Talk:Taoism/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Taoism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Requested move 19 April 2022
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not Moved - No consensus while article stable at current title since its inception (2005). Mike Cline (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Taoism → Daoism – Rather than reiterate the arguments, I will link to move request in 2008. I believe after 14 more years of Hanyu Pinyin becoming even more standard than it was in 2008, the arguments presented in favor still apply.
According to Google Analytics, Daoism has sharply, rapidly risen as a search term, especially after many countries accepted Hanyu Pinyin as a standard and historians and journalists began shifting that way. In the most recent year we have, 2019, Daoism is almost equal with Taoism, which has been steadily declining since its peak in 2001. In American English, Daoism had already surpassed Taoism. In British English, Daoism has also surpassed Taoism. The only other category that I could figure out how to view, English fiction writing, has not caught up. If I might boldly assume, I think that may have changed a bit in the last three years, and it may also be in part due to creative writers checking Wikipedia for reassurance rather than their natural inclination. If we the other most common English term I imagine people would search up here, Daoist vs. Taoist, Daoist is more popular in every category, including overall.
By Wikipedia's official preference for Hanyu Pinyin, if Taoism and Daoism have nearly equal English recognizability, we should prefer Daoism. It would also match with the rule that we should try to go with similar article titles in Daozang, which we do not list as Tao Tsang for obvious reasons. Every page asociated with "Tao" could be changed to "Dao" with the same assumption of recognition as the "Daoism" page; the reverse is not true.
Just to reiterate the thread I linked, as others have stated Wade-Giles is outdated. Taoism and Daoism are very close English terms; however, most modern historical scholarship uses "Daoism." Additionally, as more English speakers are learning Mandarin and Chinese media is becoming more popular, they are much more familiar with Hanyu Pinyin than Wade-Giles; also because Chinese daoist cultivation fantasy stories are particularly common in the past three years for English speakers, after international popularity of The Untamed and Mo Xiang Tong Xiu's novels best sellers, more and more laymen are familiar with this spelling, in addition to it being most natural for most Mandarin speakers/learners. We do not use Mao Tse-Tung nor Peking despite that being common knowledge for English speakers for awhile. It's time to change with the trends! Blumenblatt (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. The nominator's arguments are convincing. The Google Ngrams clearly show a shift in English language usage. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Usage is slowly trending from Taoism to Daoism, but it hasn't shifted enough yet for me to support this proposal. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Per nom's Google Ngrams data, showing that it has surpassed or nearly reached Taoism in common usage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
| Incoherent rant EvergreenFir (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||
|
Section title:『STOP YUEJIPENGCI』———— To「change with the times:」Why not 「get straight to the point」and change the article to『Dàojiào???!!』If you think it’s so important to learners of simplified Chinese. Or even change Confucius to…『#HUANGMIU???』 It’s like singing『good morning to you搞笑生日歌』, who the hell wants more of these garbled Chinglish vowels???? 「YOU～～～」「屠呦呦…」 @老爸，古德猫宁吐呦😁%生日快乐🎂🎉 %记录幸福时刻 %搞笑 %愿天下父母健康长寿 https://v.douyin.com/FRSJQe3/ 复制此链接，打开Dou音搜索，直接观看视频！ Or even『道敎』since per Mr Blumenblatt: that’s「what’s most natural to Mandarin learners?」
Here’s the thing, we are discussing English, not some knockoff Communist attempt at Portuguese or aping the Soviet Union. I find it hilarious that outside this !!!fucked up disgrace of a so called「informational」website!!! that’s boosted due to 1. (Western) search engine algorithm/2. failure of (Western) tech companies to provide appropriate, quality/free research references, no one outside a few pedantic, Communist sympathizing linguists bothers with changing every last noun—-who cares??? +ironically,per WIKI policy CNN’s article@Taoism/Bruce Lee spells「李小龍」「wrong.」 If you ARE concerned about mispronunciations, 道's IPA is tɑʊ just like in Pe̍h-ōe-jī, there is no D is Taoism IN MANDARIN CHINESE. …after a quick search of various syllabi/mainstream references/research facilities etc, it appears that Native English language institutions, schools/test papers by say AP/IB, NatGeo etc haven’t switched to your so called fantasy novel spelling; neither have Oxford Reference,BBC, etc mainstream sources. That’s right, per your own words: your requested spelling is sourced from literal「FANTASY.」IT DOES NOT EXIST in the『Oxford dictionary。』 『Merriam』redirects you:「The meaning of DAOISM is less common spelling of taoism. 」https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Daoism Mr Blumenblatt’s assertion that「fiction writers correct their spelling because they consult Wikipedia」rather than dictionaries speaks to how illiterate Western fiction writers are/low they’ve stooped. You will find no dictionary or textbook that will misspell to such a 「fantastical degree…」 …esp if said word DOES NOT EXIST in English language dictionaries! Seriously, find me an English or Chinese/English dictionary that spells「Taoism」wrong? Or「Kung Fu?」Not even Yahoo search portal's dictionary misspells: https://tw.dictionary.search.yahoo.com/search?p=道教 Said webnovels spell with D because some minimum wage bozo copypasted autotranscription via google translate stuff, so you get 「fantastical」stuff like 「常凱森。」 @『你個網友提到的「常校長」是？』https://m.weiming.info/zhuti/Military/38400643/ or「FOISM」:「Chinese Buddhism,」a term I was redirected to at dictionary.com because again: IT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE DICTIONARY. ——『Dictionary.com,』itself sourced from 『American Heritage』/『Harper Collins.』If it’s NOT Chinese (「-ism」不是中文）and NOT English—-what the hell is it?
