1167:
not read any material which supports the idea that there is or has been any genuine "issue" rooted in the romanisation alternates. Perhaps there is such material which is fine. I don't think it's sufficient to ground an article but, so be it, I'm not going so far (yet) as putting this one up for AfD, so we need not go there. But what I have done is attempt to bring the article down to what it is really all about: a simple linguistic confusion and explain where it all came from. And to do so without a lengthy general lecture about romanisation of the
Chinese language or other diversions which window-dress this up into something that it cannot possibly be. And even if there is a case (though I doubt it) for suggesting the alternates are a factor or fundamental in some alternative views of the belief system, then that does not belong here anyway, but on pages exploring the theological story. I was gobsmacked the first time I spotted this page, at how so much could be written about so little. It contained learned, well-written material but it had the effect of simply confusing and thoroughly misleading the novitiate, and we must communicate with them, not other knowledgeable linguists in any event.
1303:
regards the "issue", there is no issue between the romanisations, merely history. The only grist for the discussion of an issue is the idea that the romanisations can be linked to differing interpretations/expositions of the traditional religion (if that can be identified). And through our vigorous interplay, so far we have determined that there is scant little evidence of this linkage (I'm waiting for more if you have it, since you are its proponent and me its skeptic). So, in conclusion, it would be helpful if
Keahapana would direct us to how a lengthy exposition about romanisation generally is a justifiable preoccupation of this article. The danger in including it is that it obscures the subject greatly (especially to non-expert readers) and its elaboration falsely erects castle around a lean-to. As regards the Ruggieri input from me, that was generated in a concession to the idea that, if the article remains (it ought to be merged), a short, accurate (Wade-Giles nonsense removed) preamble providing context for readers is justified, but I am not suggesting it is relevant at all to the issue itself.
1400:
two-sentence aside in the preface comes nowhere near suggesting there is any tension at all. It appears in a 478-page work about Daoism fielding scholarly work from dozens of respected authors and, as far as I can tell, not another murmur about a romanisation "issue". So your position is propounded by just one writer, also in just several sentences on, in effect, a personal blog, which is not reported or commented upon in any scholarly (or really almost any other material anywhere). The one work (I seem to recall I provided it) reporting
Komjathy's views (by direct quotation) does not say a single word about any issue about Romanisation. Apparently, that aspect of Komjathy's ideas was not considered worthy of any comment whatsoever (Palmer). Unless you can come up with something better, we really have to be serious and merge the explanation of the alternate romanisations into the Daoism page and merely as an aside such as that written by Girardot.
1157:
name, as if that says anything at all. So far
Keahapana has put forward no substantive alternative to the edits made by me. Before any third opinion or anyone else intercedes in this, we should find out if any sort of sensible debate has, indeed, begun. So, Keahapana, please inform us, for example, why you think Wade-Giles has anything to do with the origin of the romanisation here; then tell us why you think Ricci and Trigault collaborated. And then tell us why we should focus on Trigault when Ruggieri did the work decades before and established the "errant", shall we call it, romanisation at the root of this storm in a teacup. And while you do that, you might take on board that the Witek work was done in 2001 and it appears a pretty good certainty that the editors contributing to the article are simply unaware of it.
1200:
of the tenets of the faith. Thus, the title sets the reader off on the wrong track right from the start. We also now know that the existence of the theological "issue" appears to rely upon just two sources: a solid source from an academic expert in the field, Girardot (with assistance from Miller), and a shaky, undeveloped, few dozens of words on a webpage authored by an asst prof. Its underpinning thus is very weak. There are two ways to go with it: either provide stronger justification for the idea that an "issue" really exists at all other than in the minds of two or three people, or strip it down further and merge it into the Daoism page. If the improvement cannot be made, I shall push for that merge because right now it's skating on thin ice.
1592:
English words Daoism (/ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/) and Taoism (/ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/ or /ˈtaʊ.ɪzəm/) are alternative romanizations for the same-named
Chinese philosophy and religion." No: the English words are English words, they are not romanizations of anything. The English word "Taoism" is pronounced (obviously) with an initial aspirated dental consonant ("t"), just is the initial 't' of every English word where is is followed by a vowel (exceptions, anyone?). Of course I understand that in Chinese the syllable Dao/Tao (WG/py) is pronounced with an unaspirated dental consonant, like the 't' in English "stop", which is neither an initial English "t" nor "d". So there is no "correction" to be done.
