Talk:Taoism/Archive 7

Requested move - 2008

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no move. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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 Manual of Style (China-related articles) convention is to "use pinyin not Wade-Giles" However, the 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 instead of  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 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.
 * Yes, it's at WP:RM; I got here thence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify our conventions: what 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 nor  phoneme accurately represents the unvoiced non-aspirated Chinese  phoneme in 道. 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 but frequently mispronounce Taoism as . 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)

Do not move At the moment, those who use "dao" would know to look under "tao", while some of those who learned "tao" would not know of "dao" (since they process the name as a symbol, not a pronounciation.) In either case, a redirect from the other spelling, if it's not there already. Perhaps moving the page to 道, with redirects from both taoism and daoism .... htom (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * htom, I kind of like that last suggestion, though I don't know if it's permissible in the English version of wikipedia to create such a dramatically non-english page title.  does anyone know whether that would cause issues?  if not, I'd be willing to second the thought that we name the page 道 and redirect both taoism and daoism there.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * as an after thought, though, this might be confusing since 道 literally means 'dao' not 'daoism'... -- Ludwigs 2  04:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Chinese equivalent of 'Daoism' is not 道 but rather 道教 (daojiao), which literally means 'teaching of the dao'.Zeus1234 (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I snipped it from higher in the page, as I know nothing about the Chinese language(s). I suspect that part of my objection comes from both long usage of "Tao", and the conflicting use of "dao" as meaning "double action only", in reference to firearms. htom (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Using Chinese characters would not be an improvement. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is the English language Wikipedia. Editors who wish to work in the Chinese language may do at zh.wikipedia.org. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Joke The suggestion to move to Chinese characters was a joke, inspired by "The Tao that can be talked about is not the Tao". Sorry. htom (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * lol - ok, you got me. :-)  -- Ludwigs 2  19:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Having read all the discussion above I must admit I think we may be muddying the essential point of the wikipaedia; to spread knowledge. It is not here to settle archaic arguments about the correct pronunciation of words assimilated into the english language. "Taoism" is the defacto usage in the english language. It's origins being correct or incorrect are not really relevant; Taoism has become the english word and pronunciation refering to that particular philosophy, wrong as it may historically be. Although this argument of correct pronunciation should be included within the article itself as a point of interest, this is the English language edition of the encyclopaedia, and as such it makes sense that it reflects the actual popular usage. There are many many other words that have been adopted and corrupted as they have been assimilated into English; I don't believe wikipedia should be used as a tool to correct perceived wrongs of language. DomUK (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * what a strange, silly protracted argument. :-)  I'm going to go see if I can make a template that will say 'Taoism' if the user arrived from a taoism link, but will say 'Daoism' if the user arrived from a daoism link.  that should solve everyone's issues.  :-)  -- Ludwigs 2  00:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not an editorial decision. If you're not going to use Wade-Giles in general, don't use it. Many English speakers still say "Peking" but you don't have that as the article title. Stupid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.2.52 (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

i luv sam koster!! <3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.215.177.155 (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

I think there is a serious confusion here. It is true that the terms 'daojia' and 'daojiao' probably do not mark a distinction, the distinction between religion and philosophy is secure. It is a distinction between subject matters, disciplinary norms, and significant questions. The two main texts are read quite differently by philosophers and religion scholars and that controversy is being suppressed by this article's bias toward denying the distinction while almost always defending religious interpretations and ignoring philosophical ones. I have been to over 40 international conferences and have been studying and writing about Chinese philosophy and Daoism now for 40 years and I find it absurd beyond belief for anyone to claim the distinction between the philosophy of Laozi and Zhuangzi cannot be distinguished from the local religions, the papal institutions and the monastic trappings that emerged only after the exposure to Buddhism. This argument is embarrassing as it stands (speaking as a Daoist philosopher). And I particularly resent the censoring of my attempts to bring some intellectual balance. Note that I have not been trying to censor the religious view, but to try to get the article to reflect the different points of view of the two fields on these texts. BTW If you need a reference of an academic book that correctly insists that we cannot abandon the distinction in dealing with the texts (The Laozi and Zhuangzi) you could hardly do worse than look at the most influential and highly respected scholars of Chinese Thought, A. C. Graham. But, given his authority, there are many many academic books that accept the distinction. I would strongly recommend that we reverse Zeus's removal of the split and separate discussion of the two lines of interpretation and allow a clear statement of the philosophical position. Many of the readers of the Wikipedia may be interested in the philosophy and don't need to be confused by an orthodoxy about how dao is a "power" or a "force" or a "creator" or any other Star Wars religion interpretation of those two interesting reflections on language and social dynamics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadHansen (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind my adding a comment so late in the work.I was a student in this life, at the toaist Insitute in North Hollywood California,after finding so few English speaking teachers with actual first hand experience. I later left to study with a Buddhist Chi Energy Master from the R.O.C..I found that the main problem with Taoism is that during World War Two..many many of the Temples that had accumulated many Ancienct Scrolls were destroyed during Bombing Raids..so their is very little left of the Taosit Monastic Tradition.the Taoist Monastics are rumored to have been the Highest level Chi Masters in China. Which makes a great many novice Energy Enthusiasts problems. Especially when their is an emergence of Supernatural Experinces that exceed that of the casual Tai Chi "Player" as the Martial Arts Enthusiasts are called. I have to write (sadly) that I don't think that you will find difinative answers to any of your questions,because even the Masters of what is left of the teachings are in need of additional schooling.infact many of the stated rationals about Sex are mostly Dangerous when dealing with very high levels of Energy. One Master recently claimed to have Energy levels that made his Chi go as high as 200 degrees.So regulating Energy and types of food are not easy for the lay-man.Infact the lower Class of Sexuel Taosist were at times considered evil according to the priests that I studied with. I think a good deal of the info about Sex and even specific "gods" needs deleting.Article like this can easily be misleading. comment added by User;David ben eri/David ben eriApril 22,2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by David ben eri (talk • contribs) 00:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is crap
Pardon my French, but the text shows little awareness of either (a) recent academic research, (b) Chinese religion at any level, popular or elite, or (c) the historical evolution or current diversity of Daoism. Instead, we get grand interpretive statements apparently derived from Laozi, associations with random elements of East Asian or Western culture, and overdiscussion of superficialities such as the name (as opposed to the conceptual category).