Just like 北京 duck, do we have to move that too? Kung Fu? Have you heard of『「功夫」Panda』recently? @Chicken KIEV… What’s the rush??? How「unTaoist.」
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/taoism/ +: Most ironically: it’s not「Taoist」to bother changing the spelling at all (to bother changing things in general). Only illiterate foreigners bother with transcriptions@street signs with dozens of possible 同音字. Try it at your own risk if you’re running late! And the reason why most people haven’t bothered changing spelling is because like「FOISM」—-it’s a religion. And it’s disrespectful to spell Buddha「hood style,」as FO.like Fo Sho. Ironically, NOT EVEN the Communists misspell, see CGTN/CCTV: cgtn |
Ironically, the CCP's own 中國道教協會 TAOIST Association of China's website/name are spelled with a T. Diplomats at the USA's state dept/other countries incl PRC's own embassies/Ministry of Foreign Affairs (PRC), @state.gov and major tourist/travel companies like LONELY PLANET, which insist on Pinyin (pedantically, with tone marks | !) even when the attraction's sign uses say Wade, all spell with a T.
/news/2021-12-07/VHJhbnNjcmlwdDYwOTgx Why don’t you take up your quest with more worthy「cause celebres???」Ex:@WIKI:「『Oxford English Dictionary』no longer recognizes「malacca」as the state name, but as a type of cane.「MELAKA」is used.」 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.220.34 (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Lastly,「nobody whose first language is English」can pronounce the supposed J in 北京 (bay-ZHING) duck, much less 2022's Olympics mascots in Pinyin: Bing Dwen Dwen and Shuey Rhon Rhon (冰墩墩/雪容融). And no one can pronounce Lao Tzu the pinyin way; it's often pronounced LOUSY or Low-zuhhh. Insulting, LOUSY, and sacrilegious. Don't get started on MR ELEVEN for native English speakers: https://www.deccanherald.com/content/431673/dd-newsreader-pronounces-xi-jinping.html re: :Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ---「The choices of Chinese speakers should not change English conventions,」 but Stanford does so to assuage the so called YUEJIPENGCI of Dàojiào (native pronunciation); @Princeton Historiography Guide, only header MIXES both spellings, NONE of the exclusively T sources it provides use D. 「anyone who speaks or learns Mandarin and types online will still be typing in dao not tao for character input」: There are dozens of input methods and Mandarin teaching methods/alphabets that have nothing to do with Roman Letters, but Chinese history for a self proclaimed「literate」「historian」 like yourself starts in 1949, and not 1918AD (when the modern Chinese alphabet was actually invented, i.e. here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl9_8XjaEas ); you certainly don't realize that the Southern half of Taiwan didn't bother switching to Pinyin place names; Pinyin's literally unheard of for personal names anywhere in Taiwan? Even this FAKE NEWS wiki displays the official place/personal etc names. Most ironically of all, Mandarin native speakers don't have to type in Mandarin either (shaped based input)... 「This isn't a political argument but rather what's recognizable, understandable」/「irrelevant」defined as not relevant : INAPPLICABLE. Correct, you have not produced a single dictionary, major or minor that considers spelling with a D correct. As I've stated before, it literally does not exist IN THE DICTIONARY. Ex: the Oxford Dictionary. FOISM, however, has one, clear, spelling in major dictionaries such as a certain online one by major English language publishers Penguin Random House LLC/HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. Insisting on D would draw blank stares from the average Joe/linguist (i.e. outside some proCommunist academics), as well