1551:
difference too (but not phonemically): it's more or less the same as the difference between the 't' in 'top' and the 't' in 'stop'. You probably cannot hear the difference, but you can detect it easily by putting your hand in front of your mouth: you feel a puff of air in 'top', but no puff of air in 'stop'. This is not the same as the difference in pronunciation between
English 't' in 'tot' and 'd' in 'dot', which is a difference of voicing. Unless someone can correct any error I have in understanding the issue, it seems to me that the stuff from Carr is simply incompatible with a correct description.
1091:, "This page is very old", and 139 editors have made 296 total edits since the 1 October 2001 start. During the last ten years that I've been contributing to this long-stable page, although there's been lots of normal back and forth among editors, the general arc of development has been gradual expansion and improvement—until two months ago. It appears that you are the first person to believe this article "is fundamentally misconceived" and "needs to be stripped back". If that is true, then I suggest that we roll back to the last stable version of 17 November 2017, and you submit a
527:
1074:
thing with the impression there was something behind all the smoke. There isn't. There wasn't. I take your point on the first sentence of the body, i.e. it is pitched wrongly, in a hifalutin justification of a non-article. It needs to be stripped right back to the simple proposition that early romanisers thought it would be nice to use a "t" to sound like a "d" and none-the-wiser readers henceforth got sent down the wrong road. A one-liner to replace the paragraph would be a huge improvement.
1059:
cutting the bloated IPA paragraph in the lead, thank you), others were clearly counterproductive and leave readers clueless. For instance, if "focus is on the unaspirated t", after expunging the entire
Phonology of 道 section that explained it, how could anyone who hasn't studied linguistics parse "phonemic opposition between aspirated and unaspirated consonants" in the first sentence? Also, have you read Carr (1990)? Please let me know if you don't have access to it and I'll send a PDF.
517:
496:
343:
450:
425:
281:
1049:
page is needed is to completely overhaul the body dealing with the origin of the dichotomy. I imagine, if taking on that task, it will rapidly become clear that introducing Wade or Giles or both really contributes nothing at all to the analysis. Indeed, it is more a distraction likely to confuse or overcomplicate a very simple matter (one only barely worth a page more than one line in length in any event).
1182:
article, I was just offering to share the best material that I've found about this subject. If you're finished overhauling the page down to 5%, I'll start making revisions and we can begin substantively discussing the content problems, point by point, as you suggested. It's regrettable that we've gotten off on the wrong foot/feet and I hope that we can work together to improve the article. Best wishes,
1242:. "4 Lexicography of Taoism" dealt with how British and American English dictionaries have glossed the pronunciations of Taoism and Daoism, and ongoing changes in correcting Taoism's pronunciation from /ˈtaʊ.ɪzəm/ to /ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/. "5 Ramifications" discussed changes in English spelling and pronunciation of Chinese loanwords (e.g., Peking, Pei-ching, and Beijing) within the larger framework of
764:
itself is odd--magazine pieces are not necessarily biased. They can run the gamut from opinion to factual. Maybe the critic means that it is written like an opinion piece? But this isn't the case; I don't really detect a bias. The only criticism I have is it is a bit pedantic but given the pointless stuff people write about (Texas
Longhorns, etc), this seems like a worthwhile article.
333:
312:
32:
1550:
Then "the
American publications were faster to rectify the mistaken (/ˈtaʊ.ɪzəm/) pronunciation to (/ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/)". Well, no, this suggests a failure to understand the issue. Chinese has a distinction between aspirated and unaspirated labiodentals, which I'll call "t" for convenience. English has this
1546:
Michael Carr appears to say: "the prescriptively correct (/ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/) is based on
Chinese romanization..." What is "prescriptively correct" about mispronouncing an unaspirated labiodental as a voiced labiodental? Who is Michael Carr - can't find anything other than some contributions to Language Log
1409:
On the Girardot work, it bears noting that the source is not the least concerned about matters of romanisation nor even, apparently, capable of the most basic account of the subject: the table provided by Girardot on the page after the cited "Note" begins with the line "b as in 'be', aspirated" (p.