What is "Daoism"? Who can we point to as a "Daoist?" The several basic approaches to this issue, as found in recent academic writings, should be listed first (and form the basis of the opening definition).

There needs to be some balance between philosophy, elite religion, and folk religion. None of these subjects are monolithic or unchanging across time and geography, so there is no sense in writing about what "Daoism" in general says. Instead, rely on major academic sources for each element.

The pinyin / Wade-Jiles distinction doesn't need more than a line of explanation, and perhaps a link. Much more significant is the issue of what to call the major religion of Chinese people. (The religion called "Daoism" by some has no clear, consistent name, especially among its putative adherents.)

Truth in advertising: A few years ago I made extensive revisions, aimed at organizing the subject by history, dynasty-by-dynasty. This was apparently thought not germaine, and relegated to its own article. I am not inclined to go to the trouble again. In any case, there is more than one way that the article might be organized (including thematic). The main thing is to get rid of the New Agers and bring in the Sinologists.Dawud (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT – túrian  patois  07:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have trouble improving the article, there are mechanisms for dealing with that. If you are adding good sourced material, I (for one) will certainly help you.  wikipedia can be a pain in the butt sometimes, but there's no one who's going to fix it the way you want except for you, so...  -- Ludwigs 2  17:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Splitting the Article
Daoist Philosophy and the Daoist religion are such different traditions that I'm amazed they are not listed under 2 seperate articles. Vaguely trying to 'integrate' these two different things into 1 article renders almost the entire article as factually useless. The article is a mishmash of aspects and definitions, some of which belong to the philosophy and some which belong to the religious tradition. The article is thus creating an imaginary HYBRID called "Taoism", a monster which does not even exist. As a consequence, the article fails to accurately describe either the philosophy OR the religion.

The fact that Daojia and Daojiao are both typically translated by the same term "Daoism" does not give license for this hybridisation, nor does the fact that the religious tradition drew some influence from the philosophers.

In order to give both the philosophical and religious traditions quality treatment, I propose a break-up of the articles as follows:

Taoism (philosophy) - This article discusses the "Taoist" school of philosophy, where "Taoist" is the name retroactively applied by the historian Sima Qian (2nd Century BC) to describe a syncretism of the ancient philosophies of Laozi and Zhuangzi - two Philosophers from the "Hundred Schools of Thought" period. In other words, it discusses the Daojia. The article further discusses how this school of philosophy developed and expanded under the "Neo-Taoists", and how this philosophy influenced both Confucian and Chinese Buddhist philosophy. Mentions of how the Huainanzi and other texts influenced the philosophy will also be necessary. A discussion of the wealth of modern-day scholarship in this area, by philosophers in philosophy departments, is more suited to this article.

Taoism (religion) - This article discusses the "Taoist" religious tradition founded by in the 2nd Century CE by Zhang Daoling and its developments up until the present day, including the influences of Chinese folk religion, folk medicine and Buddhist rituals etc on it. In contrast to the other article, this article talks about gods, rituals, temples, sacred sites, and other religious issues associated with this seperate tradition. In other words, it discusses the Daojiao religion.

Splitting the article is the ideal and most straightforward solution to the huge ambiguities present. Another solution is to break this article down with branching sub-headings that continually address both - but no-one seems willing to do that and I agree it's a waste. The two should be in different articles to begin with.

