings of Chinese characters have changed over the millenia. Thus, these texts are difficult to translate even for scholars who are native speakers. In any case, whoever writes the article needs to have a good grounding in these works in order to discuss both Taochia and Taochiao. The Tao Te Ching and the works of Chuang Tzu are especially important. The writer also needs to be able to distinguish between serious, well researched, professional scholarship; works written for a popular readership; and what amounts to head-tripping, for example the so-called translation of the Tao Te Ching on the Jade Purity website. The Taoist Culture and Information Centre (Hong Kong) website is difficult to navigate but well worth the trouble. It has everything you could ever want to know about religious Taoism, and it is the work of religious Taoists. The article should use both the Wade-Giles and Pin Yin methods of transliteration because virtually all the scholarship twenty to twenty-five years old uses Wade-Giles. A great deal of this work has not been superseded by later scholars. Moreover, Wade-Giles continues to be used in Taiwan, which has the largest population of religious Taoists in the world. (In case you're wondering, I am not one of them.) Nonpareils 12:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Much of the article is already referenced using academic sources. I am also not a fan of the 'new-age' Daoist stuff, and firmly believe that it is not reliable information. Unfortunately I completely disagree on your point about Wade-giles transliteration. While it may have been used 25 years ago, it is increasingly irrelavent today, even in Taiwan, where Tongyong Pinyin is becoming more widely used. Nearly every new academic text about Daoism uses Pinyin, and the last Wade-Giles texts were published about 10 years ago. It has no place in this article. Zeus1234 13:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You must also differentiate between Western new-age material and western academic material. There is nothing wrong with using anything from a university publisher or an academic publisher, such as Routledge. These provide reliable information about Daoism. I also disagree with your assertion that there is a difference between Daojia and Daojiao. Most recent scholars disagree (see for example Robinet) with this distinction, which was created in the early part of the 20th century due to misunderstanding about Daoism. Zeus1234 13:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meditation Barely Mentioned

Seeing as I'm almost completely sure that meditation is one of the primary aspects of Taoist practise, I'm totally baffled as to why the only mention of the word is when linking to someone's book, a book about Taoist Meditation. Will come back over the next day or two with something short to add to the practices section, if no-one beats me to it. TeNova 11:15, 24 June 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Atman Central Asian concept?

The article says that atman/dharma is a "central asian" concept. Shouldn't it be south asian? Amit 12:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs cleaning

About the 50% of this article is about Chinese folk religion & mythology. Taoism is not a polytheistic religion, but it's pantheistic. It has not a pantheon of deities. Saints, dragons, xians, bai bai and traditional festivals such as the Lunar New Year are part of Chinese folk religion (xian (immortality) in Taoism is just an eschatological concept).

Taoist theology has few concepts: Tao, De (the activity of Tao that emanates the cosmos) and the Three Purities (the three main manifestations of the Tao).


[edit] Wu wei?

Taoism, more specifically Wu wei doesn't nessecarily mean inaction, but instead to be happy in whatever you do. Don't avoid doing the dishes, rather try to find the upside in doing them. A refference to Pollyanna also seems to make sense even though the character wasn't really a Taoist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.137.30 (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tao can not be described.

I'm asking permission from the members of this Wikiproject, may I incorporate the first verse of the Tao Te Ching into the section "Tao?" Tao is admittedly indescribable and this should be reflected in this article.--ॐJesucristo301 11:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Also, Verse 32, "The Tao is forever undefined"
  • Verse 4, "Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things!"
  • Verse 21, "The Tao is elusive and intangible."
  • Verse 35, "..but a description of the Tao seems without substance or flavor. It cannot be seen, it cannot be heard, and yet it cannot be exhausted."
  • Verse 41, "The Tao is hidden and without name."
  • Verse 78, "The truth often sounds paradoxical."
Seems like a recurring theme to me. It should probably be mentioned in the beginning that the main text of Taoism defines the Tao as undefinable. --Calibas (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taoism in China