1166:
The landscape here was first and best characterised in the very first Talk comment above, Pointless. The article is remarkable in that it makes something of one particular dichotomy among many that exist right across the entire Chinese language, and it does so as if it is something special. I have
1073:
The article is fundamentally misconceived. There is no meat in the proposition at all. It's merely a case of a style of Romanisation misleading all but linguists. Taking the article down a long pedagogical road just makes a mountain out of a molehill and leaves those who are not into that sort of
1302:
What you are describing (and the page before my intervention), eloquently, is characteristic of the language and its romanisation as a whole, nothing unique or wondrous about the available alternates here. That's a general linguistics debate which can feature on a page addressing that subject. As
1199:
There has been some value in the recent work in clarifying what the article is really all about and narrowing down its viability. Firstly, we can now see quite starkly that there is no issue about romanisation at all. The issue is about whether the choice of romanisation reflects a different view
849:
Kwamikagami, thank you for diligently correcting IPA templates in so many articles. When you have time, I'd like to ask about your recent edits. I knew about {{IPA-cmn but not about using the template with a Hanzi like 道. What does it represent? You wrote, "Wade Giles is actually a better guide for
1566:
Thanks for your useful criticisms. This is a first draft and any editorial suggestions or improvements will be appreciated. Yes, you are correct about the interlinguistic phonemic differences between Chinese aspiration and English voicing, which was (over)explained in the deleted Phonology section
1221:
to understand these valuable contributions towards clarifying and specifying the present article's proper content. Comparing the last stable version (17 November 2017, 2,958 words) and the current one (7 May 2018, 903 words), four of the original five sections have been entirely deleted, with some
1156:
This collaborative encyclopaedia can only function if editors engage in the substance of the article. To rush directly to a general complaint without dealing with the content is completely unhelpful. What is the point about Carr? It is not satisfactory to make no point at all and blurt a source
1048:
Hi. I hope you get the primary point in our difference on the lede. You have introduced something completely absent from the body. I'm sure you are perfectly familiar with the lede function and do not need me to go over it with you. The best approach, if you feel a change in the message of the
889:
Perhaps opting for the more general term of "transliteration" which allows inclusion of Zhuyin and Palladius...or, keep "Romanization" and leave out those last two non-Roman scripts. Personally I would opt to rewrite it as "Transliteration" and keep them in for a wider showcase of how hanzi can be
689:
I think the topic certainly deserves an in-depth treatment somewhere; I'd always received the impression that Taoism and Daoism were different and separate concepts. In fact, I think it would be worthwhile to expand on the differences between the concepts associated in English with Daoism and with
1591:
The article at present appears to be no longer an encyclopedic description of anything -- it is a campaign to persuade us that the (English) word Taosism is "mispronounced", or "ought" to be written differently. This is not what WP is for. The first sentence of the lede starts the confusion: "The
1058:
Fine, we can put a pin in the lead for now. I was just starting a major restoration and revision at the beginning. As a longtime contributor to this article, it was surprising to see the extreme deletion of content on 19 February 2017. While many were skillful edits that improve readability (like
1399:
Meanwhile, let's talk more about your support for the suggestion that there is an "issue". I note that you have two sources. Girardot never says one word about any issue about romanisation. He merely says he prefers Daoism because it helps to draw attention to a trend of modern thought. His
763:
I found that the article was written very well with plenty of footnotes. In keeping with Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines, there is no original research and the tone is not polemic. I don't understand why the article was flagged at the top for being written like a "magazine" article. The accusation
662:
I might be wrong, but I don't see any reasons to merge, excluding individual disinterest in the topic. This article meets inclusion criteria, and seems linguistically, sinologically, and lexicographically informative. In addition, as Bradeos Graphon mentions, there are in-house Knowledge (XXG)
1181:
Sorry to be slow in replying, owing to health problems, it may sometimes take me a few days to respond here. Yes, I agree, and that's why the previous (admittedly wordy) version was highly wikified to introduce readers with the relevant linguistic terminology. No offense intended about Carr's
716:
OK - if some people think that Daoism and Taoism are different, then one might resolve the riddle. One could write something like: "Depending on the romanization scheme, 道 may be transcribed as "Dao" (Hanyu Pinyin), "Tao" (Wade-Giles) or other. Hanyu Pinyin is the international standard (and
1375:
I have been waiting patiently to see what response there is to your call for a third opinion but it seems that's been met by a deafening silence. We're in a pretty esoteric area and evidently no one's interested. If there are other editors out there who have opinions, let's hear them.
1487:
have an RfC about that specific matter. What you've done here is the equivalent of getting a referendum or ballot measure put before the voting public that asks, simply, "What should we do about the economy?" It's too open-ended and content- and context-free to produce useful results.
1615:
Thanks for your opinions, and I'll correct the lead. Please revise any language that you consider POV. Or if you prefer, give me a list of specific notes (Where does it say "ought"?) and I'll make changes. I admittedly may be misguided but my only interest is improving this article.