Bear in mind the following: - The Daoist religious tradition began up to 700 years later than the first philosophers who came to be called Daoists. - The Chinese have maintained 2 seperate names for the 2 traditions for at least 1600 years - The two are drastically different in content - In modern scholarship, the study of Daoist philosophy and the Daoist religion are two seperate academic disciplines, studied by totally different groups of scholars

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.91.14 (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I continue to be in long-term agreement that this article should be split. The primary focus of this article as written today (August 2012) is on religious Taoism, with a downplaying of the philosophical aspects detached from the religion.

There is no question in my mind that the Taoism has floated back and forth between philosophy and religion, and that the historical movements are clouded by the normal rewriting of history by those who have an agenda to do so. Taoist philosophy today, however, stands alone and independent of religious structure and belief. As there is a significant body of scholars who see a separation (disparagingly minimized in the current article), it seems prudent to establish a second article.

Two proposals:

1. Have two articles as follows (as per the previous entry from 'unsigned'): - Taoism (Religion) - Taoism (Philosophy)

2. Leave this article as Taoism, and add a new article entitled "Philosophical Daoism". thus: - Taoism  [the current article - modified to add links to the new article where appropriate] - Philosophical Daoism [new article]

I believe the least controversial would be "2", and I will seek support from colleagues who can help write the article on Philosophical Daoism.

ShaziDaoren (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent addition
Explaining my reverts of (improperly) sourced material: I removed the repeat addition of material about the philosophical and religious distinction. It was added with reference to pp. 37-38 of the reference. The source was used to support the statement: There are other scholars such as C. Alexander Simpkins PhD and Annellen Simpkins PhD who do not see an issue with the Tao-chia and Tao-chiao distinction, and believe that the developments toward health and immortality were added later, creating the branch that many in the West see as "Religious Taoism." Pg. 38 does not contain main body text, but rather simply an image and caption. Additionally, the section does not make the argument above. On the contrary, it discusses the complex historical development of the Taoist religion and notes that references to religious Taoism are contained in the early philosophical Taoist writings. Pg 37 clearly supports this position that runs contrary to the added article text, stating (emphasis added): The Taoist philosophy of Lao-tzu, Chang-tzu, Lieh-tzu, and the Neo-Taoists is but one aspect of the larger body of Taoism that is practiced as a religion for both spiritual fulfillment and physical well-being. The source does not directly and explicitly address the categorical distinction and we should not put words into the mouth of sources. Additionally, the implication of the section runs counter to the claims it was being used to support. That is, it seems to argue that philosophical and religious Taoism were deeply intertwined, even noting that Taoist religion appears as as integral part of the earliest Taoist writings. --Vassyana (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agreee this article is crap, it is more buddism or corrupt daoism than true science daoism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.154.203 (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Various concerns with article
Who ever wrote the above two paragraphs (ancestor worship, etc.) is referring to corrupted Taoism, that was corrupted by Buddhism. True Taoism is not a religion or religious in anyway. The worshiping of ancestors or any idolatry was introduced by Buddhism and it not Taoist in anyway. The Taoist where practical people and did not do anything that didn't work or wasted time and energy. The purpose of the Dao, is to reach eternal life. Longevity was studied and promoted so that one could lived longer in order to do more good deeds. The original Taoist where scientists and wrote their scientific studies in simple ways to that the common citizen could understand and implement them. Unlike western science today. The biggest annoyance of any Taoist is Buddhist claim to be a sister religion. Buddhist is a religion that follows tradition not practicality. And has adopted many Dao practices to that main stream society would accept it more. Who would truly accept a religion that teaches the only one way to reach immortality is through chu ja. 174.27.154.203 (moved here from article by Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

The last two translation are not correct in any way, shape, or form! Look up the true translation for the Dao De Jing by Dr Chang, one of the founders of the great tao, and the foundation of the tao. The Chinese government agree with his translation see he is the expert on the Dao. And they have published his correct translation in china. This incorrect translation has perverted enough minds already. There Is a true dao, and it can be named. the true dao does change because everything changes. This is not like Christianity or any other tradition it is science not religion. The true dao is simple, the true dao can be explained. why would you have a path that cannot be explained. The perversion and play with words comes from a Buddhist monk that liked playing with words like one cannot, not love, and so forth. 174.27.154.203 (moved here from article by Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

Most of the information on this page is about buddhism not Taoism. Taoism is a science not a religion. Taoism is simple, easy and understandable. Buddhism and time and people have corrupted it. Don't believe me look up the greatgreattao.com. Who was co founded by the worlds expert on Daoism. All the bits and pieces like feng shui, qigong, and several traditional chinese medicine is from Daoism, and is only effective, or most effective when used together and not separately. I liken it unto reading every third page in a medical journal. You might know a lot but only bits and pieces. 174.27.154.203 (moved here from article by Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

