Talk:Chinese Holy Grail

Untitled
Yes agreed, not quite historically referred as such. I used the contents in a page called Xiuzhen, on the same subject. ACHKC (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge or Move?
Should this article be merged to Xian (Daoist immortal) or moved to another title? "Chinese Holy Grail" doesn't seem to describe the Daoist quest for immortality. Are these valid references that "Many scholars in their work on Taoism supported this view"? I don't have access to Maspero (1981:211) but Creel (1982:40, which quotes Maspero 1981:211) and Robinet (1987:3-5) are both general discussions of Daoist immortality. Then again, I might be failing to see the referent for "this view". Any suggestions? Keahapana (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge what we can, if anything, and then we should arrange to delete this neologistic title. I have Creel as well, and Graham, Waley, Wilhelm and several others, and I don't see this title supported anywhere in the English speaking world. I've left some messages for the author (who has added a lot of similar material to WP in the last 2 months) on his talk page and other article talk pages. I think he was an overly-enthusiastic but otherwise well meaning editor whose English wasn't a first language. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * After rereading this article, I don't see anything worth saving. The "Nature of Immortality" section is unverified (unverifiable?) and probably should be deleted, which leaves only the dubious lead paragraph. Is this an apt Candidate for Speedy Deletion? Two interrelated problem articles are Xiushen and Xiuzhen, neither of which is in the zh: WP, The Encyclopedia of Taoism, or the 道教大辭典. I've started repairs on De (Chinese) and Qingjing Jing and will begin with Xishen Jing. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help mend the damaged Daoism-related articles. Keahapana (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would argue for merging what we can and deleting the rest. If nothing else, "Chinese Holy Grail" makes little sense, and is the epitome of Eurocentrism.  The article as it currently exists is unacceptable in my view.--Danaman5 (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. It smells a bit of Indian feudalism as well. For those who don't know what that is, it's the tendency of European scholars to classify Indian history with western terms in order to make them more accessible to western readers. (This model is applicable to China (see Chinese knight-errant for example)). The Holy Grail is, of course, a western object. If no one comes up with a good reason for keeping this article in the next couple of days, I will just make it a redirect for the Chinese immortal page.--Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No one has commented, so I'm redirecting it now. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)