1087:, referring to the romanization system differences, mispronunciation problems, academic arguments, etc. While I respect your opinions, I wonder if they concord with the consensus view among the numerous contributors to and readers of this page. According to the
52:
1222:
content from "3 The Taoism/Daoism loanword" merged under " Romanizations of 道". "1 Phonology of 道 and its English approximations" introduced the fundamental differences between how Chinese and English contrast the consonant sounds /d/ and /t/ with
717:
Knowledge (XXG) standard) today. Since Wade-Giles used to be de-facto standard until the 1970s, "Taoism" is still frequently found." THAT'S ALL WE NEED - anything else is interesting for chinese romanisation in general but not Dao/Tao specific.
214:
620:
this is a rather ridiculous page. Maybe it could be deleted? The "issue" is just a matter of which romanization system is used. The problem of interpretation results in English speakers not knowing the systems and using an English
62:
885:
It states "Romanization," but then goes on to list several systems of romanization, ending with Zhuyin Fuhao and the Cyrillization of Chinese, neither of which could be classified as Romanization, any way you slice it.
1360:, etc.) is strongly aspirated." Instead of wasting time going back and forth, let's request outside editorial opinions to help achieve consensus. What do you think is the best way (3O, RfC, something else) to proceed?
743:
Kawmi鏡, thank you for fixing the IPA formatting. On earlier versions of this article, I used instead of for the voiceless unaspirated Chinese 道, but now I'm confused whether it should be , , or . Which is correct?
1287:
attempt to change the original "Daoism-Taoism romanization issue" article, which has been gradually improving since 2001, to something like a jesuitical "Brief history of Dao-Tao romanization" suitable for merger.
829:
Totally agree: the article is pointless without recorded examples. Running around the bush. Somebody please wake up: it's the age of computers. I can't think of a computer I owned that didn't have a sound card!
1319:
It's certainly possible that I'm wrong and you're right. Perhaps the non-expert reader would be better informed about Chinese aspiration by the current note that the Baptist missionary Otis Frank Wisner's 1927
850:
the naive English reader than pinyin is." I've never read (but would like to) anything supporting the phonetic superiority of W-G over Pinyin for English readers. Could you provide some references? Thanks,
1733:
865:
Nevermind. I misread the diffs (you were only correcting the mistaken IPA usage) and reverted Carr's original quotation, which seems less dubious than the unsupported assertion that W-G is better.
105:
1263:
Balancing out these nearly across-the-board removals, thanks to Sirlanz for adding the Palmer and Siegler (2001) ref, information about a 1912 Cantonese romanization system that transcribed 道 as
208:
1095:, where other editors can participate. Also, does not answering the question about the primary reference source of Carr (1990) mean that you haven't, or don't want to, read it? Best wishes,
1109:
Not the first person taking this stance - three right at the top of this page saying precisely what I've said, the only difference being that I have actually done something about it.
799:
Could someone record the three different versions - chinese, tao, and dao? Hearing these things being said might make it more clear (even just the chinese version would be good).
1600:
has been making a good faith effort to promote this campaign, but I think this is not what WP is for. The campaign can be described, but all the POV language should be removed.
251:
663:
reasons (note the numerous internal links) not to merge. Since the internal arguments over Daoism/Taoism and Daode jing/Tao Te Ching are ongoing, new and future editors (for
690:
Taoism; to differentiate between the most current understanding of the original Chinese philosophy, versus how the West previously popularly imagined that philosophy to be.
407:
1483:. This is too vague a question. Propose restoration of a various parts of the content, have normal consensus discussions about them, and if an issue becomes intractable
982:
978:
964:
667:) will continue needing this article. Could we find someone expert in phonological terminology to correct the inaccuracies about voiced/voiceless stops? Best wishes.
1718:
1713:
397:
1728:
1723:
573:
373:
140:
1083:
PLEASE STOP this destructive editing and page moving until we reach consensus here on the Talk page. The article has always been about D-T romanization
229:
583:
196:
1376:
Unfortunately, they will have to have some level of expertise, though, to contribute because a novice is just not going to get a grip on it at all.
1088:
369:
356:
317:
146:
1543:
This section has been restored: but it appears to me to be extremely confused, and simply in error, all over the place. A couple of quotes:
914:
85:
1690:"Linguistically, historically, culturally, and lexicographically, this article constitutes a significant contribution to human knowledge."