Influence
The lead says: "Taoism had a notable influence on the western world particularly since the 19th century" and gives a reference. Not knowing anything about Taoism I tried to see what that influence was, and the body of the article give no explanation at all, except a mention that said statement is controversial. Since the lead should summarize the article, this statement either needs to be explained, or deleted. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

theology ?
1) As taoism has no gods nore God, the term theology can't be used (théo = god ; logy = study). 2) The origin of taoism knowledge is definitly not a revelation. Its knowledge comes fom empirism and studying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.88.178.141 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Taoism has more gods than you can shake a joss stick at.Dawud (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, a matter that depends entirely on whether you are talking about the Daoist religious tradition or the secular Daoist philosophical tradition - two things that shouldn't be getting mixed up in this article.

Philosophical Daoism most certainly has no gods and no theology. And on the other hand, religious Daoism has very little to do with Laozi and the other ancient Daoist philosophers. Yet this article presents a bizarre hybrid that mixes all this stuff together, and is thus very misleading. This is why the article needs to be split into TWO seperate articles, because that way BOTH the religious and philosophical traditions can be given a clear, unambiguous and concise treatment.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.91.14 (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no "gods" but rather shen and xian in Daoism. The Chinese Character for shen 神 literally means "to plead in ritual", whereas Chinese character for xian 仙 means "people living deep in the mountain". A closer translation in English would be immortals".  Karolus 2010/07/01  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.40.26 (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

you're quoting an aweful translation
whoever said "The Way that can be described is not the true Way." as is quoted on this article is wrong. change "described" to "scribed" in order to reverse the meaning and arrive at the truthful statement. then rewrite the sentence to make it flow better else you're completely missing the idea of Tao.

Split section proposal: Popular culture
This is a valid topic of interest perhaps to younger people esp westerners. I do agree that it is not in the proper tone to be consistent with the rest of the article. But I don't think we should be dismissive. It is an area of valid interest but does not belong in the main Taoism article, IMO. Please advise. Bard गीता 21:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree this maybe a valid topic of interest but i don't think there's enough material - at least currently - to split out Tom B (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"Wing-tsit Chan stated that tao meant system of morality to Confucians but the natural, eternal, spontaneous, indescribable way things began and pursued their course to Taoists"
This makes no sense and I don't know what it's trying to say —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.218 (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * this is Wing-tsit Chan's understanding of the difference between 'Tao' the way Confucians (followers of Confucius) used the term, and 'Tao' the way Taoists use the term. Confucianism is a moralistic set of beliefs - generally it holds that there is a correct way to do anything and everything, and the root of proper practice (tao) lies in understanding and following those rules. for Taoists, though, the tao can't be summed up in a comprehensive set of moral rules, and since it can't be summed up that way a certain amount of spontaneity is needed to follow correct practices.  it's pretty much the same philosophical difference you see between classical music and jazz: for the first, the notes capture the essential order to the piece, and should be played with an almost fanatical attention to detail; for the latter the notes spring up out of some inner, unpredictable place, and the beauty of it isn't really expressed except as its played.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wing-tsit Chan's work on Taoist philosophy is out-of-date and should not be referenced in this article. He was an admirable scholar in his time, but his understanding of these topics is now grossly inaccurate. This is due mainly to: 1, He was writing mostly in the 60s and died before the discovery of the Mawangdui texts 2, Significant other scholarship has also been done since

A discussion of philosophical Daoism in English needs to draw from the very latest in scholarship. Even books and translations from 10 years ago are considered outdated in this field! A.C Graham is permissable, but not many others. Try: - R.T Ames and David Hall - Chad Hansen - Philip Ivanhoe - etc

Most scholars before this current 'generation' had a VERY different (and less accurate) rendering of the concept of Tao into English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.91.14 (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Even before this generation I think the use of the word "dao" in the Analects and in the expression "way of the ancient sages" was understood to mean a different "way" than how the word is used in Daoism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.170.245 (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Quasi-Scientific???
In the intro section of the article it claims that Taoism is quasi-scientific. Then there is nothing below about quasi-science. The term quasi-scientific sounds biased to begin with, and I recommend removing it. It doesn't seem like I can edit that first section.69.255.44.231 (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wing Chun and Bak mei are not daoist styles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.239.130 (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