I honestly find it hard to believe that

there are restrictions on the practice in China, Taoism is not

a harmful religion. There's a state-influenced body called the Chinese Taoist Association, I've heard its both run by the people and run by the state but I just find it hard that China's government would feel the need to monitor and interfere with Taoism...? I've found good points from the Daodejing Ch.57 With natural justice, people must be ruled The greater the number of laws and restrictions,the poorer the people who inhabit the land.The sharper the weapons of battle and war,the greater the troubles besetting the land.The greater the cunning with which people are ruled,the stranger the things which occur in the land. The harder the rules and regulations,the greater the number of those who will steal. The sage therefore does not contrive,in order to bring about reform, but teaches the people peace of mind, in order that they might enjoy their lives. Having no desires, all he does is natural. Since he teaches self-sufficiency, the people who follow him return to a good, uncomplicated life. Ch.30When leading by the way of the Tao,abominate the use of force,for it causes resistance, and loss of strength,showing the Tao has not been followed well. Achieve results but not through violence, for it is against the natural way,(All from Stan Rosenthal's Tao Te Ching) I realise that the Chinese government is atheist by law but I honestly wonder how Taoist priests can be trained when the government still interferes in religion..? Wouldn't Taoist priests do better to get trained in Taiwan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domsta333 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In China there is freedom of religion and Taoism is followed by roughly 400 million people. --Esimal 22:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Inconsistent spelling

I've noticed that the spelling of Tao or Dao is not consistent in the article. Can we make sure to stick to Tao, Taoism and Taoist or Dao, Daoism and Daoist throught the entire article? --lk (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to change the spelling to be consistent. Zeus1234 (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Souyuan?!?!?

This article looks quite different from what I have seen a few months back and with questionable information, particularly the part about Souyuan. I am a Taoist and I have never heard of that… there isn’t even a creditable reference to it… as far as I know Taoism didn’t really have an establish Eschatology… Bio-capsule (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That speaks more of the Taoist that you are than the Souyuan in Taoism, happy to discuss further. ACHKC (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revised Intro

I am trying to give Taoism is more holistic intro that does not centre scholars' views on Daojiao or Daojia, which does not give any reader a better view of what it is, other than an ongoing debate. ACHKC (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article should center on scholarly views of Taoism. Popular, traditionalist and minority views should also be described, but only as they are reported in reputable sources. Vassyana (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi ACHKC, I see that you've been editing articles related to Daoism, but frequently without providing reliable published references. Are you aware of these basic WP policies on content?
Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There is also WP:TRUTH. We aren't a how to guide to give people a glimpse of any editor's experience of "real" Taoism. The scholarly attestation is an absolutely necessary component to our articles, without it, there is no way to successfully challenge the removal of material that isn't reliably, verifiably sourced. I've studied with amazing Taoists and Buddhists from and in China for years, the stuff I could write would fill page after page, but none of it is suitable for Wikipedia. I still occasionally find (and remove) such content I put in years ago when I was a new and enthusiastic editor. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It isn’t just editing Taoism related article… he have created several articles without creditable reference and citation, usually from the same links. I admit my knowledge in Taoism is limited but after reading some of them, the most he can claim is that those are the beliefs of a subset within the religious Taoism category. Questionable article include Xuanxuan Shangren and Five Supremes, can someone more knowledgeable verify them? I am new to Wikipedia so I am not familiar with the process… :) Bio-capsule (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation vs "also called"

I've just reverted an edit that changed: "Taoism (pronounced Daoism)" to: "Taoism (also called Daoism)". I believe the original reading is preferable. To my knowledge, this IS a matter of correct pronunciation, not merely an alternative label. Obviously, the transliteration can produce a variety of spellings from Chinese to English, but regardless of how it is spelled, the pronunciation is fairly uniform and is the point of the original rendition. If anyone disagrees with this, I'm interested in your perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaelith 2112 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, my initial contention was that it's simply a matter of different transliterations, and that "Taoism" would uniformly be pronounced with a /t/, and "Daoism" would uniformly be pronounced with a /d/. Nonetheless, dictionary.com and m-w.com do support the idea that "Taoism" can be pronounced with either a /d/ or a /t/. So the article should make it clear that there are two alternate pronunciations, and that there are two alternate spellings (something which the earlier version doesn't make clear), and that they don't necessarily overlap. I'll make a compromise edit and see what you think. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revised intro

May I invite your comments on the following revised intro:

Taoism (often written as Daoism) is a school of thought called Daojia, or Daomen meaning the family or door of Tao, based principally on the teachings of Tao Te Ching by Laozi. Daojiao was a term historically used by scholars to differentiate Taoism as an organized religion or in comparison with other religious schools. Fundamental to the cosmogony and the teleology of Taoism, the underpinning concepts behind the creation of beings and the finality of all creation, posit Tao loosely as the order of the universe. Intellectually Tao is also the primordial state of non-being before the universe, as in Wuji. Tao, for the lack of a simpler definition, is an abstraction of the ultimate truth and the intrinsic finality to all humanity.
From Tao a very elaborate cosmology from the personified Xuanxuan Shangren to the Three Pure Ones and the Five Supremes, who counsel the machination of a heaven made up by a pantheon of earthly deities. From the Jade Emperor who rule the three realms, hell or Diyu is the netherworld in the eschatology of Taoism in which the wrongdoers are incarcerated until absolution. The realm of the living is part purgatory as liudu lunhui and part testing ground where the undecided, unpurified or those with lesser karma live or ‘serve’ out their terms of incarnations in six-incarnate types before a state of absolution. The collective absolution for humanity is called Souyuan a process similar to the Judgment Day.
Various interpretations of the central text Tao Te Ching give rise to different understandings of what Taoism is about indeed about what it advocates. Generally the interpreted views include propriety and ethics like the Three Jewels of the Tao: compassion, moderation, and humility and on wu wei (non-action), spontaneity, transformation and emptiness/omnipotence. Other view like the search for immortality by way of Xiuzhen and Xiushen as the tool to better the deeds and fate of the adherents, and to attain transcendence of humanity has been much less documented, and usually with strong bias. This view has been well documented in many other Taoist texts but without formal or scholastic recognition.
An integral part within Taoism is the definition of folk-religion or folk beliefs where adherents adopted the Taoist value-system and the deity-overlord beliefs without attributing or recognizing the philosophy of the Tao Te Ching and other Taoist texts, commonly interpreted scholastically as only forms of ancester worship or superstitious cultural activities. This along with the division of Taoism into elite practitioners or the philosophical aspect, is a taxonomy template generally applicable to comparative study of organized religion. Taoists do not historically view Daojia and the teachings of Laozi as a religion. Daojia, Daomen or Taoism to the Taoists was, and has been a way of life and a way to understand the world. ACHKC (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
We can all agree that the lead needs improvement, but I'm afraid I can't find any in these suggested edits. Many are irrelevant topics (e.g., teleology, eschatology, and intrinsic finality) or articles that you've started (Wuji, Xuanxuan Shangren, Diyu, Souyuan, Xiuzhen, and Xiushen), none of which the present Taoism article mentions. Please read Wikipedia:Lead section and try again. Keahapana (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

I think it's time to propose a move to Daoism. While in the past, the Wade-Giles spelling of 'Taoism' had undoubtedly been more popular, the pinyin spelling 'Daoism' has recently begun to be more widely used than in the past. Wikipedia has conflicting policies on the use the spelling 'Taoism'. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) convention is to "use pinyin not Wade-Giles" However, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is to "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." The first guideline is clear on the preference for pinyin, but the second is up to interpretation. I am strongly in favour of changing the article name, mostly because it better reflects the correct pronunciation of 道 (dao). Pinyin is already used for almost every other loan word for Chinese, why not for Daoism? Zeus1234 (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Because "Taoism" is probably more familiar and I really don't think it matters in this case which spelling is used. "Correct" pronunciation is, in my opinion, irrelevant for several reasons. First, "taoism"/"daoism" isn't a Chinese word. Second, next to nobody is going to pronounce it the Chinese way regardless of how it's spelled. Third, the "tao" and "taoism" are not innately Chinese things (in my opinion). Mao Zedong/Tse-tung is innately Chinese. Beijing is innately Chinese. Taoism has its origins in a China of long ago, where the language wasn't modern Chinese anyway, and it has since spread to many places. Even C. S. Lewis used a concept he called the "Tao" in The Abolition of Man. Srnec (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Srnec is right that "correct" pronunciation is largely irrelevant and, even if it's not, using pinyin is always a way to guarantee it (think Xizang Zizhiqu to the uninitiated). (Plus, 道 is not really pronounced "tao" or "dao" in Mandarin Chinese; "Dao" just happens to sound closer to /tɑʊ˥˩/.) Instead, the focus should be on English usage, especially more recent and canonical works. In other realms, usage has moved precipitously towards pinyin and away from Wade-Giles. But certain terms that are either widely used in English popular parlance (e.g., kung fu) or have been co-opted by New Age practitioners in the West (e.g. I Ching, Tai chi chuan) have resisted this trend. I think that more attention should be paid to scholarly tracts dealing with Daoism than with popular literature but, if the pop works like The Tao of Pooh overwhelmingly favor the older Wade spelling, that should offset what the experts prefer. — AjaxSmack 01:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Having discussed Chinese subjects with monoglot anglophones, I can attest that the last thing pinyin does is indicate correct pronunciation. Has Ajax left out a not? (I'm quite serious; read closely.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did. (Brain/keyboard propagation delay, I guess.) Corrected. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 02:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Pinyin is sometimes difficult to pronounce for English speakers, however it is much closer to English pronunciation than Wade-Giles. Wade-Giles has almost no correspondence to English pronunciation, whereas I would say Pinyin has about a 75% correspondence. In the case of 道，the correct pronunciation is 'dao'. And as I said in my first post, pinyin usage is increasing. All scholarly works discussing Daoism will use Pinyin. Unfortunately the new-age stuff has not caught up yet, but it is only a matter of time.Zeus1234 (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, not quite. As I pointed out above, 道 is pronounced roughly /tɑʊ˥˩/ while "dao" in English would be /daʊ/. The two sound close to most English speakers but are not the same. True Wade-Giles actually has a slightly better correspodence with English in this case but, since the Wade "t" is usually aspirated by English speakers, it sounds more different. No matter, pronunciation correspondence as a method of determinig titles is not really relevant here as it is, strictly speaking, original research — AjaxSmack 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Taoism is frequently mispronounced as [taυizəm] instead of [daυizəm] is discussed under the Daoism-Taoism romanization issue. Would you please explain what you mean about this W-G romanization having a "slightly better correspondence"? Also, has anyone submitted this under Wikipedia:Requested moves? Keahapana (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The Chinese sound is neither English /t/ nor English /d/ sharing aspects with both; which is closer is a matter of taste.