91:
190:
1738:
891:
549:
186:
160:
1651:
No. (I think it's an en-dash, not a hyphen, but I'll type hyphens.) Daoism-Taoism is correct formal English style. Slashes are not.
1499:
1433:
165:
81:
236:
135:
1332:
that "The stops and affricates fall into two contrasting series, one unaspirated, the other aspirated. The unaspirated series (
456:
430:
292:
640:
It is an outgrowth of several-year-old arguments here on Knowledge (XXG). I suggest we merge any material worth keeping with
540:
501:
126:
1534:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1230:. While three paragraphs from section 3 were kept, the deleted content explained the linguistic origin of D-/Taoism as a
548:
related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1025:
38:
1567:
that also needs renovation. The present Lexicography section concentrates upon the changing English pronunciations of
202:
1284:
930:
246:
1134:
170:
1325:
890:
written phonetically (unless phrasing it like that opens a whole 'nother semantic can of worms vis-à-vis IPA)...
839:
808:
649:
981:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
260:
1324:"represented the unaspirated initial with the letter "d" instead of "t"" than the deleted quote from linguist
609:
361:
298:
1656:
1605:
1556:
1016:
922:
895:
280:
461:
435:
1699:
1660:
1645:
1625:
1609:
1580:
1560:
1522:
1504:
1474:
1459:
1414:
1404:
1394:
1380:
1369:
1307:
1297:
1204:
1191:
1171:
1161:
1146:
1113:
1104:
1078:
1068:
1053:
1030:
899:
874:
859:
823:
788:
773:
753:
726:
699:
676:
653:
634:
622:
1636:
Should the present to "Daoism-Taoism romanization issue" be moved to "Daoism/Taoism romanization issue"?
116:
1496:
1280:
1000:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
988:
769:
921:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
131:
765:
955:
835:
722:
718:
695:
645:
629:
17:
1234:, Western romanization systems of Chinese, and systematic (mis)pronunciations of borrowings such as
31:
1695:
1641:
1621:
1576:
1518:
1470:
1455:
1390:
1365:
1293:
1227:
1187:
1142:
1100:
1064:
1041:
870:
855:
819:
804:
784:
749:
672:
222:
625:. Also the phonetics of word-initial voiced stops are not so accurate (as Angr above mentions). –
605:
1652:
1601:
1552:
265:
985:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1001:
1223:
516:
495:
112:
1491:
604:; but where some other transliteration is standard in English, Knowledge (XXG) uses it. See
264:
262:
1092:
1008:
1348:, and often gives the impression of being voiced to the untrained ear. The second series (
831:
691:
626:
342:
1131:
1127:
1691:
1637:
1617:
1595:
1572:
1514:
1466:
1451:
1386:
1361:
1289:
1183:
1138:
1096:
1060:
967:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
866:
851:
815:
800:
780:
745:
668:
365:
364:
interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to
348:
1007:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
974:
1707:
1683:
1411:
1401:
1377:
1304:
1276:
1201:
1168:
1158:
1110:
1075:
1050:
641:
601:
532:
931:
https://web.archive.org/web/20151211110432/http://www.daoistcenter.org:80/pwt.html
600:
Knowledge (XXG) guidance for transliteration of Chinese words is generally to use
1679:
1675:
449:
424:
1247:
973:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
522:
368:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by
338:
1513:
Yes, you're correct, the question (my first RfC) was badly phrased. Thanks,
1267:, and two arcane paragraphs (370 words) about early Jesuit romanizations of
41:. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
1271:
in the c. 1588 Ruggieri-Ricci bilingual Portuguese-Chinese dictionary and
934:
1465:
What content deleted from the last stable version should be restored?
332:
311:
1243:
1231:
1385:
Let’s hope the following request will find some interested editors.
664:
1345:
545:
274:
266:
76:
26:
1450:
Withdrawn by poster, unaware that AfD had already started.
940:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
779:
You're correct about this frivolous tag and I'll delete it.
925:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1734:
Redirect-Class China-related articles of Low-importance
1283:. All told, this editing appears to be a single-handed
1218:
918:
1410:
xxxii), so Girardot, lead editor, hasn't got a clue.
221:
1432:
The following discussion is an archived record of a
544:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1442:
No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1130:is a pointless waste of time, and I've requested a
977:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
235:
1250:as the standard romanization system for Chinese.
814:Sorry, but I don't know of any links for these.
644:and either delete this or make it a redirect. --
459:, a project which is currently considered to be
94:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1680:Tao vs. Dao: amazing restaurant sign near UPenn
1671:The present WP article was recently mentioned.
291:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
963:This message was posted before February 2018.
1445:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
8:
382:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Writing systems
913:I have just modified one external link on
490:
419:
306:
354:This redirect falls within the scope of
492:
421:
308:
1719:Low-importance Writing system articles
1714:Redirect-Class Writing system articles
1729:Low-importance China-related articles
1724:Redirect-Class China-related articles
952:to let others know (documentation at
538:This redirect is within the scope of
455:This redirect is within the scope of
278:
18:Talk:Daoism-Taoism romanization issue
7:
935:http://www.daoistcenter.org/pwt.html
385:Template:WikiProject Writing systems
1040:The following was copied here from
297:It is of interest to the following
84:for discussing improvements to the
471:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Taoism
25:
1042:User talk:Keahapana#Daoism-Taoism
917:. Please take a moment to review
558:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject China
111:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1530:The discussion above is closed.
915:Daoism–Taoism romanization issue
578:This redirect has been rated as
525:
515:
494:
448:
423:
402:This redirect has been rated as
341:
331:
310:
279:
106:Click here to start a new topic.
86:Daoism–Taoism romanization issue
30:
37:This article was nominated for
646:Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων
1:
1700:01:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
1489:
1279:'s 1615 Latin history of the
875:00:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
860:23:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
824:23:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
809:10:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
774:09:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
552:and see a list of open tasks.
103:Put new text under old text.
1661:07:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
1031:18:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
759:A good article but technical
700:22:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
1646:00:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
1626:21:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
1610:03:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
1089:Revision history statistics
1036:Sixty-two percent deletion?
900:14:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
474:Template:WikiProject Taoism
357:WikiProject Writing systems
1755:
1739:WikiProject China articles
1581:00:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
1561:06:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
1192:00:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
1172:00:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
1162:22:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
1147:22:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
1114:04:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
1105:21:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
1079:01:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
1069:01:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
1054:00:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
994:(last update: 5 June 2024)
910:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
789:21:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
599:
584:project's importance scale
561:Template:WikiProject China
408:project's importance scale
1425:RfC about content removal
840:07:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
795:Examples of how it's said
754:03:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
727:11:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
677:20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
654:22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
635:19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
577:
510:
443:
401:
326:
305:
141:Be welcoming to newcomers
1532:Please do not modify it.
1523:01:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
1505:10:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
1475:01:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
1460:01:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
1439:Please do not modify it.
1415:02:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
1405:03:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
1395:01:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
1381:00:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
1370:21:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
1308:01:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
1298:20:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
372:and/or leave a query at
51:, 22 December 2023, see
1205:08:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
906:External links modified
881:Romanization of Chinese
388:Writing system articles
374:the project’s talk page
623:spelling pronunciation
564:China-related articles
136:avoid personal attacks
1281:Jesuit China missions
161:Neutral point of view
1539:Lexicography section
975:regular verification
794:
166:No original research
1686:, 24 December 2019.
1434:request for comment
1322:Beginning Cantonese
965:After February 2018
944:parameter below to
739:Thanks and question
61:, 17 May 2018, see
1587:Misguided campaign
1019:InternetArchiveBot
970:InternetArchiveBot
457:WikiProject Taoism
293:content assessment
147:dispute resolution
108:
1285:WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT
1217:Let's review the
995:
632:
598:
597:
594:
593:
590:
589:
541:WikiProject China
489:
488:
485:
484:
418:
417:
414:
413:
273:
272:
127:Assume good faith
104:
75:
74:
71:
70:
16:(Redirected from
1746:
1599:
1503:
1441:
1029:
1020:
993:
992:
971:
959:
630:
566:
565:
562:
559:
556:
535:
530:
529:
528:
519:
512:
511:
506:
498:
491:
479:
478:
475:
472:
469:
452:
445:
444:
439:
427:
420:
390:
389:
386:
383:
380:
370:the project page
351:
346:
345:
335:
328:
327:
322:
314:
307:
284:
283:
275:
267:
240:
239:
225:
156:Article policies
77:
43:
42:
34:
27:
21:
1754:
1753:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1704:
1703:
1669:
1634:
1593:
1589:
1541:
1536:
1535:
1481:Not a valid RfC
1462:
1437:
1427:
1038:
1023:
1018:
986:
979:have permission
969:
953:
923:this simple FaQ
908:
902:Tom in Florida
883:
847:
797:
761:
741:
618:
613:
563:
560:
557:
554:
553:
531:
526:
524:
504:
477:Taoism articles
476:
473:
470:
467:
466:
433:
387:
384:
381:
379:Writing systems
378:
377:
366:writing systems
347:
340:
320:
318:Writing systems
269:
268:
263:
182:
177:
176:
175:
152:
122:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1752:
1750:
1742:
1741:
1736:
1731:
1726:
1721:
1716:
1706:
1705:
1688:
1687:
1668:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1633:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1588:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1547:and the like.