In the section about "Relations with other religions and philosophies" the citations of ''Dumoulin, Heinrich, Heisig, James W. & Knitter, Paul. Zen Buddhism: A History (India and China)'' don't match the passages which are cited. They have vague similarities, but i was hoping for more details on the specifics given in the wiki article, and I couldn't even find those specifics there in the book. It matches what my professor said in class, but there we are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leostaley (talk • contribs) 04:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Tao Te Ching interpretations
This passage in the Tao Te Ching section: "A common interpretation of thi to Korzybski's observation "the map is not the territory", One view states that the paradoxical opening is intended to prepare the reader for teachings about the unteachable Tao. Tao is believed to be transcendent, indistinct and without form. Hence, it cannot be named or categorized. Even the word "Tao" can be considered a dangerous temptation to make Tao a limiting "name". " seems somewhat confused to me (Chinglish?). Even more importantly, I don't think it's a good idea to go into detail about interpretations of certain sentences of the Tao Te Ching - obviously, that'd be a bottomless pit. Thus, I deleted the whole passage. If you disagree, please feel free to translate it into good English and re-insert it. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tao Te Ching which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

could i link my article here as it is mentioned once in the text of this article? - the texts section here navigable thru the table of contents has other texts: "Other texts See also: Mozi While the Tao Te Ching is most famous, there are many other important texts in traditional Taoism including Mohism. Taishang Ganying Pian ("Treatise of the Exalted One on Response and Retribution") discusses sin and ethics, and has become a popular morality tract in the last few centuries.[96] It asserts that those in harmony with Tao will live long and fruitful lives. The wicked, and their descendants, will suffer and have shortened lives.[86]"             - my article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatise_On_the_Response_of_the_Tao i.e. the tai shang yingpian...     does anyone object? it is currently orphan article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanielfirst (talk • contribs) 20:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Minority adherents
Many minorities in southern China practice Daoism and some of these minorities also live in southeast asian countries.

http://books.google.com/books?id=TwKw42iAx-8C&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=false

06:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

ERA
This article is about a non-Christian religion and a non-Western context and should use BCE/CE or a Chinese calendar for dating. Editor2020 (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"Modern Taoism"
I have removed this (twice) as the source is a self-published book and the author has no article on Wikipedia or any indications what his credentials are. -- Neil N  talk to me  18:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia advertisement for firearms
If someone could please remove the advertisement that would be greatly appreciated 122.61.66.2 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC).

Taoism is not Chinese folk religion
Many people are confused and they think that Taoism is the same as Chinese folk religion. As a Chinese, I researched these two religions and found that they have a big difference. Chinese folk religion is a folk religion that is practiced by the Chinese, which is clearly stated and it started before Taoism. Taoism is a religion founded by Zhang Daoling with the one and the only Taoism sect, Way of the Five Pecks of Rice. Gotta dinner, will discuss more later. --Inohome (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In General
This Taoism/Daoism wiki pages has provided very good resource about the Chinese religion. it listed the history, ethic, cosmology, and physical exercises of those who practice dao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDJiang1986 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"It is unlikely that Zhuangzi was familiar with the text of the Daodejing"
I do not know the cited works, but it is a fact that the Book Zhuangzi frequently refers to Laozi and includes direct quotes of the Daodejing. Maybe the cited works claim all these instances to be later forgeries, but this is a very debatable approach, at least. I would vote for this sentence as well as the next one to be erased as it makes a strong claim that does not really help to illustrate a relevant point, but is highly debatable. 84.132.125.96 (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding I Ching to Texts subsection
Although the I Ching predates the inception of Taoism as a philosophical school, I think it is important to acknowledge that it has been adopted for centuries by scholars, adherents, and students of Tao. So I have added the I Ching to the list of major texts with citations; it supports much of what Lao Tzu describes in the Tao Te Ching. Vierteecke (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Politics
Surely, the linkage of Taoism with anarchism, pluralism, and liberalism is highly dubious and anachronistic?--58.106.173.232 (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. Bacchiad (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Taoism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327075017/http://www.hrwf.net/advocacy/ext/religious_freedom_china.pdf to http://www.hrwf.net/advocacy/ext/religious_freedom_china.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150506015631/http://www.asia.msu.edu/eastasia/China/religion.html to http://www.asia.msu.edu/eastasia/China/religion.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A step towards homogenizing Wiki
Hi, I like to make it a point that every Wiki page should have a History section? I'm aware that there is a Origin and Development section but doesn't that just make it sound like a figment of creation. History could be a header and those things put under in a sub header, I would do it if people agree with my viewpoint. Yihengsong (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I ching
How much connection does I ching have with Taoism, especially in term of philosophy? Well they do share some common value and are being inter-interpretated but that's it, it's even controversial to say I ching is more Confucianism or Taoism while the reality might be closer to neither. The idea of I ching is Taoism instead of Confucianism is even called as very revolutionary in a recent (Year 2003) essay and said the idea exist only for a decade or so (Well the article is in Confucianism PoV so there might have some bias but still it's an academic essay).C933103 (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The Yìjīng (I Ching) is of tangenital importance to Daoism at best. Yet it is currently given a huge amount of text in this article, more than either the Daodejing or Zuangzi. What's more, it is listed first - further creating an impression that it is more important than the other texts. The Yìjīng is certainly an important text in the history of Chinese philosophy and religion, so I argue it is worth mentioning in the article somewhere. However, it should not receive such a large level of prominence here, when (1) its importance was never specific to Daoism, and (2) Daoists did not pay attention to the Yìjīng until hundred of years after the other texts existed. If texts of universal importance are to be discussed in the article, then the Huainanzi is a far better candidate. Even certain parts of syncretic texts (like the Neiye chapter of the Guanzi) are worth including, as are more specifically Daoist philosophy works like the Liezi or more religious works like the Qingjing Jing. Even though the Yìjīng is a hugely influential classic, I would still rank it among all of those other texts in terms of importance specifically to Daoism. Sunkencathedral (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The "yin-yang" image should be removed and replaced
The version of the yin-yang image that the entire umbrella of Taoism articles falls under* is a Western distortion of the taiji tu diagram, and so it shouldn't representing Taoism as a philosophy or religion. Sure, it's a well-known symbol but it fails to actually represent the history of Taoism, instead representing appropriation...


