Talk:Religion in China/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The tradition of Chinese religion: Religious Freedom and Religious Inosculating

From the views of eastern world (Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Koreans ...), Semitic culture (West Asia, Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is not an east one, although from Europe, it may be. Even from the views of Indians, Semitic culture is not of east, I think. Unlike Semitic one-god religious society, there is a tradition of religious freedom and religious inosculating in Eastern world and that has last for long. -Daohuo (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In Tang Dynasty, after Buddhism was introduced from India into China, Buddhism had been integrated into Chinese religion. It's often called Three Religions Combine into One Religion (三教合一). Three Religions means Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism. However, actually there were many other Chinese regional religions besides Daoism, and there still are, but these religions are today often classfied as part of Daoism. No-god is one idea of Confucianism. An earlier Confucian Ji Liang (in Spring and Autumn Period) said, People is the master (origin) of god (夫民，神之主也) (Gods are created by people. Different people creates different gods), and Shi Yin (in Spring and Autumn Period) also said：I heard that, if a state will flourish, it listens to people; if a state will perish, it listens to god (吾聞之：國將興，聽於民；將亡，聽於神). Although most Confucians think there are no any gods and no any supernatural forces, they do not oppose people worshipping gods. On contrary, Confucians support people worshipping their ancestors (the ghosts and gods which are their died ancestors). The resean is well stated by Zeng Zi: To be prudent in mourning, and to remember those who have passed away before, is to enhance the virtue of the people.(慎終追遠，民德歸厚矣). So for a typical Chinese, he or she worships ghosts and gods which are their died ancestors, and at the same time, he or she worships the gods of Doism, Buddhism and Confucian religion (such as Guan Di), and gods in other religions such as local religion or industrial religion (such as Lu Ban) -Daohuo (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Chinese religion

The original and state religion throughout Chinese history generally involved Heaven worship based on serving an omnipotent, incorporeal, personal, judicious, monotheistic supreme being called Shangdi ("Lord on High") or Tian ("Heaven"). (Ethel R. Nelson, Richard E. Broadberry, and Ginger Tong Chock. God's Promise to the Chinese. p 8. ISBN 0-937869-01-5.) ., this claim is totally wrong.

In the Three Dynasties, when sacrificing Tian (or Shangdi, Heaven), others gods were also sacrificed, including Di (earth), mountains, rivers. According to ancient Chinese law, only officials sacrifice those gods (《禮記•祭義》“事天地山川社稷先古（先祖）。” “有天下者祭百神。諸侯在其地則祭，亡其地則不祭。...王者父事天，母事地，推人事父母之事，故亦有祭天地之祀。山川以下，報功之義也。緣生人有功得賞，鬼神有功亦祀之。”). For all Chinese, sacrificing the died ancestor is a primay religion. In very ancient time, Chinese had had this tradition. The ancient Chinese have formed the idea that when ancestors died, they become ghosts and gods. There are also many archeological discoveries to prove. Just like today's Chinese belief, invoking the ancestors to bless their descendants. -Daohuo (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The word "protestantism" in Chinese

I have encountered this problem in real-life and I have just corrected it here on Wikipedia. So I am gonna document it here for future editors.

A lot of Chinese people do not know the word "protestant" or "protestantism" in Chinese. The word is "新教". The likely reason that it is not commonly known is because it literally means "New Religion" in Chinese.

Because the translation is so abhorrent in terms of translation (there is no way to easily mark proper noun in Chinese), a lot of people I spoke to would initially refuse to accept it as a name for a religion. In fact a lot of people would refer to Protestantism as Christianity (基督教), listing it along side the word for "Catholicism" as if Catholicism is not part of Christianity. (There is probably interest in the Protestant churches to have itself translated as THE Christianity.)

Now I just recently correct here, as someone has attempted to pass "Christianity" as the translation for "Protestantism". --Voidvector (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange wording needs correction

"Daoism was formed in Han Dynasty. About the time Buddhism was introduced to China, and it rose to predominance during the Tang Dynasty, which initially tolerated its coexistence."

It is not clear to me if Daoism or Buddhims is rising to prominence and which is being tolerated. The subject is unclear. Perhaps create two separate sentances? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.171.241 (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is Shamanism?

Shamanism as well as animism has been part of religion in China at least since the Yin 殷 [Shang商 Dynasty] with shamanic elements manifested in popular Taoist practices and Shamanism popped up again as an important theme in times such as the Mongol Yuan 元 Dynasty. Doc Rock (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Did nothing happen with this? A very legitimate question you raise. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work

This seems to be a fairly biased article, and the English is poor.

I was just casually interested because of the whole Catholic Church vs China thing, but I saw these mistakes pretty quickly:

Generally, the percentage of people who call themselves religious in China have been the lowest in the world. -- not true at all, http://www.gallup.com/poll/114211/Alabamians-Iranians-Common.aspx-- China wasn't included, but #10 is at 27%

Christians are 3-4% of the population according to various detailed surveys,[18][19][20][21] despite American Christian press claims there might be more -- when I referred to one of the links they provided (18), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6337627.stm, I found this quote "The survey also found a significant rise in Christianity - accounting for 12% of all believers, or 40 million, compared with the official figure of 16 million in 2005."

These two quotes can also be considered as examples of bad English. I wish someone who knew about this stuff (and wasn't biased, which seems to be the problem actually) would fix this article up, as it's pretty interesting.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.158.248 (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

New American Evangelical lies - 基督教卧

These days American Evangelical press is spreading new groundless ideological lies about Christianity in China.

Why don’t they write about the stunning revival of Chinese Folk Religion and ancestral networks?

Chinese people aren’t stupid, they won’t let the American Christian religion destroy their civilization too!

These are just two examples of beautiful ancestral temples built in 2011 despite Evangelical lies: - http://www.chens.org.cn/sept2009/Article/UploadFiles/201107/20110705220612278.jpg - http://img.ph.126.net/J09s2GibLGsDipEpU4vl-A==/3320560300257263506.jpg

American Christians are just envious of the Chinese civilization, because Americans don't have a culture while Chinese have one of the greatest and most glorious in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.87.175 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. So well, if it so : Be bold and update the article. Do not accuse other peoplke of lies. If it is not accurate, just provide here the feedback why, show which link (supporting the claims) are dubious and so bring forth relevant secondary sources (and it will be OK ;) ). But just for a thought... is that growth of Christianity in contradiction with growth of Chinese folk Religion (you seems to make such an asumption as if those two would be in conradiction)? I do not know, but does not look as mutually exclusive. Communists tried to weep out any religion in China.. so there is today lot of space to grow in. (just my thought), so welcome and bring some interesting knowledge here with you. {Reo ⁺ 16:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

potential resources, book reviews

China Gets Religion! DECEMBER 22, 2011 The New York Review of Books by Ian Johnson, reviews

• The Religious Question in Modern China by Vincent Goossaert and David A. Palmer (University of Chicago Press);
• Religion in China: Survival and Revival under Communist Rule by Fenggang Yang (Oxford University Press);
• God Is Red: The Secret Story of How Christianity Survived and Flourished in Communist China by Liao Yiwu (HarperOne); and
• Redeemed by Fire: The Rise of Popular Christianity in Modern China by Lian Xi (Yale University Press)