1540:
1537:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1508:
1507:
1486:
1463:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1428:
1426:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1407:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1164:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1037:
1034:
1013:
1012:
1005:
938:
937:
929:Added archive
907:
904:
882:
879:
878:
877:
846:
843:
827:
826:
796:
793:
792:
791:
760:
757:
740:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
682:
681:
680:
679:
657:
656:
617:
614:
610:WP:COMMONNAMES
596:
595:
592:
591:
588:
587:
580:Low-importance
576:
570:
569:
567:
550:the discussion
537:
536:
520:
508:
507:
505:Low‑importance
499:
487:
486:
483:
482:
480:
453:
441:
440:
428:
416:
415:
412:
411:
404:Low-importance
400:
394:
393:
391:
353:
352:
349:Writing portal
336:
324:
323:
321:Low‑importance
315:
303:
302:
296:
285:
271:
270:
261:
259:
258:
255:
254:
242:
241:
179:
178:
174:
173:
168:
163:
154:
153:
151:
150:
143:
138:
129:
123:
121:
120:
109:
100:
99:
96:
95:
89:
73:
72:
69:
68:
67:
66:
56:
35:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1751:
1740:
1737:
1735:
1732:
1730:
1727:
1725:
1722:
1720:
1717:
1715:
1712:
1711:
1709:
1702:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1653:Imaginatorium
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1602:Imaginatorium
1597:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1553:Imaginatorium
1548:
1544:
1538:
1533:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1506:
1501:
1498:
1495:
1494:
1484:
1482:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1446:
1443:
1440:
1435:
1430:
1429:
1424:
1416:
1413:
1408:
1406:
1403:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1379:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1309:
1306:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1220:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1206:
1203:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1173:
1170:
1165:
1163:
1160:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1133:
1129:
1115:
1112:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1077:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1052:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1043:
1035:
1033:
1032:
1027:
1022:
1021:
1010:
1006:
1003:
999:
998:
997:
990:
984:
980:
976:
972:
966:
961:
957:
951:
947:
943:
936:
932:
928:
927:
926:
924:
920:
916:
911:
905:
903:
901:
897:
893:
892:66.176.113.94
887:
880:
876:
872:
868:
864:
863:
862:
861:
857:
853:
845:Two questions
844:
842:
841:
837:
833:
825:
821:
817:
813:
812:
811:
810:
806:
802:
790:
786:
782:
778:
777:
776:
775:
771:
767:
758:
756:
755:
751:
747:
738:
728:
724:
720:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
701:
697:
693:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
678:
674:
670:
666:
661:
660:
659:
658:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
638:
637:
636:
633:
628:
624:
615:
611:
607:
603:
585:
581:
575:
572:
571:
568:
551:
547:
543:
542:
534:
523:
521:
518:
514:
513:
509:
503:
500:
497:
493:
481:
464:
463:
458:
454:
451:
447:
446:
442:
437:
432:
429:
426:
422:
409:
405:
399:
396:
395:
392:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
358:
350:
344:
339:
337:
334:
330:
329:
325:
319:
316:
313:
309:
304:
300:
294:
290:
286:
282:
277:
276:
257:
256:
253:
250:
248:
244:
243:
238:
234:
231:
228:
224:
220:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
188:
185:
184:Find sources:
181:
180:
172:
171:Verifiability
169:
167:
164:
162:
159:
158:
157:
148:
144:
142:
139:
137:
133:
130:
128:
125:
124:
118:
114:
113:Learn to edit
110:
107:
102:
101:
98:
97:
93:
87:
83:
79:
78:
64:
60:
57:
54:
50:
47:
46:
45:
44:
40:
36:
33:
29:
28:
19:
1689:
1684:Language Log
1670:
1635:
1590:
1568:
1549:
1545:
1542:
1531:
1492:
1480:
1464:
1444:
1438:
1431:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1326:Jerry Norman
1321:
1318:
1277:Matteo Ricci
1272:
1268:
1264:
1239:
1235:
1180:
1128:Edit warring
1126:
1084:
1039:
1017:
1014:
989:source check
968:
962:
949:
945:
941:
939:
912:
909:
888:
884:
848:
828:
798:
762:
742:
642:Romanization
619:
602:Hanyu Pinyin
579:
539:
533:China portal
460:
403:
355:
299:WikiProjects
288:
245:
232:
226:
218:
211:
205:
199:
193:
183:
155:
80:This is the
59:no consensus
58:
48:
1676:Victor Mair
1667:In the news
1632:Move title?