as ACTUAL Chinese people such as Chinese Communist party members@CCTV/CGTN, the literal spokesmen of the party (100s of articles), and Communist Taoist「clergy.」Ex: the CCP's own 中國道教協會 TAOIST Association of China, the CCP's Taoist equiv. of the three self church (三自教會)...by misspelling the names given by !!!the highest religious authorities of this faith IN THE PRC of all places,!!! this absurdly backprojected misspelling is a literal act of sacrilege against the Taoist religion. !!! It is ironic and laughably absurd how the Communist Party, which !!!literally created Pinyin, is considered wrong by Wikipedians for continuing to insist on T over D (itself a CCP created Issue)!!! Don't get started on the test papers. Go try the MELAKA/Malacca page, which !!!at least is clearly backed by ALL major dictionaries. @「acting as if this is if google analytics isn't「official」or relevant is just being biased yourself:」Self-published works are inherently unreliable sources/do not undergo appropriate editorial oversight, hence why they are banned from the FAKE NEWS wiki's pages. re: Mainland China's mainstream TV shows/not the oversaturated if not illegal (@copyright), random autotranslated fanfic webnovels OR illegal/pirated manhwa (漫畫), if you're one of those people like me (*I read the original vers aka in Chinese lang): @Points 1--3:「I bring up pop culture !!!because that's how many young people understand and become associated with the term. You !!!can't deny the popularity of these works; !!!they're probably the most popular new translated Chinese works that incorporate 道家 in decades」: ALL mainstream TV apps/providers re: Mainland China, ex: iQiyi if you are MAINLAND Chinese, or Apple TV/Viki for mainstream Western TV apps, exclusively use T. D is unheard of. Refer to just a few, recent Mainland Chinese Taoist TV shows: Kongfu Taoist Master (2018), Laoshan Taoist (2021); Taoist Master：Kylin (2020); Taoist Master Zhang (2019) https://www.viki.com/tv/35696c-the-taoism-grandmaster Mainland's『The Legend of Chusen』(2016) aka『誅仙』uses dialect. Why would aforementioned Mainlanders be in a rush to spell with D... |
when not even their state Taoist clergy (see earlier)/media (CGTN etc))/govt (again, Minister of Foreign Affair,embassies/factbooks in NO country spell with D) or dictionaries (Asian or Western published) does so...as Westerners say, that's putting the「cart before the horse.」Obv, @areas outside PRC like Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia etc, DOZENS of countries with Taoist temples/regulatory assocs, NOT a single one spells it with D. Even within China, there is not A SINGLE「Taoist Temple」that spells its name with a D---any search engine can attest to that! Why don’t you take up your quest with more worthy「cause celebres???」Ex:@WIKI:「『Oxford English Dictionary』no longer recognizes「malacca」as the state name, but as a type of cane.「MELAKA」is used.」Malacca literally does not exist in ANY dictionary nor on street/HIGHWAY signs (bcuz it's an exclusively Malay state/city, NOT Indonesian territory)/enjoys almost exclusive usage, both officially/unofficially (ex: the Melaka Sultanate Palace Museum, which FAKE NEWS wiki misspells despite Malay govt/its own entrance sign correctly spelling as MELAKA: https://www.mbmb.gov.my/en/visitors/places-interest/melaka-sultanate-palace )...(ngram probably biased bcuz) strait of MELAKA's often spelled Malaka in Indonesia (binational); Melaka-「variasi」per the official dictionary of Indonesia, KBBI (Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia): |
- Oppose - Evidence that usage has almost shifted in favour of "Daoism" is not evidence that it has shifted in favour of "Daoism". Come back when it has - Wikipedia will always be a lagging indicator.
