Talk:Taoism

Inconsistent spelling throughout

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

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

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

They are, but consistency within an article is important. Remsense留 03:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Taoism

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay! I think I have a plan.

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

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

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

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

Revert

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

After further GAR input, I think a considered partial revert followed by measured reintroduction of material is the best way to go: I'll be going through section by section. Remsense留 20:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huh? Carr's article seems to be biased towards a pro-pinyin stance, but in fact neither is phonetically correct, "Tao" was never meant to be a direct phonetic equivalent to the actual pronunciation of the character, any more than it was meant to be a phonetic approximation, and it serves that purpose quite well if we compare "tao" and "dao" from an English speaker's point of view, for example. In fact, it seems rather misleading to quote Carr to explain why we now call it Taoism rather than Daoism most of the time. As an additional example, most postal romanisations and ad hoc names given to newborns, especially even in recent times in overseas Chinese diasporas such as Singapore, tend to match Wade-Giles more often than Pinyin, which is something of a testament to the logic behind Wade-Giles as demonstrated here, whereas Carr seems to argue that it is a systemic error that has somehow even permeated the Chinese community itself. Qwinntrell (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

All the romanizations, including those not mentioned here, such as the systems used historically in Russia or on the continent, are meant to approximate the pronunciation in standard Mandarin. The pinyin "d" allows English speakers to pronounce much closer to standard Mandarin. Pinyin is now the official romanization around the world, even in Taiwan, not just in Wikipedia. Carr is not "biased," any more than Gallileo was biased in favor of a heliocentric planetary system, he is simply presenting the evidence. For practical reasons I am not proposing moving this article or going through and changing "Taoism" to "Daoism," but I would go with "Daoism" if we were starting over.ch (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but the fact remains that Taoism is the predominant spelling preferred worldwide, historically and today. This has nothing to do with official romanisation schemes, which are in fact not used in Taiwan, Singapore and elsewhere in the world for conventional place names, terms of cultural interest and personal names, among other things. Carr's accusation against Wade-Giles is subjective to begin with, and actual evidence of ad hoc naming has shown with greater conclusiveness how Wade-Giles actually comes closer to approximating sounds, especially in bilingual communities and diasporas where this practice is still prevalent today. The pinyin "d" does not allow English speakers to pronounce much closer to standard Mandarin. The difference between d and t in Mandarin is that the t is aspirated (accompanied by a puff of air) and the d is not. However, in English, the d is hard and voiced and it is made by the tongue tip against the alveolar ridge and does not touch the teeth. My own name is proof of this, as my parents named me with a p instead of a pinyin b, which follows a similar pattern. Saying "Taoism" is a historical "mispronunciation" is a gross distortion of the history and facts that led to the coinage of the romanised term. Starting from scratch with 'Daoism', while well-intentioned, is quite frankly revisionist and prescriptive, inappropriate to the contemporary usage of an already common and widely recognised name. I hope that's clear, thanks. Qwinntrell (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but of course it's revisionist, we're trying to ensure we're reflecting the outside world as it changes. I mean—it depends entirely on whether you feel [d] or [tʰ] is closer to [t]. And of course it's subjective, it's a question of sensory perception. It makes sense that native English speakers hear [d] as closer to [t], and I think there's also an argument for Standard Chinese, since

1. if there's a meaningful "distance" between phones, I'm sure we can agree [d] is closer to [t] than it is to [tʰ], since it's a voicing distinction versus a voicing distinction and a aspiration distinction
2. /t/ and /tʰ/ are already a phonemic pair in Standard Chinese
3. in real-life situations when surrounded by voiced phones, unvoiced consonants often freely vary to some degree with their voiced counterparts, regardless whether the language makes a phonemic distinction.

In other news, is "Daoism" on track to be the WP:COMMONNAME? Probably, but I really don't care when we decide that happens. It matters very little. Remsense诉 09:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I just happened to stop by, but as far as I know, Taoism is the old Pinyin (or whatever, I don't know about Pinyin). Maybe it's still used modernly for the common public - I do not know. in scholarly readings, I only ever encounter it as Daoism modernly. Shen Dao has not been Shen Tao since Graham's Disputers of the Tao (1989). He is Shen Dao starting in 1992.FourLights (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't actually see anyone here discussing or attempting to demonstrate that Taoism is the common name.FourLights (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree that "Taoism" is the preferred spelling worldwide. Both the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Yale University write it as "Daoism."

Even our sources state that "dao" is the more common English pronunciation regardless of spelling. Zoozoor (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would support standardizing the spelling to Daoism throughout the article, in line with the pronunciation and modern Pinyin transliteration. Montgolfière (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Tick-tock

Compare these Ngrams:

• English (2019)

• American English (2019)

• British English (2019)

Why does English (2019) differ from the American and British component corpora? Other regional accents of English? ~~~~ Keahapana (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. "Taoism" would include reprints of older titles, which would create duplication, but that doesn't answer your question why Taoism scores higher. Since "English" includes publications in any country, not just Great Britain and America, is it possible that including other countries gives a different result? We're dealing with awfully small numbers here, so they could be easily thrown off by a small change in the sample represented in Google Books.ch (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, what small numbers? According to Google Books, the American corpus has 155 billion words and the British 34 billion. Keahapana (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Daoism–Taoism romanization issue

The recent AfD nomination closed with consensus to merge, but the non-Tao/Dao-specific content seems redundant at Romanization of Chinese, while Taoism should probably not expend that much text on the English word for it per WP:NOTDICT. Hence blanking and redirecting here instead. Felix QW (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

article cleaning

"The distinction between Taoism in philosophy and Taoist religion is an ancient, deeply-rooted one. Taoism is a positive philosophy that aims for the holistic unification of an individual's reality with everything that is not only real but also valuable, encompassing both the natural world and society." This is non-sequitorial.FourLights (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I tried to make this more coherent to what I think it was trying to say. But I don't have access to this source.FourLights (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

the dao companion

Although I'd have to look at the article more, I'd like to incorporate dao companion to chinese philosophy as a source some time. I believe the Dao Companion is considered a good source. But I may be busier moving. You can voice objection to this effort.FourLights (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This would be aimed more at tidying up existing material that may have old sources like A.C. Graham 1989. He's (often good early theory) but maybe some extra sourcing.FourLights (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)