1493:SMcCandlish
1344:, etc.) is
956:Sourcecheck
766:Ian Johnson
362:WikiProject
209:free images
92:not a forum
1708:Categories
1248:Wade-Giles
1246:replacing
1228:aspiration
1026:Report bug
832:Ziounclesi
719:Wassermaus
692:Cesiumfrog
63:discussion
53:discussion
1692:Keahapana
1638:Keahapana
1618:Keahapana
1596:Keahapana
1573:Keahapana
1515:Keahapana
1467:Keahapana
1452:Keahapana
1387:Keahapana
1362:Keahapana
1290:Keahapana
1184:Keahapana
1139:Keahapana
1097:Keahapana
1061:Keahapana
1009:this tool
1002:this tool
867:Keahapana
852:Keahapana
816:Keahapana
801:El sjaako
781:Keahapana
746:Keahapana
669:Keahapana
616:Pointless
606:WP:MOS-ZH
149:if needed
132:Be polite
88:redirect.
82:talk page
1328:'s 1988
1015:Cheers.—
665:instance
462:inactive
436:inactive
289:redirect
247:Archives
117:get help
90:This is
39:deletion
1412:sirlanz
1402:sirlanz
1378:sirlanz
1330:Chinese
1305:sirlanz
1236:I Ching
1224:voicing
1202:sirlanz
1169:sirlanz
1159:sirlanz
1111:sirlanz
1076:sirlanz
1051:sirlanz
942:checked
919:my edit
631:(speak)
582:on the
406:on the
215:WP refs
203:scholar
1569:Taoism
1244:Pinyin
1240:Yijing
1232:calque
1093:WP:AFD
1085:issues
950:failed
627:ishwar
468:Taoism
431:Taoism
295:scale.
187:Google
1346:lenis
1219:diffs
1132:WP:3O
555:China
546:China
502:China
287:This
230:JSTOR
191:books
145:Seek
49:Merge
1696:talk
1657:talk
1642:talk
1622:talk
1606:talk
1577:talk
1557:talk
1519:talk
1485:then
1471:talk
1456:talk
1391:talk
1366:talk
1294:talk
1226:and
1188:talk
1143:talk
1135:here
1101:talk
1065:talk
946:true
896:talk
871:talk
856:talk
836:talk
820:talk
805:talk
785:talk
770:talk
750:talk
723:talk
696:talk
673:talk
650:talk
608:and
360:, a
223:FENS
197:news
134:and
1502:😼
1275:in
1273:tau
1269:tao
1265:dao
1238:or
983:RfC
960:).
948:or
933:to
574:Low
398:Low
237:TWL
1710::
1698:)
1682:,
1678:,
1659:)
1644:)
1624:)
1608:)
1579:)
1571:.
1559:)
1521:)
1490:—
1473:)
1458:)
1436:.
1393:)
1368:)
1356:,
1352:,
1340:,
1336:,
1296:)
1190:)
1145:)
1137:.
1103:)
1067:)
1044::
996:.
991:}}
987:{{
958:}}
954:{{
898:)
873:)
858:)
838:)
830:--
822:)
807:)
787:)
772:)
752:)
725:)
698:)
675:)
652:)
217:)
115:;
1694:(
1655:(
1640:(
1620:(
1604:(
1598::
1594:@
1575:(
1555:(
1517:(
1500:¢
1497:☏
1469:(
1454:(
1389:(
1364:(
1358:c
1354:t
1350:p
1342:z
1338:d
1334:b
1292:(
1186:(
1141:(
1099:(
1063:(
1028:)
1024:(
1011:.
1004:.
894:(
869:(
854:(
834:(
818:(
803:(
783:(
768:(
748:(
721:(
694:(
671:(
648:(
612:.
586:.
465:.
438:)
434:(
410:.
376:.
301::
252:1
249::
233:·
227:·
219:·
212:·
206:·
200:·
194:·
189:(
119:.
65:.
55:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