- On whether Hanyu Pinyin really is (or should be) the preferred romanisation system for this specific subject I am neutral. Obviously as a student of Chinese I prefer Hanyu Pinyin for my own personal use because it is what I used when I studied Chinese. I am aware that we lean towards Hanyu Pinyin on Wiki but not in every case. There are other systems for romanisation (btw - "Peking" is not actually Wade-Giles, "Peking" is Chinese Postal Romanisation) and one can reasonably ask if the mainland system is the appropriate one for this case. FOARP (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- @FOARP So I agree that terms like Peking duck or Kung fu should not change both because of WP:UCRN and the fact that pinyin alternatives like Beijing duck or Gongfu are so uncommon they're even likely to induce confusion. I am not arguing that we should never use Wade-Giles or any other romanization system, I'm not arguing Hanyu Pinyin should be Wikipedia's standard; it already is the standard under WP:EN. Because of that, it gets some preference in a case of controversy like this. Because Daoism and Taoism are relatively equal and Daoism continues to trend upward (as of three years ago), that's why I'm bringing up the conversation now. I agree that the mainland system (Hanyu Pinyin) should not always get deference. However, in this case, Daoism fits all five of the WP:Criteria listed below:
- Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
- Anyone familiar with this topic will understand that Daoism is the same thing as Taoism, and it is not "expert" knowledge.
- Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
- Again, readers are likely to search for this, and Daoism is a normal English usage and unsurprising to people who see it come up.
- Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
- Daoism and Taoism are the same in this - neither is confused with anything else, but sometimes the terms are confused as being separate philosophies by people who haven't read anything on them.
- Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
- Self explanatory
- Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.
- The reason I referenced Daozang earlier is we do have inconsistency, but it would make no sense to change it since the alternative fitting with Taoism (Tao-tsang) is both much less used AND would even more so likely be confusing to anyone studying the subject. Another example, that uses "Dao" as the root and shouldn't be changed is Daoshi vs. Tao-shih. One of the reasons for changing to Daoism is to eliminate the inconsistency.
- @FOARP So I agree that terms like Peking duck or Kung fu should not change both because of WP:UCRN and the fact that pinyin alternatives like Beijing duck or Gongfu are so uncommon they're even likely to induce confusion. I am not arguing that we should never use Wade-Giles or any other romanization system, I'm not arguing Hanyu Pinyin should be Wikipedia's standard; it already is the standard under WP:EN. Because of that, it gets some preference in a case of controversy like this. Because Daoism and Taoism are relatively equal and Daoism continues to trend upward (as of three years ago), that's why I'm bringing up the conversation now. I agree that the mainland system (Hanyu Pinyin) should not always get deference. However, in this case, Daoism fits all five of the WP:Criteria listed below:
- Other pages that follow the "Tao" convention such as Tao vs. Dao and Tao Te Ching vs. Daodejing are on a similar trajectory to Daoism; they show nearly equal recognizability and would induce little confusion in readers who saw a redirect. In fact, I have seen articles that incorrectly say "Daodejing" in the body despite our article title currently; our own editors are caught in the interchangeability of these terms and there not necessarily being a much more common one presently. Therefore, that's why I call to us to change to Daoism-for consistency, to fit with Wikipedia's preference for Hanyu Pinyin, and because all n-gram data shows that "Daoism" usage has only increased and will continue to increase relative to Taoism.Blumenblatt (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- All you're showing with this data is that the ratio is moving towards "Dao" predominating. Not that it already predominates. Like I said, come back when it does - you might think it inevitable that it will, but all it would take is e.g., the release of a popular movie or book with "Tao" in the title, and that trend might be reversed. Wikipedia is - and should be - a lagging, post-hoc indicator.