99.181.147.68 (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

State and Court Ritual in China  edited by Joseph P. McDermott

http://books.google.com/books?id=qgYdycfeJyAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

percentages of syncretism and buddhism

there is some new data that shows that 33% od the chinese popelation believes in buddhism. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LL02Ad01.html that calls many questions. are those buddhists included in the folk religion section? what differentiates the folk religion/taoist data from the buddhist data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.137.55 (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis

The statement "the Chinese folk religion, Taoism and Buddhism are the largest religions in China" are not supported by any of the sources provided and looks like a clear example of WP:synthesis, which is why I have removed it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The statistics are not a synthesis, you find them here at p. 34 for Chinese folk religion, which is not "a mix of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism" but a distinct group of indigenous religions. Adherents.com that you keep adding as a source is not reliable.--79.10.80.90 (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That is false. The Pew source does not state that "the Chinese folk religion, Taoism and Buddhism are the largest religions in China". In fact that source says "there is no clear boundary between Buddhism, Daoism and local [folk] religious practice." If you don't like Adhrents, I will find a different source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

For a fair comparison of the size of various "religons", I've reinserted some of the data from the Pew source. This is complex issue because oftentimes, elements of Buddhism and Taosim (not to mention ancestral veneration and heaven worship) are incorporated in some forms of Chinese folk religions. Many Chinese are followers of both Buddhism and folk traditions. I think the article should make this clear.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

New statistics

The new statistics by CSLS are very useful and they should be kept as they are. In particular, those 173 million people who identify with both "folk religion" and "Taoism" may be the adherents of the many Taoist new religious movements. As for Buddhists who practice ancestor worship, I have added a note clarifying this.--79.16.78.113 (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're gonna add this pie chart, you need to strictly stick to what the source says. If the source says ancestor veneration, we need to say that as well. In chart itself is already borderline WP:OR. The addition of folk religion in a Taoist framework is misleading because they are already part of folk religion.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The note of "Chinese folk religion" clarifies that it includes "ancestor veneration" and "belief in spirits" (shen). In the last revision, I have also clarified "Chinese folk religion with Taoist practices".--79.16.78.113 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've made some edits making clearer the distinction between folk religions with Taosim and those without. I'm still uncomfortable with equating ancestor worship with Chinese folk religion, but as of now, I think the chart is adequate.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

New compromise

Thomasettaei keeps deleting the pie chart claiming that is "too repetitive" having both the pie chart and the extended table. However, various articles about religion in specific countries use the solution of tables of data in the "statistics" section, and a pie chart as summary in the lede (e. religion in England, religion in Indonesia. This solution should be implemented to this article too.

Moreover, in his edits he keeps removing the "12 million Taoists" figure: see. I would like to understand why, since the paper does not report them as part of the 173 millio folk religion/Taoists.--79.20.77.150 (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Reporting the statistics accurately

After a recent edit which has removed some statistics substituting them with others I propose a "back to what the source says" solution, reporting the statistics faithfully, and a clarification about the nature of Chinese spirituality.

First of all, let's see what the source says about the statistics collected by the CSLS:

• Discussing in the same category "Chinese folk religion" and "Taoism" (p. 34) the report says that the CSLS had both a question for Taoism (implicit) and for the Chinese folk religion (quote: The CSLS questioned people on popular religious beliefs and practices as well, and came to the following estimates (excluding those who identified themselves with an institutional religion)). The statistics reported are the following ones:
  • Taoism: 12 million Taoists; 173 million has some Taoist practices, but difficult to differentiate from folk religion.
  • Chinese folk religion: 754 million practice ancestor worship, 216 million believe in the existence of shen, 141 million believe in Caishen (only an example among the many Chinese shen).

Regarding Chinese spirituality. First of all, the Chinese folk religion is based on practice of certain rites rather than belief in some creed, one can practice without believing in the sense the Abrahamic religions give to this term: in other terms, worship of the ancestor is a matter of filial piety and a mean of maintaining connection with the origin, not necessarily believing in "ghosts". It's maybe near to the concept of civil religion. So all the "but only X people believe" is rhetoric and interpretation through the categories of thought currently predominant in the Western world, leading to a misunderstanding of Chinese religion. In fact, the source doesn't compares the two figures through the "but".

Then, Chinese ancestor worship is intrinsically and inextricably part of Chinese folk religion, as many gods (such as the Caishen mentioned above) are deified ancestors and historical figures, so perceiving them as different things is another rhetorical misunderstanding.--79.16.79.199 (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipeidia policies require us to report exactly what the sources say. Any dubious interpretation is WP:OR. The source says 754 million practioners of ancestral worship, not 754 million followers of Chinese folk religion. Folk religion and ancestral worship are not the same thing. We have other sources that actually state clearly: "X percent of Chinese are folk religonist." That is not found in the 2010 survey. We either report the data accurately or not report it at all.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Think about it. Most of our sources say that only about 30 percent of Chinese are religious. How on earth does does 56 percent of Chinese belonging practicing folk religion make any sense? The truth is that many (1) your source says 56% are practicing ancestral worship, not folk religion, and (2) many non-religious Chinese practice ancestral worship because that's just the local customs.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You miss one thing: the report itself puts all the numbers we are discussing about under the section "Taoism and popular religion", discussing Chinese ancestral worship as part of this category, so there's no reason to discuss ancestral worship as a different thing from Chinese folk religion. Also, the report says crystal clear that the statistics for Taoism (173 m, 12 m) and folk religions (750 m, 216 m) are given by two different questions. I quote what it says: CSLS questioned people on popular religious beliefs and practices as well, and came to the following estimates (excluding those who identified themselves with an institutional religion), so the sum I added yesterday for the whole category of Taoism + folk religions/ancestor worship (932 m) is correct, fitting also with the statistic for atheists of the report: 14%.