 * Constructed from semi-circles, where the curve does not continually decrease in radius. Ideally, even, the xintian bagua tu would be circling the taiji tu.

If you need a citation check François Louis's "The Genesis of an Icon: The "Taiji" Diagram's Early History" published in the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, vol. 63, no. 1, June 2003. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25066694?origin=JSTOR-pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.81.17.93 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Even the original version of the taijitu was not a Daoist symbol. The Wikipedia article on the Taijitu itself correctly identifies it as a Confucian symbol introduced by a Neo-Confucian scholar intended to demonstrate Confucian metaphysical concepts. Over a period of 1000 years, that symbol gradually evolved and started to be used in Chinese philosophy more generally. But it was never a strictly Daoist symbol and has spent most of its history being aligned strongly with Confucianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunkencathedral (talk • contribs) 13:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

being the Tao
hello, in the Dao De Jing it is said one is able to not KNOW the Dao, but is able to BE the Dao,anyone have anything on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.112.66 (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Categorization
FFS... Please change the Categorization section back to the 3 (philosophical, religion & folk religion). That is as close as you have ever gotten & likely ever going to get. They have traditionally being very intertwine... you don't get to arbitrarily disqualify or uncategorised the folk religion out of it. Has anyone bothered to go into a temple & tell the folks that half of their deities got "disqualify"? Taoism is very diverse & ineffable... You think you are ever going to get academic precision? This is one of the topic that the more precise you try to be... the least correct you are likely to become.

Bio-capsule (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Could you clarify? --Mallexikon (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The categorization section had been at least for quite sometime divide into 3 categories: 1) Philosophical Taoism 2) Religious Taoism 3) Chinese Folk Religion. Now the chinese folk religion is just exclude on the ground of "outside of the tenets and core teachings of Taoism". The thing is the 3 categories have being so intertwine for so long that it makes no different. For example: under 'Taoism in singapore' article it state that they are mainly associated with the Zhen Yi school, but such specifics tend not to concern the temple followers. Most of the temples are as much Taoism as it is Chinese Folk Religions & the people see themselves as practising Taoist. There is no dispute within Taoist community about that...


 * The current article as it stand make is as if the folk religion part can be disregard... that's just not right. I understand Wikipedia's requirement for academic accuracy but if it had to be just categorize it as philosophical & religious only, the chinese folk religion should be at least a sub-category of Religious Taoism. Bio-capsule (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I honor your experience, however, my own experience with the Taoist community is completely different. Then again, it doesn't really matter what experiences you and I have made - since wikipedia is all about verifiability, an article's information has to be supported by reliable sources. So if you are in possession of some of those, please feel free to change the "Categorization" section's content accordingly. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * When you mean your own experience, do you mean the people practising Chinese Folk Religion don't considered themselves Taoist anymore?? In any case inserting personal experience is not what I meant. Even under section "Adherents" & "Rituals", what is listed within is as much religious Taoism as it is folk religion & at least acknowledge it cannot be clearly define & separate (Same goes for articles on some of the deities & immortals). The earlier versions list 3 categories... yet now it's only 2 so clearly someone feel the need to took deliberate action to disassociate Chinese Folk Religion. Is it on behalf of 20 - 400 million people? The remaining part of the section is vague at best & yes I do intend to check out Isabelle Robinet's Taoism: Growth of a Religion, which most of the citation on that part came from.


