Talk:Xiuzhen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Taoism WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Taoism-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
[edit] Further Texts & Thoughts
I noted this article survived edits/commentaries and I plan to expand the concepts/precepts of xiuzhen, nejingtu & xiuzhentu further, from at least two sources- yearbooks 2002~2004 from a temple and other chinese publications of neixiu jing, all in Chinese and no western translations. Grateful of comments from the Wiki-editors on this as agreeable to avoid efforts deleted as not-sourced from english-writings.ACHKC (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- You've already been informed at least once that WP sources must be reliable and verifiable. Resources like Chinese-language temple yearbooks are obviously unacceptable. There are thousands of English-language publications on Daoism, and if you can't find even one that supports your personal interpretations of xiuzhen, perhaps that means this topic is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I've looked up xiuzhen in many books and articles about Daoism, but can't find anything with the exception of book titles like Xiuzhen shishu 修真十書. If that weren't bad enough, the few references you've cited in this article are shamelessly fabricated, see below. Keahapana (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bogus references?
I've checked these citations and all of them (with one possible exception) appear irrelevant to xiuzhen "cultivation of perfection". Among the 8 footnote references, 3 are valid but immaterial to the topic and 5 appear to be spurious fabrications.
Notes [4], [5], and [6] are legitimate references. [4] cites Creel (1982:5) who distinguishes "contemplative" and "purposive" Taoism. [5] cites Creel (1982:7) who discusses "Neo-Taoism", "religious Taoism", and "Hsien Taoism". [6] cites Fowler (2005:4) who differentiates Daojia "philosophical" and Daojiao "religious" or "ritualistic" Taoism. These categorizations are already discussed under the Taoism article, but none of these authors mentions xiuzhen. These 3 citations only support attacking the "scholarly myths" straw man that every authority in Daoist studies has ignored xiuzhen.
The other five appear to be faked citations. Notes [1], [2], and [3] purportedly reference xiuzhen as "the principle technique in the Taoist quest for immortality", "documented since the Yellow Emperor," and "supported by many Taoism scholars". Although [1] Maspero (1981:211) is unavailable to me, [2] cites Creel (1982:40) who criticizes Maspero (1981:211, an interesting coincidence?, cf. fn. [94] under Taoism) whether immortality was secondary to mystic union. [3] cites Robinet (1981:3-5) who defines "philosophical", "religious", and "purposeful" or "practical" Taoism versus "popular religion". Note [7] cites Robinet (1981:20) who discusses Taoists in society, but doesn't say that Taoists "never viewed themselves as belonging to" a religion. Note [8] cites Robinet (1981:16) who treats the Taoist in the cosmos, the "return" leitmotif, and geometric schemas, but doesn't mention "Sift Texts" or Deyi 得一.
If I'm being too harsh, I apologize. Perhaps Maspero discusses xiuzhen. Could somebody with access to Taoism and Chinese Religion please check page 211? Or perhaps you accidentally cited wrong page numbers 5 times. If so, please correct them. On the other hand, if there are no verifiable scholarly references that sustain your personal research on xiuzhen, perhaps the article should be recommended for merger or deletion. Best wishes. Keahapana (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