Regarding the conflict of the concepts of "culture", "custom" and "religion", this is actually not the case of China, where the concept of "religion" in the (modern) Western sense as "belief", "creed", "dogma" is not part of Chinese thought. This is why most of older surveys result with high percentages of "non religious". The Chinese folk religion/ancestral worship is much more similar to the concept of "cultus" (that is "worship" -> "worth-ship"), that is also the original sense of "culture", of ancient European societies.--95.233.68.82 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "clearly identify with Daoism" is in the institutional religion category. However, "some kind of Daoist practices, but they are difficult to differentiate from popular religion" is probably not part of the institutional religion category. This is why I don't agree with the "173 million + 754 million". Anyways, I think your edit that made the sentence say: "hunderds of millions of people practice some kind of Chinese folk religions and Taoism" is an acceptable compromise.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Pie chart

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

---

@Thomasettaei: See Religion in the United States, Religion in Russia, Religion in the United Kingdom, etc. They all have pie charts. I don't see "other users... keeping adding other pie charts" in those articles. I think your fear is unwarranted. Pie charts help users understand the data.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

But there are several (at least five or six) surveys/studies that are in the section. Do we want to make pie charts for all of them? In the case of this section, where there are so many different studies, there is no reason to make a pie chart for just one of them.--Thomasettaei (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to make a pie chart for all the studies. We just need to choose the best study and make a pie chart using its data. AFAIK there is only one study in the article for which a it's possible to make a pie chart, and the that's the one from the Pew Research Center. The other studies did not report a complete data set needed to make a pie chart (i.e. the percentages adding up to 100). It's not possible to make a pie chart using the limited data form the other studies.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Unless it is official census (which itself can be questionable), all these studies are interpretations. Saying its the "best" is simply subjective. The Pew Research Center study itself is already outdated now (its about as of 2010).--Thomasettaei (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm confused about your argument. If these studies are all so bad, then why don't we just delete all these statistics from the article? I don't understand what does this got to do with whether or not a pie chart should be allowed to be included in the article. Bad statistics is just as bad as bad pie charts. (Also, the PRC is one of the most respected research institutions in the world, and 2010 is hardly outdated.)--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Should this article be allowed to show a pie chart of the religious composition of China?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes - Religion in the United States, Religion in Russia, Religion in the United Kingdom, and many other "Religion in [name of country]" articles contain pie charts, which help readers understand the data. I don't any good reasons for why this article should not be allowed to have a pie chart.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• No - because the information from that Pew Research Center survey/study is already stated in the section. Adding a pie chart of the same information to that section is repetitive. Further, there are several surveys/studies that are in the Statistics section; no reason to make a chart for just one of them.--Thomasettaei (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment – I see no reason to formally forbid pie charts, but I have strong doubts about their usefulness. All these surveys are misleading. Unlike in western countries where people belong to churches, in China people worship gods and practice various rituals, but don't formally or exclusively follow a religion. We'll have no problem with Chinese Muslims and Christians, but the rest is a mess. People who say they "believe in the Buddha" (my overly literal translation of xin Fo 信佛) will still worship "Daoist" deities in temples, sometimes even in "Buddhist" temples. Nobody is a "Daoist" except for formal clergy (Daoist priests), and "folk religion" is a construct that encompasses everything from worship of the dragon god and Wangmu Niangniang to people who burn firecrackers on New year to ward off evil spirits. Surveys that rely on professed adherence ("I'm a Buddhist", "I'm a Daoist") are no more reliable, as few people are likely to say "I'm part of folk religion". IMHO, the most interesting surveys are about Chinese people's religious practices (burning incense in temples, wearing amulets, belief in hell or reincarnation, divination, etc.), not their formal religious affiliations or self-identification.[1] Vincent Goossaert and David Palmer have a lot more to say about these issues in their excellent book The Religious Question in Modern China, which I see is not quoted in this article. Madalibi (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

See also this useful comment by David Palmer on how to interpret religious statistics in China. Madalibi (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• No - The information is already contained in the lead and the body of the article. I see no reason to give it additional weight by adding a chart, especially since the figures are subject to change and controversy.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• No - User FutureTrillionaire himself removed charts and tables based on this survey. The Pew report isn't even a survey but a collection of estimates, not even clearly saying where they are taken from.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Madalibi made a very good point. There doesn't seem to be academic consensus on the size of certain religious groups in China. This is in contrast to the situation in other countries.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) temples in China.

The statement "Presently there are temples of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) in China." is not supported with any source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shapath (talk • contribs) 04:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Shapath, and thanks for noticing this! I found no mention of this in Hinduism in China, and checked Google Books but only found a claim that the ISKCON did some work in Macau in the late 1980s and had a few followers there.[2] This of course doesn't amount to the ISKCON "having temples in China". Because the sentence sounds dubious, I've made it invisible . Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Chinese religion from the Shang to Han dynasties

Title Early Chinese Religion: Part One: Shang Through Han (1250 BC-220 AD) (2 Vols) Early Chinese Religion Editors John Lagerwey, Marc Kalinowski Publisher BRILL, 2008 ISBN 9004168354, 9789004168350

http://books.google.com/books?id=Idhyr1hqS0kC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Tables for data from different surveys

@Thomasettaei, I agree that the tables are quite cumbersome, but they are informative, as they provide the complete breakdown of the results of the surveys that is not included in the general list above. The consensus in previous discussions was for an exclusion of pie charts, especially when placed in the lede to provide information exclusively from one survey. Also, I don't understand your comments (1, 2), as I did not include charts or tables for the Pew RC data because it is an estimate and not a proper survey, and I personally think it is unreliable.

I don't think there's a way to add the entire breakdown of the surveys without tables, as you suggest. A solution would be to incorporate them as a collapsible template.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think, as informative as all these tables/charts you provided are, they are anymore important or necessary than the Pew Research Center one, in which the above consensus decided not to add a chart (based on it).

And I'm sure there are way more surveys on this topic out there, are you going to continually add more?

My suggestion is, why can't you incorporate the essential information from these surveys and the charts (if you find putting all the information altogether bit "cumbersome") into the Statistics part of the article? Just summarize the main ideas (maybe not all the specifics) of these surveys, and then for those who are interested in more, they can read the whole thing by going to the links.--Thomasettaei (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Consider that a template is a separate page. This is an advantage resolving possible problems of loading all the tables. However, the list of tables would never grow too long, as the complete results of future newer surveys will replace those of older surveys, or new tables for comparison of older and newer data will be created.

The essential informations from the surveys' results are already in the paragraph, and I have also added a textual summary of the socioeconomic findings of Yu Tao 2008 and CFPS 2012. However, a textual summary will never be as complete as a table, and I continue to think that adding the tables with the complete results (for example the breakdown of religions by age of the CFPS 2012 etc.) will only make the article better, more complete and informative. Also consider that the online pdf results might be deleted in the future.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

FT's recent edits

I will discuss here what's wrong with the recent edits (1, 2), which I have reverted.

Edit 1

• First of all a "fact" tag has no sense in a lede paragraph of that type, that is meant as a summary of what the various surveys have found (complete results are listed below and are properly wikilinked in the lede paragraph).
• Secondly, the explanation of the edit was that "Pew's esitmate is 21%, can't find 80%", while no one has used the Pew Forum as a source for that edit. The "statistics" section, which reports many surveys that have been conducted to count religious believers in China, is there for readers who want to study the topic in depth.
• The Pew's report is not a survey, but a collection of estimates. Other users, in other articles, have expressed doubts on the reliability of Pew's statistics and metholodogy (Iryna Harpy). I agree with these doubts about Pew, and I don't think that it should be preferred over surveys, when proper surveys are available; in the case of this article, surveys are available and they must be preferred over Pew's estimates.