 * I am not so much questioning reliability of the sources, I am questioning that someone just cited a few selected line from a sources & took liberty with a particular narrative. Did the book actually disavow the connection to Chinese Folk Religion as a whole? It may be by accident but in any case it is obscene... I would think that Wikipedia is not about redefining other people's religion for them. Bio-capsule (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I don't mean that people practising Chinese Folk religion don't consider themselves Daoist anymore - I mean that professional Daoists (i.e., Daoist scholars, priests, and nuns) go at great lengths to emphasize that Daoism is different from Folk religion. And this is what Robinet (a scholar who put much more time and energy into researching Daoism than you and me) is saying as well. Nobody took liberties here. The information in the article is backed up by reliable sources. This is what we are supposed to do at wikipedia. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Daoism has diversified over the centuries. It has its roots, partially in folk religion but gradually the principles and practices were codified and as they did so different schools of Daoism emerged. Many of these schools now no longer identify with their folk religion roots. Daoism has spread out to cover a very wide range of beliefs and practices although the core philosophies should remain the same. (JD Paul - 26 April 2017) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.159.153 (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Taoism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrwf.net/advocacy/ext/religious_freedom_china.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303184353/http://www.china-zentrum.de/fileadmin/redaktion/RCTC_2012-3.29-54_Wenzel-Teuber_Statistical_Overview_2011.pdf to http://www.china-zentrum.de/fileadmin/redaktion/RCTC_2012-3.29-54_Wenzel-Teuber_Statistical_Overview_2011.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110303155259/http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/C2010sr1/cop2010sr1.pdf to http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/C2010sr1/cop2010sr1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Taoism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220182953/http://www.asia.msu.edu/eastasia/China/religion.html to http://www.asia.msu.edu/eastasia/China/religion.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Wrong reference, dubious position
The article states "Taoism favors philosophical anarchism, pluralism and laissez-faire-government" and put as reference the article of Chad Hansen in the SEP. Not only the article doesnt states the laissez-faire part, but Chad Hansen himself dont think that, he believes that the Dao De Jing is maybe closer to some points of cultural marxism. The next sentence doubles down with the idea of daoism as liberal philosophy, but uses a non-scholarly source as reference. Certainly Laozi wouldnt endorse inequality, consumerism, individual rights to pursue any life an individual wants, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.122.50.46 (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the text should say something like "Daoism never had a unified political theory. While Huang-Lao positions justified a strong emperor as the legitimate ruler, the "primitivists" (like in the chapters 8-11 of the Zhuangzi) argued in strongly for a radical anarchism. A more moderate position is presented in the Inner Chapters of the Zhuangzi in which the political life is presented with disdain and some kind of pluralism or perspectivism is preferred. The syncretist position in texts like the Huainanzi and some Outer Chapters of the Zhuangzi blendend some daoist positions with confucian ones." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.171.106.181 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Pinyin vs Wade-Giles: modern?
I reinstated "Taoism (modernly: Daoism) is a philosophical and religious tradition..." I'm fine with the article (currently) favoring Wade-Giles over Pinyin (eventually and peacefully, it's all gonna change to Pinyin anyway. Cf. "Peking"). However, Wade-Giles was developed in the 19th century, while Pinyin was developed in the 50s. So I'm afraid the Wade-Giles proponents will have to live with the fact of Pinyin being more modern. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Google Ngrams here shows how usage is converging. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is the name still "Taoism"? It should be changed and so far there aren't any objections. The article is a mess. "Taoism" is preferred, but "Daozang" using the same first syllable is written in Pinyin, so is "Zhuangzi". --2.245.115.194 (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be changed. most of the links are in pinyin, most of the texts the article refers to are referred to by pinyin naming. using the wade-giles is increasingly archaic, it makes the articles look bad 114.88.126.26 (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also agree that it should be changed to pinyin. We should go by common academic usage. Bacchiad (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If a move debate gets set up, I'd vote for a change as well.  White Whirlwind  咨   03:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Especially in the light that Pinyin is since 2009 also officially used in Taiwan retaining WG in the title(s) and then mostly pinyin in the body seems odd. It should be either or, and since redoing the article all in WG would be very anachronistic the only option seems to gradually change it all to Pinyin. Another thing is that the romanisation issue is pretty specific to the English language and Wikipedia entry, and keeping WG in English can be very confusing for non native English speakers/readers.

I propose to gradually change all WG references and links to pinyin and then eventually the title. Most of the article already uses pinyin, there are not that many terms in WG, except 'Taoism' and 'Tao Te Ching' that feature prominently throughout. But maybe its best to do these last as it will be controversial. What do you people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyxmz (talk • contribs) 13:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is here to educate and Pinyin is the more user-friendly and modern system that is used by all Chinese people (in mainland China). As China is becoming ever more dominant as a world power Wikipedia should be losing its WG references and sticking to the 'proper' pinyin usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.159.153 (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