- Regarding WP:EN, it does not actually say we should favour Hanyu Pinyin per se. It says we should favour established systemised romanisation systems, and gives Hanyu Pinyin as an example of one such system (Quote:
"Established systematic transliterations (e.g., Hanyu Pinyin and IAST) are preferred"
). As you know, "Tao" is how the Chinese character 道 would be romanised in a number of different systemised romanisation systems for Chinese that have been established in various places over the years. FOARP (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Other pages that follow the "Tao" convention such as Tao vs. Dao and Tao Te Ching vs. Daodejing are on a similar trajectory to Daoism; they show nearly equal recognizability and would induce little confusion in readers who saw a redirect. In fact, I have seen articles that incorrectly say "Daodejing" in the body despite our article title currently; our own editors are caught in the interchangeability of these terms and there not necessarily being a much more common one presently. Therefore, that's why I call to us to change to Daoism-for consistency, to fit with Wikipedia's preference for Hanyu Pinyin, and because all n-gram data shows that "Daoism" usage has only increased and will continue to increase relative to Taoism.Blumenblatt (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Strong support. Regarding the last two arguments, the Google corpus contains 361 billion words in English, any imaginary "Tao" book or movie title is thus statistically insignificant; and The Comparison of Standard Mandarin transcription systems gives: daoㄉㄠdao tao dau dau tao dau dau daur dao daw tau. We've been wasting time arguing about this title correction for years. What are we waiting for? As discussed under Daoism–Taoism romanization issue, there are hardly any advantages to the 19th century Wade-Gilesish anachronism. If we assume that anyone commenting on the present Talk page is likely interested in Daoism, which is based upon acceptance of change and transformation, then attempting to oppose inevitable language change is delightfully ironic. Keahapana (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Leaning oppose. The inquiry here is not about the proper transliteration from Chinese, but about what this philosophy is primarily called in English, and I see no basis at this time for saying that it is not primarily called "Taoism". BD2412 T 20:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose: The terminology has not shifted far enough to warrant an article move at this time. --Spekkios (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Nei[y]e
I[']ll have to [look] over it but I don't know that the article mentions the Ne[iy]e[]. I could do this at some point in the future. Harold D. Roth talks about it in Original Tao Inward Training (Nei[-y]eh) [a]nd The Foundations Of Taoist Mysticism, and I can come up with other sources. FourLights (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Pronunciation
Fair enough to include them if we're going to be proscriptive and point out that "Taoism" has only ever been correctly pronounced /dao-izm/ and the initial T was a product of Wade-Giles romanization of the Chinese /d/ sound since it's strictly linguistically an unaspirated /t/ that English speakers hear as a /d/ noise when distinguished from /tʰ/, Wade's T'. If we're going to pretend that /tao.izm/ is in any way common or acceptable (let alone the default initial pronunciation) then there's nothing to discuss in the lead since WP:NOTDICTIONARY and there's no other possible way a native English speaker would think to pronounce those letters in that combination. Just like if we included the IPA and US respelling pronunciations at Bob, with all regional variations, this is just useless cruft if we're including every way people would say it unless there's a nonzero group of people actually saying /tɒːɔɪsm/ that we need to help... and even then it's such a small group that it still belongs in the #Name section and not the lead per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.
Obviously the whole article needs a workover—e.g. the current pronunciation distinguishes its pronunciations as "US" when both pronunciations are identical in the UK's RP per the OED; the current WP:LEADSENTENCE miscapitalizes both Dàojiā and Dàojiào and leaves their tones unmarked despite italicizing them and the article doing it all correctly one paragraph down; if this article wants to distinguish 道家 from 道教—instead of assuming one is subsumed in the other—then 道家 also belongs in the lead infobox; similarly, the current lead sentence talks about "ideas and concepts" as if there were any daylight between those words in standard English, which there ain't—but we can start by at least not going out of our way to get everyone to pronounce the word incorrectly just because some people are annoyed it isn't at Daoism yet.
tl;dr: We should remove the nonsense /t/ pronunciation from the lead
- Taoism or Daoism (both /ˈdaʊɪzm/) is a philosophical school (Chinese: 道家, Dàojiā) and religion (道教, Dàojiào) which share ideas of Chinese origin and emphasize...
or remove the pronunciation altogether
- Taoism or Daoism is a philosophical school (Chinese: 道家, Dàojiā) and religion (道教, Dàojiào) which share ideas of Chinese origin and emphasize...
possibly quickly handling the origin
- Taoism (Wade-Giles) or Daoism (pinyin) is a philosophical school (Chinese: 道家, Dàojiā) and religion (道教, Dàojiào) which share ideas of Chinese origin and emphasize...
and leave the descriptivist incorrect pronunciation to the #Name section and/or Wiktionary.
See also: The help note at the top of this page. — LlywelynII 07:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
For anyone curious, I'll save you the time: There's no discussion of this in the header for this page or any of the archives because (a) we only had the standard /d/ pronunciation listed up until a few years ago, (b) a well-meaning editor added the /t/ pronunciation because of the OED's descriptivism without realizing that it made providing a pronunciation unnecessary, and (c) even that wasn't really an issue since we kept very compact formatting until just recently when someone decided they wanted to be the voice of Taoism and expanded the IPA templates into the crufty/UNDUE mess/distraction that it is now. Sure, a compromise would be to just clean the templates back up to just say (/ˈdaʊ/-, /ˈtaʊɪzm/) one time for both transcriptions. It's still better to just shunt them into the infoboxes and down to the name section, though, for the reasons provided above. Holding overelaborate formatting like this is what those things are there for. — LlywelynII 07:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
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)