Edit 2, that was made on the "China" article

• First of all, there was consensus against the inclusion of any pie chart in this article ("Religion in China") because of the confuse nature of Pew and especially CSLS statistics, when they were the only sources available. Now the list of surveys available has expanded and the new ones are well done, based on large samples, and clear. Moreover, the ban on pie charts doesn't apply to other articles.
• The CFPS clearly states that most of the Chinese practice the cults of gods, while 6.3% are "atheist". There is a huge difference between the Western concepts of "religion" and "not religious" and the Chinese concept of zong jiao, which is conventionally translated as "religion". I have tried the best to write about this in the article, and most authoritative scholars explain these language differences—and the misunderstandings that arise from them—in depth. The Chinese do not consider zong jiao the cults of gods and ancestors (baibai, jing, "cultivate", "honour"), that in Western literature have been categorised as "Chinese folk religion" or "traditional religion". These cults do not have a -jiao name in Chinese. By zong jiao the Chinese mean a doctrine that is learned by belonging to an organisation (ex. a Christian church or a Buddhist association). "Folk religion" in Chinese identifies organised sects with a doctrine like the Yiguandao, not the cults of gods and ancestors. When most of the Chinese say "I am not religious" they mean "I do not belong to any zong jiao (organised doctrinal religion)".--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Where in the article is the 80% figure? There is no source for it. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The CFPS implies it explaining that most of the practitioners of cults of gods define themselves as "not religious" and only 6.3% of the Chinese are atheist. The Office of the State Council of China (1995) published a census saying that 1 billion Chinese practice the traditional religions. Have you read my explanation about the Chinese understanding of "religion" here above, under Edit 2? If you do not study in depth what religion in Chinese culture is about, please do not edit this kind of articles.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't just calculate your own numbers. That's WP:OR. As for the pie chart. Feel free to start another RfC. I'll agreed to what ever the consensus will be.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not calculated anything, I have just made clear that the "non religious" population mostly comprehends worshipers of gods and ancestors. This is what the sources say. I know that this goes against the popular western view of the Chinese as atheists, but that view is far from reality. Regarding the pie chart, I don't see the need for one of them here, since the "statistics" section has tables for the complete results (many of the results) of most of the surveys.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How did the author of the study arrive at 6.3%? And how is that estimate more accurate than 47 % from Gallup, which directly asked people if they were atheist? Wouldn't it be more accurate to rely on what people identify themselves?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

They have clearly used a different methodology to arrive to such different numbers. I wonder what have they asked to the Chinese sample. Atheism in Chinese is 无神论 Wúshénlùn (= no-god-theory). I have found the official release and it seems that in China they have found (p. 16) the same average numbers that other surveys find: 14% "religious" (members of religious groups); 30% "non religious" (not members of religious groups), 47% atheist, 9% no response. This could be added as a source for a range of atheists, since it seems reliable and the sample is robust (50.000).--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Pie Chart 2

Since the previous discussion was closed, I'll start a new one here. As of now, this long article has plenty of redundant photographs of temples. I think that a pie chart from a reliable source should be more prominently displayed, if not in the lead sections, then in the #Statistics section. As it stands now, the Tabular complete results of surveys and geographic maps is hidden by default. The pie chart is sourced, and is also displayed in the China#Religion article. Other than the lead section I think the CGSS pie chart would be a perfect fit for the Statistics section where an overview of recent surveys are bulleted, among which is the CGSS survey. Granted, User:Madalibi's point above about the vagueness of the definition of "Chinese folk religions", and of self-identification as "Taoist" or "Buddhist" in the statistics is true, however this same point of vagueness in the surveys could also be raised for the Vietnamese, Japanese, Israelis, South Koreans and many others, the articles of which all prominently display a sourced pie chart in the lead section of the article. While at the same time, many also have additional tabular data (some from multiple surveys) in the demographics or statistics sections, which by the way, is not hidden by default (Religion in the United States, Religion in Australia). The majority of Chinese are irreligious or subscribe to "Chinese folk religions", however the article now with grossly-oversimplified maps such as these: 1, 2, under-represent/not represent at all the irreligious section of Chinese society. --2601:7:8100:B7:FD72:9A73:CCF4:D6A6 (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to make edit summaries!

Friends: Please use edit summaries to describe changes, as per Edit summaries.ch (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed Section: “China” as a divine civilization

This section had basic problems, most important that the three sources given in the footnotes are either not Reliable Sources for this purpose or do not say what they are supposed to say. The article by André Laliberté. “Religion and the State in China: The Limits of Institutionalization,” concerns present day China and mentions “Shenzhou” only in passing, without giving any further reference, and further, it does not mention “uninterrupted connection to the principle of the world (Tian) through the rituals of ancestral memory and the wise rule of the Mandate of Heaven.”

The next phrase is not a complete sentence: “The land of shen, the divine principle that is present.”

Zheng Wang's Never Forget National Humiliation only mentions Shenzhou in passing and is at best a Tertiary Source, not a good one for this topic.

The next sentence, “The same designation of "Middle Kingdom"....” is sourced to William Rowe Great Qing p. 113, but it actually occurs on p. 133. However, Rowe does not hold this view himself; he is describing a view proposed by John Fairbank, with which he (Rowe) disagrees. That view holds that China was “isolationist” and “xenophobic.” (see page 135). The quote from Goossaert & Palmer, from Laliberté rather than being quoted directly, does not indicate that anyone considered China as a “divine civilization.”

Since none of the three sentences is adequately sourced, and it is highly doubtful that anyone did see “China” as a divine civilization, I removed the section.ch (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"Yellow deity" to "Yellow emperor"?

Friends:

Could we change “Yellow deity” throughout to “Yellow Emperor”?

This is the term used for the Wikipedia article Yellow Emperor, which does not mention “Yellow Deity." "Yellow Emperor" is used in the sources cited in the notes where "Yellow deity" is used: Fowler p. 200, Bonnefoy/Doniger p. 246 etc., YaoZhao (2010) has four references to Yellow Emperor, none to Yellow Deity. Also, a Google ngram for “Yellow deity, Yellow emperor” reported “Ngrams not found: Yellow deity”

Cheers,ch (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Appeal against the spread of distorted information about religion in China

I apologise if this writing may seem to go against WP:TALK policies, but it is intended as a critical tool for the health of this and other Wikipedia articles.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

In recent years I have been witnessing the periodic publication and spread of ungrounded and distorted informations about religion, specifically Christianity, in China, by various media. This may appear as a vicious propaganda campaingn. Monthly, sometimes even weekly, several news websites publish articles which repeat, systematically, sensationalistic claims that are utterly unscientific, not based on reality and field research, often even pretentiously claiming to predict the future of China.

Many of these articles attribute such claims to Fenggang Yang, an American Christian who works for the Purdue University and has links with the Templeton Foundation, which in turn is connected to American Evangelical circles. (Despite American media have often portrayed him as an “expert” of religion in China, if not “the expert”, I have a lot of doubts about the professionality of Fenggang Yang as a scholar: he is too much theoretical, does little field research, does too much speculation, and his works are generally unbalanced towards his own religious and political ideas. There are many other scholars who are real experts of religion in China but the media have never made reference to them).