All this argument about pinyin being "more modern, academic, user-friendly, etc," neglects the point that each language has its own way of expressing certain terms from another culture depending on when that term got imported. Just because tea and tofu originated from China doesn't mean we should in English be forced to refer them as cha and doufu respectively (and actually the English word for tea came from Hokkien/Southern Min and tofu came from Japan). Beijing is still called Peking/Pekin in German, French, and Spanish, and Nanjing is still called Nankin in French and Spanish because these languages imported the name of these cities based on contact with the southern Chinese languages. Dim sim isn't called dianxin in English; nor is ginseng (derived from Hokkien) called renshen. No one is going to say ketou instead of kowtow in English. Allentchang (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Taoism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412142816/http://www.daoistcenter.org/ to http://www.daoistcenter.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Taoism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103142010/http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=672 to http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=672

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

About the Theology section
The first paragraph of the section on the theology of Taoism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism#Theology ) describes it as pantheistic, on account of the focus of an non-anthropomorphic Tao. This justification does not seem to agree much with the conclusion stated, as it suggests a focus on a single deity. I mention that because it might be a source of confusion, especially to a skimmer (like me). Being non familiar with Taoism, I almost edited the page to present Taoism as being monotheistic. Luckily, I read the remaining paragraphs of the section before doing that. It my concern warranted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.187.165 (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Suggestion is simply not there. sirlanz 23:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

food may be set out as a sacrifice, may include slaughtered animals
The Daoist Celestial Master Zhang Daoling rejected food and animal sacrifices to the Gods. He torn apart Temple which demanded animal sacrifice and drove away its priests. Nowadays Daoism Temples are still not allowed to use animal sacrifices.(Instead, Fruits, Flower, Water, Vege-Foods are allowed.) Therefore changed the phrase. As for chinese Folk Religion, which is very different from Daoism, sometimes animal sacrifices are still being used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozougui (talk • contribs) 12:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Additions
While the article strives for objectivity and balance and it draws extensively on recent western scholarship, I think it fails to convey readers a clear idea of its subject.

To a western reader it would be important to be given a better understanding of the main founding concepts and tenets of this school through a more detailed and precise exposition of its view of man and the world, its fundamental ideas about life and its aim, the practises it has developed in order to achieve the best result for human life etc.

To achieve this would require to use other scholarship, especially in Chinese. Also the article on internal alchemy is very poorly developed.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, sure man, knock yourself out. Be bold. As long as it's reliably sourced. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with this, chinese interpretations and research should be used over western sources. And things like saying Taoism supports anarchism should be removed because the religion absolutely does not support anarchism or have that as part of it's philosophy. 73.112.80.55 (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is still incomplete and should not be rated GA
The article is rated as a "Good Article" despite being still very incomplete, actually. The history and theology sections are poor; the practices section mixes Taoism with practices of the folk religion, while Taoism has a huge liturgical corpus which is wholly ignored here; the article lacks a section about the many Taoist schools (Quanzhen, Zhengyi, etc.) and their differences.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There's probably a good case for de-listing here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

addition to further readings for Daoism page
I'm so very sorry that I made a mistake by adding my own book by editing the page on Daoism (Taoism). I should have realized that this was not appropriate, but I've never edited a page in Wikipedia before. If you would consider it appropriate, please add the book. If not, accept my apologies for the mistake. Daoism: An Introduction, I.B. Tauris, London-Macmillan, U.S. and Canada, 2009.Littlejohnr (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 燕京赵大知识分子.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we change Taoism to Daosim already in the main article title?
Wade-Giles is about 50 years out of date and it causes mispronunciation in lay readers profligating wide spread confusion about how to discuss, in English, Chinese topics in a wide variety of fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.73.171.5 (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed Ganymede94 (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Taoism and environmentalism
I removed the paragraph on Taoism as environmentalism due to unreliable sources. The first statement, that “Taoism has had a strong influence on environmentalism,” is an unsupported opinion; unsourced original research per WP:NOR.

The source “Environment and Ecology” is an anonymous website that does not cite any sources for its content (other than primary sources) making the content unverifiable (see WP:VERIFY; “All material in Wikipedia mainspace…must be verifiable.”)

The Huffington Post essay “Taoism Is Environmentalism” by Arthur Rosenfeld is user contributed (see WP:USERGENERATED). Rosenfeld is not an established subject-matter expert on environmentalism (see WP:BLOGS). Also, the article is misquoted. Rosenfield states that the Three Treasures are, “treating each other with respect and compassion, and cherishing all living things.” The deleted entry interprets the Three Treasures, citing Rosenfield as the source, as “The Three Treasures have been interpreted as supportive of animal rights (compassion), simple living (frugality), and ecocentrism (humility), (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP; “Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves”).

The final statement, that “Environmentalist John Muir was called the "Taoist of the West"” is a single source opinion by one writer and is not generally supported by the scholarly community (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP; “Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.” The publisher, Ultravisum, is not a recognized academic press (their website looks like a vanity press or self-publishing service). I couldn’t find any information on Dr J. Zai, so they are not an established subject-matter expert. The book contains a disclaimer that, “Most contents in the book are the original research of the editor/author Dr Zai.” - Epinoia (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)