To clarify our conventions: what Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) actually says is: We usually use Hanyu Pinyin, as indeed we do. "m:Use pinyin not Wade-Giles" is the title of a proposal on meta.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose the tao/dao argument results in favouring of tao over dao, therefore taoism over daoism. In the popular press and new-age-y things, it's also taoism over daoism. 70.51.8.112 (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We can agree that Taoism and Daoism have their respective advantages, and that neither English /t/ nor /d/ phoneme accurately represents the unvoiced non-aspirated Chinese /t̥/ phoneme in 道 [t̥aυ]. I've summarized the above discussion and the Daoism-Taoism romanization issue into a preliminary list of pros and cons, which I hope will help us reach an editorial consensus based on objective evidence rather than personal preferences. Keahapana (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ADVANTAGES OF TAOISM OVER DAOISM

1.Taoism is more frequently used than Daoism, which conforms with the WP:NC(CN) "Use the most common name" convention. This is confirmed by the "Google test" and by titles of books in print.
2It is therefore more familiar to lay readers; we are edited for general readers, not for specialists, as WP:NAME says. [Unsigned by Septentrionalis, 7:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC), see below]
According to WP:NAME, "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." The general audience of WP readers would benefit from the Taoism > Daoism change for the same reasons as experts: conforming to the pinyin standard, eliminating the [taυɪzəm] mispronunciation, avoiding semiotic negativity, etc. Keahapana (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