The questionable claims are about the number of Christians in China and the future of Christianity in China, and they are not corroborated by the field research and scientific surveys that have been conducted to quantify the populations of religious believers in China. Indeed, various empirical surveys, included one for which Yang himself collaborated, have found only 2% to 3% of the population claiming affiliation with Christianity, and that the Christian population is stagnant if not in a phase of shrinking (CFPS 2012 has found a lower proportion of Christians among young people than among the elderly).

In recent months, Fenggang Yang has been referred to as the author of a misleading map, allegedly published by Reuters, based on which Alana Yzola (journalist) has written an article for the Business Insider. Actually, the map is evidently a copy of an older map published by Chinese news agencies as part of a report of the results of some of the aforementioned surveys. The problem with the new map is that it distorts the informations conveyed by the original map, and this distortion is reflected in Alana Yzola's quite naïve interpretation.

The original map shows the "major denomination of religious organizations" by county of China, that is to say the registered religion (one of the five religions excluding Confucian and folk religion) with the major number of places of worship by county. This was clearly explained even at an English-language conference during which the map was presented to English-speaking scholars of religions in China (the video registration of the coference can be found online, but I have been unable to find it again [I watched it about one year ago]). The copy attributed to Fenggang Yang has transformed the original data, representing it as showing the "largest religion by county", that is a completely different information.

Whether or not the author of the map is really Fenggang Yang, the map proves a great lack of professionality and puts into question the good faith of the author and the news writers.

Because of the incorrect description of its content and because of its coloring, the map gives the visual impression that Islam and Christianity are the largest religions in China, and this is not the fact.

I repeat that the original map showing the affiliation of the major number places of worship by county was published together with (and based on) the results of surveys of religion in China (the most recent among them apparently being the CFPS of 2012). This CFPS survey found that the religious composition of China is: 6.7% Buddhist, 1.9% Protestant Christian, 0.5 Muslim, 0.5% Taoist, 0.4% Catholic Christian. As an example of the deceptive message of the new map we take the case of Zhoukou, Henan province. As you can read in the report linked, the survey found Zhoukou's eight counties to be an area in which Christianity has been particularly successful, counting 500.000 believers which is 5.5% of the total population. Protestantism has more places of worship (1200 churches) than other religions in Zhoukou, and this is why in the original map Zhoukou is one of the red (i.e. "Protestant"-related) dots, despite being only 5.5% Protestant! But in the new map Zhoukou appears predominantly green and, according to the dodgy description of the map, "majority Protestant".

According to government statistics, both Christianity and Islam have more numerous places of worship than other (registered) religions in China. This is because the government registers just large, centralising, Buddhist and Taoist temples. This is the case even in Taiwan, where Christianity accounts for just 3.9% of the total population while it has more numerous places of worship than Buddhism. Most of religious activity in China, however, takes place in the possibly millions of folk religious temples and the multiple branches of the large Buddhist and Taoist temples (in the report linked above at a point it tells about large Buddhist temples establishing hundreds of daochang, that are halls for lay weekly practice).

The Chinese government began the official registration, and therefore count, of folk religious temples and organisations only by the mid-2015 and starting from Zhejiang (where there are more than 20.000 folk religious venues versus 5.000 or so Buddhist, Taoist, Christian and Muslim venues; roughly the same proportions that can be found in Taiwan). It will take years to complete this process of registration and full legal recognition of folk religion. Prior to this policy changes, folk religious organisations were not legally recognised, and therefore not taken into account in demographic reports.

I am aware of WP:TALK policies. All of this is for the sake of good information, that is the information that goes straight to things. Since I have no influence in journalism, which today is synonymous with mass information, I decided to write here my concerns about this theme in order to provide readers, but especially Wikipedia contributors, with critical tools to handle the topic of religion in China and write a healthy article and other healthy articles. Thank you for having read.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the publication record of sociologists Fenggang Yang, of Purdue University. Since I am a former member of the editorial board of the American Journal of sociology I think I have the expertise to appreciate his highly productive scholarly output in the top sociology journals. I see that there are hundreds of citations to his work by other scholars. That makes him very high indeed on the "reliable sources" criteria used in Wikipedia wp:RS. Aethelwolf Emsworth says he is uncomfortable with Professor Yang's work. I also looked up the citations for "Aethelwolf Emsworth" in scholar.Google and I find nothing whatsoever. So the question is where gets his opinions about scholarship? Looking at his previous posting, I find no citations to any scholarly books or journals. Since Wikipedia depends primarily on reporting the work of reliable sources, especially the world-class experts, I think the wise course of action is to follow Fenggang Yang. what Aethelwolf Emsworth needs to do is to provide us details and citations to the published scholarly secondary resources that he thinks should be included in this article. Rjensen (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You are speaking nonsense. You have completely missed the points of what I have written, and it's clear that your answer here is a provocation in response to my reversal of your addition based on newspaper articles (with clear aims of propaganda). I'll overlook the personal attacks contained in your message.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

My longtime fellow editor and energetic contributor, Aethelwolf Emsworth, please keep cool! Rjensen did not attack you personally but only doubted the reliability of your edits. You need to Assume Good Faith, as I have always done for you even when I disagreed.

I would add that your long and unfocused essay that created this section is confused and disturbing. It is confused because it goes on and on without coming to a point. It is disturbing first because you announce that you know posting such an essay is against Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it is also not a blog. The second way it is disturbing is that it is simply an assertion of an opinion without any reliable sources in an area where there has been much refereed publication in both Chinese (which I read) and in English, which I also read.

As to the actual content of the material Rjensen restored, I agree that it should stay in the article. Better sources could be found, but this source is perfectly OK.

All the best! ch (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

My post is clear, and it is based on the evidence provided by the many scholarly works and surveys about religion in China. The point of my essay is that some agencies (via newspapers) have been spreading distorted or false informations about religions in China, with evident tones of propaganda, informations which appear to be mere speculations not grounded in fact. I have seen many Wikipedia articles contaminated by this, and even assuming the good faith of users it is clear that not all of them have the same critical abilities to distinguish scientific evidence from fiction. Specifically for our case, the claim that there are 67 million Christians in China, produced by the Pew Research Center, on which Fenggang Yang (his three-market theory is not the question here) has made his projections, is not based on empirical evidence (which provides a very different picture) and appears to have been invented by Pew's researchers (and the discourse is the same for others of their statistics).--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