ADVANTAGES OF DAOISM OVER TAOISM

1. Daoism conforms with the WP:MOS-ZH "We usually use Hanyu Pinyin" convention. With a few hidebound exceptions (Tao, Taoism, and Tao Te Ching) the other WP articles on this subject consistently have pinyin titles (De, Laozi, Zhuangzi, etc.).
2. English speakers normally pronounce Daoism as [daυɪzəm] but frequently mispronounce Taoism as [taυɪzəm]. Can we expect average Wikipedia users to know the abstruse Wade-Giles usage of aspiratory apostrophes (non-aspirated tao vs. aspirated t'ao)?
But neither pronunciation is correct and pinyin is hardly much less abstruse to the average anglophone than Wade-Giles, is this really an advantage of "Daoism"? Srnec (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I should have explained this better. "Correct" refers to how Anglophones pronounce the English words Taoism and Daoism, not how Sinophones pronounce the Chinese words 道家 and 道教. Keahapana (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Daoism is a contemporary culture-neutral word while Taoism is historically associated with Orientalism. Scholars like J. J. Clarke (2000, The Tao of the West: Western Transformations of Taoist Thought; n.b., the book uses Dao, the publisher ironically changed the title to Tao) and N. J. Giradot (2002, The Victorian Translation of China: James Legge's Oriental Pilgrimage), view "Taoism" as a "Victorian construction". This long-standing Western prejudice is particularly evident in reevaluating Daoism/Taoism as a world religion. For instance, Legge (1881, The Religions of China, p. 202-3), "Its forms are those of Buddhism; buts its voice and spirit are from its mother-superstitions, fantastic, base, and cruel."
The spelling "Taoism" has nothing to do with prejudice. Is this guilt by association? And what relevance has an 1881 source to this discussion? Srnec (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You're correct. This prejudice concerns word connotations rather than spelling. Legge introduced "Taoism" to the English-speaking world in his 1881 lectures, and recent scholarship like Giradot's 2002 book has revealed his missionary Orientalism. Both these are viewable on Google Books, if you're interested. Keahapana (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Legge was a Christian missionary, and he wrote like one. This is not a recent discovery; it was as obvious in 1881 as it is now (although he was much less markedly Christian in treating the Tao and the I Ching than elsewhere). What has this attempt at guilt by association have to do with the question at hand, which is "What spelling is most common and convenient for the general reader?"? Legge didn't even use Wade-Giles, and the system he did use is obsolete. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to your unexpectedly acerbic comments (e.g., "irrelevant prejudice-mongering") I now realize my unclear explanation of this usage advantage. I meant no offense towards Legge, whom I respect as a pioneer translator of Daoist texts into English, and this 1881 quotation derives from Clarke (2000:44). Yes, Legge's missionary biases were already recognized in the Victorian era, but my "recent" refers to Said's influential Orientalism (book) and academics like Girardot and Clarke (as well as Peter Gries, Daniel Vukovich, Chen Xiaomei, Zhuang Kuan, and others) who study "sinological Orientalism" and its parallel discourse "Chinese Occidentalism". Yes, "the spelling "Taoism" has nothing to do with prejudice", but I meant the negative semiotic connotations of the term Taoism, namely, semantic word association and not "guilt by association". Yes, Legge primarily used SBE romanization and not W-G. His "Tâoism" was superseded by "Taoism", which is being superseded by "Daoism". Keahapana (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Daoism tends to be used in learned discourse, while Taoism is popularly used in The Tao of Pooh-ish contexts.
5. The present requested Taoism > Daoism move is part of larger ongoing WP editorial disagreements over familiar Wade-Giles vs. standard pinyin. The "prevailing wind" has favored consistently using pinyin titles. For example, Laozi was moved to Lao Tzu in October 2005 and moved back in January 2006, see the discussion here and here.
6. Eventualism favors changing the title from "Taoism" to Daoism". In a recent interview, Jimmy Wales said, "I think a lot of people over the years have come around to kind of an eventual position, the eventualist position being the community will eventually get it right, where right is defined as agreeing with me, sooner or later." This ongoing editorial "Daoism"/"Taoism" argument apparently began in 2001, according to the talk archives (1, 2, and 3). We can reasonably assume that WP editors (particularly future ones) will continue to propose using "Daoism" until the eventual correction is made. Why wait? Keahapana (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Use the most common name is becoming a lonely argument. It has been a default setting for me because as mentioned neither W-G or pinyin are entirely satisfactory (and they only represent one of many dialects, albeit the largest one), but I feel it is a just matter of time before pinyin is selected. Two notable scholarly W-G holdouts, Robert Henricks and Doug Wile, whom I have mentioned regarding this same debate at tai chi chuan, have recently switched to pinyin for their publications. How should an encyclopedia report gradually shifting usage? I'm at the point of saying we should get it over with. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

When it ceases to be controversial, we should switch. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Move I am entirely in favor of "Daoism" and a consequent renaming of associated articles and categories. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Do Not Move Unconditionally opposed to "Daoism" in favor of prevalent English usage. We are not a crystal ball. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Move - The common names convention only barely applies here. if you look at the Examples section, you'll see that all of the cases given are significantly different constructions; enough so that an unknowledgeable reader might not make the association. however, anyone looking for "taoism" who ends up on a page called "daoism" is unlikely to be confused for more than a moment, and a brief disclaimer about pinyin will clear that up in a jiffy. the manual of style is more important to follow in this case. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right, these examples like "Bill Gates (not William Henry Gates III)" seem more comparable with cases like "Zhuangzi (not Nanhua zhenjing)" than "Daoism (or Taoism)". Keahapana (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)