And, by the way, the personal attack consisted in the belittling of what I have brought to evidence (the possibility of some agencies' bad faith) based on the assumption that I am not a scholar (quoting Rjensen: «I also looked up the citations for "Aethelwolf Emsworth" in scholar.Google and I find nothing whatsoever.»). He may be the greatest American historian than ever in his personal life, and I may be the most insignificant university student on earth: This is not what makes "authority" in Wikipedia.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Authority in Wikipedia comes from reliable secondary sources, such as the writings of Fenggang Yang in major scholarly journals. Aethelwolf Emsworth relies instead on his own private POV viewpoint and his own private original research that does not meet the Wikipedia requirements. Aethelwolf Emsworth can say anything he wants on his own Facebook page, but not here on Wikipedia. Ridiculing the integrity of a famous research Center (Pew) seriously undermines Aethelwolf Emsworth position here. Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I will continue to overlook your attacks and attempts to delegitimise my position here. By the way, I repeat once again that Fenggang Yang's work is not the question here (his three-market theory is indeed very useful, but all of this does not make him a neutral author: he's an American Christian and is supported by Christian lobbies). I am not the only one to have put into question the statistics published by the Pew Research Center. Other users have expressed similar doubts in other contexts. In few words: Pew's statistics are not the results of surveys and in most cases the center doesn't clarify where they are from.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

you position here is based solely on your private POV. You ridicule Pew but you cannot identify any RS you are using as is required by WP:RS rules. Rjensen (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is filled with reliable sources (real surveys conducted by institutes of social sciences) that belie Pew's statistics (which have been, nevertheless, included in the article). Regarding Fenggang Yang, I suggest to read this essay by Vincent Goossaert where he (Goossaert, one of the leading scholars of religion in China) explains many of the problems of Yang's work and point of view.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I read Goossaert--it's a mixed review with lots of praise and some criticism. But Goossaert does NOT make the criticism you have been making that says any Christian scholar= propagandist. Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Here the proof of what I wrote in September 2015. In this video the map (which is an ongoing project) is correctly presented by the Purdue Center on Religion and Chinese Society (apparently its original source) as showing the "religion with most numerous sites" by county, not the "majority religion by county" as it was misleadingly reported by some secondary media last year.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Impressive and useful new maps -- need complete references and accurate

Thanks and congratulations to Aethelwolf Emsworth on both the previous map, "Geographic distribution of religions in China," and the three smashing new ones! These add both color and substance.

But they would be much better if there were complete bibliographical references so that readers could seek further information and check for themselves. For instance, "Xiuhua Wang (2015)" should include the title and publication data, as well as the date and data for "Chinese Spiritual Life." Complete references are not only Wikipedia policy but necessary to see if there has been any slip-up.

Slip-ups are easy. The map "Geographic distribution of religions in China," for instance, says "Chinese folk religion (and Confucianism, Taoism, and groups of Chinese Buddhism)" but this is different from what the sources in the notes say. One of which (note 40) refers to "Chine des trois Voies (taoism, confucianisme et boudhisme chinois" while the other (note 41) refers to "Han religious syncretism, includes Buddhusm, Taoism Confucianism, ancestor worship and Animism relicts." The link to Note 41 does not indicate the source. On neither map do I see "Buddhism tout court" or "Mongolian Folk Religion."

I am also grateful to Aethelwolf Emsworth for suppling an edit summary for replacing "Three teachings" with "Chinese folk religion (and Confucianism, Taoism, and groups of Chinese Buddhism.": "The three teachings concept is more a philosophical idealisation than a real thing, the three religions have different sets in Chinese society and historically were far from being in peace with one another." But 1) neither of the sources say "Chinese folk religion." 2) "Three teachings," while it does indeed have problems (esp. being unclear on what is involved), is widely used as a translation for Sanjiao without implying that the three are not different, but starting in the Ming was indeed a specific doctrine and type of temple, as mentioned in the lead sentence of the article and the first illustration. So I suggest that changing back to "Three religions" would be faithful to the sources cited and consistent with the usage in the article.

Moreover, "Chinese folk religion" is even more a "philosophical idealisation" than "three teachings," and a foreign neologism at that.

All the bestch (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

① The geographic distribution map is based on various maps. "Three teachings" is problematic for many reasons. First of all as you said, it refers to a historical phenomenon (an idealised synthesis of the three religions that was promoted by the government and has even found limited grassroots success in movements like the Sanyi teaching). Second issue, related to the first one, is that it is not descriptive of all Chinese religion, which is much more varied and complex. The French map is naïve, and secondary in accuracy to the other one (which specifies that Han religion includes not just Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, but also ancestor worship and animism). I have also found these other maps from Chinese sources, very accurate: 1 - 高文德 主编.中国少数民族史大辞典.长春：吉林教育出版社.1995., 2 - 《中国少数民族艺术词典》编程委员会 编;殷海山,李耀宗,郭洁 主编.中国少数民族艺术词典.北京：民族出版社.1991.. They show similar patterns and even illustrate the shamanism (i.e. Mongolian and Manchu folk religion, this is a generic definition not a proper name as would be "Tengerism") that is widespread in localities of Inner Mongolia and Manchuria.

② I have used the definition "Buddhism tout court" because the map illustrates only areas where Buddhism is the dominant religion and practiced in pure forms. In Han China, Buddhism is not a majority religion and what is interpreted as Buddhism by Western observers is actually folk religion (for example Guanyin or Maitreya-Budai temples are very often folk religion rather than Buddhism; the fact that in many southeastern dialects fo (enlightened being, i.e. buddha) is synonymous with shen of indigenous folk religion testifies this. This is different, for example, in Taiwan where there has been a strong development of clearly identified Buddhist groups such as the Ciji Society et al. In China similar groups are developing as well but surveys show that Buddhists in Han Chinese provinces hardly surpass the 10%, while in Taiwan self-identified Buddists are 20 to 30%.

Confucianism and Modern Communist China

Why is Confucianism not included in the official religions of modern Communist China?--Splashen (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Principles progenitor, ancestors, dead

I'm at a loss! Aethelwolf Emsworth has contributed mightily to this page, but has gotten off the track in some respects and used easily demonstrated untrue statements to justify usages that amount to WP:OR or even WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia strongly prefers common usage and requires usage to be sourced.

Sourced words have been replaced with Principle, Descendence, or Progenitor, as explained below, which seems to be part of a larger aim to make the page more technical and to present arguments that do not represent the range of scholarship. This aim is certainly well-intentioned, but the results are nonetheless problematic.

I will return to this larger discussion in a separate section, but here merely cite the guideline WP:TECHNICAL, which counsels "Articles in Wikipedia should be understandable to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means understandable to a general audience."

Ancestor

Jing (1996) uses the word “dead” on page 18. I have the book in my hand as I write! But since Aethelwolf Emsworth objected, I suggested “Ancestor,” which is used in both Yao and Jing. Aethelwolf Emsworth asserted that “‘Principle is synonymous of ‘first being’ so it’s correct to use it here.” I agree that it is sometimes good to use a synonym when paraphrasing a source, especially to make usage consistent, but here “principle” is idiosyncratic, and there is no good reason to avoid “dead” “ancestor,” or “ghost,” which are clear, common, and sourced.

Ghost

The difference here states that “the source doesn’t have ‘ghosts'" but in fact Yao (2010) uses “ghosts” 12 times, including page 177, the page cited, here.

Principle

The word now appears 17 times in the article. Many uses are reasonable, but others problematic, that is, when "principle" is used in a technical sense not clear to most readers (including me).

The sentence “all living beings are descended from principles, beings that existed before” does not make sense;, nor is the word “principle” used anywhere in the entire text of Yao (2010): see here

In this difference here I changed

all existing things and living beings are part of a descendance that comes from principles, beings that existed before. Progenitors and ancestors are these principles, the roots of current and future beings.

to

in Chinese religion all living beings are descended from beings that existed before. These ancestors are the roots of current and future beings.

Which was changed to

all living beings are descended from principles

Descendence

This word does not appear in Yao or Jing (the cited sources), or indeed, in my American Heritage dictionary, though it does appear in the online Merriam-Webster here. Common usage and sourcing do not support using it here.

Progenitor

The term “progenitor” does not appear in Yao, as see here The dictionary gives “progenitrix” as the feminine form.

The difference here changes "dead" (sourced) to "progenitor" (unsourced).

The difference here says that "progenitor" is "a more clear term in defining the first god of a descendance." I'm worried that this is part of a larger assumption about God that is being worked into the article as a whole, but this is a matter to be discussed separately.

Dust

The difference here says source has "nothing", not "dust". I'm OK with the change, but the Bible (which is also "standard Judeo-Christian theology") says "dust thou art" and that the Lord created Adam from dust (Genesis 2:7) and Eve from a rib!

Given these considerations, I feel justified in changing back some of the recent changes.

ch (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

CWH, let me suggest you to be more flexible and less "technically" pedantic. Using synonymous or near synonymous words, such as "progenitor" instead of "ancestor", "descendance" instead of "lineage" or viceversa, does not constitute original research or fringe theory. Language is not as rigid as you seem to think, and trying to enforce technical rigidity into it results in a loss of meaning. And please don't use two weights and two measures for different words and different contexts, such as in the case of "ghosts" and "dust", as well as in many other occasions, as you have reverted or corrected my edits various times in the past because I didn't use exactly the same words used in the text.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on "progenitor", because the above discussion and debate is quite intricate and I unfortunately have no time to join in! In Western scholarship on China – which should form our main pool of reliable sources when we want to justify our translations – "progenitor" is used mainly to refer to the first ancestor of a lineage. It is used as a translation for shizu 始祖, as in this article by James Leibold (requires JSTOR access) on "competing narratives of racial unity" in the Republican period [中华民族始祖＝progenitor of the Zhonghua minzu; 人文始祖＝progenitor of human civilization]; as a term referring to founding ancestors, as in this article by Guo Qitao (Project MUSE access) on lineage politics in mid-Ming Huizhou [a preface "goes on to identify two defining characteristics of 'great lineages,' depth of ancestry and glory of progenitors"]; or in Mark Elliott's book The Manchu Way when he claims that Manchus performed shamanistic sacrifices to "the Manchu progenitor" (i.e., Nurhaci). Ch is right that "progenitor" refers exclusively to men: there is no "progenitrix" in patrilineal Chinese ancestor worship, because the zu and zong were all men.

The above is just to show that "progenitor" is a legitimate word when used in the proper context, that is, to refer to ancestors who founded — or were retrospectively identified as having founded — a particular lineage. It does not justify, however, deleting other interpretations of ancestor worship found in reliable sources, like those that speak of "the dead" explicitly.

We should also abide by the same criterion if we want to use of "principle" as equivalent for anything else. What criterion? This equivalence should be mentioned explicitly in reliable sources that discuss this particular topic. For what it's worth, I think the term "progenitor" has much firmer ground in reliable sources than "principle" does. But I may be wrong, so I would invite Aethelwolf Emsworth to find a range of RS justifying his proposed use of "principle" just as I did to justify "progenitor".

I really have to get back to an article I'm writing, so I will leave it at that! Madalibi (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: I may be wrong on the identity of the Manchu progenitor, as Tatiana Pang has written an article called "The worship of Fodo-mama – progenitor of the Manchus". But this has no impact on the points I'm making. Madalibi (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I never proposed a substitution of "progenitor" with "principle". I used the term "progenitor" in the text exactly as you describe. "Principle", in the current revision, is used only in one occasion as an alternative to give a more articulated description of Chinese ancestor religion; the phrase is: "Unlike the Abrahamic traditions where living beings are created by God out of nothing, in Chinese religion all living beings are descended from principles, beings that existed before". Besides, I am personally against an obsession with words that arrives to the point of banishing synonymy and metaphor for the sake of a seemingly "scientific" language devoid of any meaning. (This is the illness of a certain form of thought that has taken over the Western world, and that has brought it to a total loss of meaning, disarticulation of language, knowledge and reality.)--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Aethelwolf Emsworth: For the record, I did not think you were asking to use "progenitor" and "principle" interchangeably. I take them as two unrelated terms whose use requires two separate justifications. I support your efforts to distinguish Chinese religions from Abrahamic ones, I'm not against synonymy and metaphor, and I do not want to sterilize language. It's just that the term "principle" is so heavily loaded, both as a western concept and as a translation for Chinese words, that we should be very prudent when using it. When I see the word "principle", I first think of ethical rules that people consciously follow. But this is not what the text means by it. What is it then? My sinological training makes me think of the term li 理, which is commonly translated as "principle". Do Chinese religions claim that people are descended from li 理? I don't think so. Further "research" reveals that "principle" is also an outdated chemical concept. This is also not what you mean. So what is "principle" a synonym of or a metaphor for? If reliable sources used that term, we could probably find a satisfactory definition for it, but using "principle" without support from RS makes things murkier, and risks giving readers the impression that Chinese religion sounds like impenetrable mumbo-jumbo. I think not using it at all would make things clearer! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Good! I think we can agree on a number of items:

• “progenitor”, as defined both in Madalibi’s sources and in Progenitor, the linked Wikipedia article, is the founder of the lineage or other group. In other places we will use “ancestor(s)” or “dead”, depending on the source.
• “Principle” is a little harder, but in many cases is no problem. Here are examples I will change:

shen, a character that signifies a variety of gods and immortals, who can be deities of the natural environment or ancestral principles of human groups (sourced to Teiser, who does not use the word)

to

shen, gods and immortals who can be spirits {comment “deities” is already a synonym} of nature {less technical or scientific than “natural environment”} or of human groups...

• “ in Chinese religion all living beings are descended from principles, beings that existed before. (Yao 114-116, which does not use the word)

To

in Chinese religion all living beings are descended from forces or beings that existed before. (Yao 114-116)

• Tian ("Heaven" or "Sky", philologically "Great One") is the idea of the absolute principle or God that is the spring of universal reality, in Chinese common religion and philosophy. According to classical theology he manifests in five primary forms (???? Wufang Shàngdì, "Five Forms of the Highest Deity"). (no source)

COMMENT: I will make other edits here. “God” is problematic. “God” with a capital G, is linked to an article God, which deals with monotheistic God. This article is recently edited to add “In Chinese religion, God is conceived as the progenitor (first ancestor) of the universe, intrinsic to it and constantly ordaining it.” (This is unsourced, controversial, and not mentioned in the body of the article.)

It is problematic, or atl least controversial, to state or assume that is that Tian is “God” (rather than “a god”), and even more problematic to head the section “Common Idea of God and common theology.” “God” occurs in several other places.

This is a separate discussion, so let’s not discuss that issue here.

• ”Gods (shen); "beings that give birth"[187 full reference: Zhuo Xinping, "Theories of Religion in Contemporary China”]) ) and ancestors (zu) are interwoven energies or principles that generate phenomena which reveal or reproduce the order of Heaven.(no source)

to

Shen, an early Chinese dictionary explains, “are the spirits of Heaven. They draw out the ten thousand things.” (Teiser| 1999| p = 33) and ancestors (zu) are interwoven energies or principles that generate phenomena which reveal or reproduce the order of Heaven.

COMMENT: Teiser’s translation “draw out the ten thousand things” is clearer to non-specialists and they can easily find more on the topic by following the link. :I will add more from Teiser (1999)ch (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

CWH, I basically agree with most of the substitutions of "principle" and the other amendings you have proposed. As Madalibi says, it may be intended as a rule or the Chinese li 理 that is the order (of Heaven). I admit I did not think to this (historically secondary in comparison to the earlier meaning of "first") interpretation of the word "principle".

Regarding "God", otherwise, I am against a substitution of it with the generic "god". Tian/Shangdi is not "a god" (shen) among the others (generated gods or deities of beings), but is the supreme God that originates and constantly orders the universe. It is also translated as "God" and compared to other conceptions of "God" in philosophical and theological literature, for instance take the recent works of Yong Huang (ex. Confucian Theology: Three Models).--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Tian and Shangdi are consistently translated as "God" not only in contemporary philosophical and theological literature of the Confucians, but also in historical and other fields of study. For instance, Sun & Kistemaker's The Chinese Sky During the Han: Constellating Stars and Society p. 83: <...Tian was the ultimate God who presided over all the other gods and all human affairs and natural phenomena...>--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a worthwhile discussion, since it should lead to greater consistency in this and other articles dealing with Chinese religion. Wikipedia MOS is only a little helpful: MOS:ISMCAPS "titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah...." but urges that capital letters should be used as little as possible.

Searching this article, I find inconsistency going both ways: God of Wealth, Yellow God, Thunder God, et al. are right, god of war should be God of War, god of exams maybe should be God of Exams. Maybe "Fox Gods" should be "fox gods." But I continue to think that it is wrong to say "the supreme God was named Tian," "God of the universe," to refer to Tian as "God," even more so when it is linked to the God article, and, as in note # 5, a "universal God." (also linked) or the section title "Common idea of God..." & "the absolute principle or God."

The reason is first that these are not "titles" refering to deities, as in Dr. Somebody, where "Dr." is the title, but proper nouns, as in butcher somebody or Somebody the god (rather than "Guan Di, the God of War").

Next, our sources are mixed. The instance of "God"/'god" in the sentence "With them, gods of nature became dominant, and the supreme God was named Tian..." the source has supreme god was Tian... Heaven remained the 'God' of China. The second "God", the one the author puts in quotes, refers back to the discussion earlier in the chapter, not to Tian, which he puts in lower case. So our surces disagree.

Most important, "God" will look to readers like the Abrahamic God, a position, after all, argued by many missionaries, starting with the Jesuits in the 16th century. Since we correctly argue that gods in China are of a different nature, we should not confuse or mislead readers. In order to be consistent, we can't have it one way here and another way there.

So the consistent and clear usage is to reserve God for titles of specific gods and for the Abrahamic god. Otherwise it should be "god" or "godess."ch (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Further on God/ god Aethelwolf Emsworth please do not continue to add new "God" references. Your statement that "Tian and Shangdi are consistently translated as "God" not only in contemporary philosophical and theological literature of the Confucians" is not the case. The sentences sourced to Libbrecht use "God," whereas Libbrecht is "god"; there are 365 instances in Didier Vol. 1, none of which is "God" when used in this sense. Didier uses "godhead", which is perfectly good.ch (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Zhou (2005) consistently uses capitalised God throughout his paper. Why have you deleted the content based on Zhou (2005)? And, please, explain me why have you deleted this content which is exactly what Eno says in the paper.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply! I continue to admire your dedication even when I disagree with your points! Here are answers to your questions:

As explained above, we need consistency. It is not a matter of Judeo-Christian usage having a copyright, but of readers confusing two different concepts of the godhead. This article and the other articles on Chinese religion cannot go back and forth sentence by sentence from "God" to "god" based on the editorial styles and preferences of the individual source. Zhou says "God," but Libbrecht & Didier and many others say "god." Wikipedia style MOS:ISMCAPS is helpful.

I deleted the material

"A theology of the incarnation of God was formulated around the Yellow Emperor (黄帝 Huángdì), a culture hero and creator of civility, who, according to a definition in apocryphal texts related to the Yellow River Map|Hétú 河圖, "proceeds from the essence of the Yellow God"".

This was sourced not to Eno, but to Espesset, where it does not appear on pages 22-28 or anyplace else in the piece that I could find with a search. This is not the first time that your edits were sourced incorrectly.ch (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The right source is indeed Espesset as it was in the text, I got it wrong remembering Eno. The content is at page 27.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not see “God,” “incarnation,” or “theology” on page 27 of Espesset]..ch (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You also deleted the idea that "the Yellow Emperor proceeds from the essence of the Yellow God", that is what I introduced through a different philosophical vocabulary ("theology" → "discourse about God/divinity"; "incarnation" → "God/divinity coming in the flesh"; "God" → "(capitalised) the highest being in the universe"). I make you notice that some of my edits have been recently deleted because they were too close to the original text of the source. It is ironic that here you are accusing me of the opposite. I think the entire problem here is that I have been using a philosophical vocabulary that historically developed in and pertained to what was the (now rapidly disappearing) traditional European Christian civilisation. The idea that Chinese culture may provide the resources to resolve the "crisis of the West" perhaps "disturbs".--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no irony: If, as you say, the "edits were deleted because they were too close to the original text of the source," the edits I deleted and propose to delete are indeed the "opposite," that is, too far away from the original.

You cannot “source” your own opinions using the work of others. Using sources for purposes not meant in them is WP:SYNTHESIS, as was pointed out to you last year in our discussion at Talk:Chinese folk religion#Original Research, Misuse of sources at Terminology and definition.

In addition to the words above not appearing on p. 27 or elsewhere in Espesset, for instance, neither do the words “discourse” or “flesh”; “divinity” appears but only on p. 49, in another context; "theology" does appear, but only on p. 47.

Finally, I appreciate your candor in stating your goal:

:I think the entire problem here is that I have been using a philosophical vocabulary that historically developed in and pertained to what was the (now rapidly disappearing) traditional European Christian civilisation. The idea that Chinese culture may provide the resources to resolve the "crisis of the West" perhaps "disturbs".

This idea does not disturb me in the least; it is one I have devoted much of my life to exploring. I applaud your vision.

But advocacy of even the saintliest ends is not an acceptable aim for a Wikipedia article! WP:NOTADVOCATE states 1) Wikipedia is not for "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise."ch (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify that my purpose here is not to convey my vision about the contribution that China could give to the reconstruction of the West, but to illustrate what is "religion in China". (If you want to discuss about my view contact me via email, I would be glad to explain how Chinese philosophy could help Europe/the West to "realign to God". I have also in mind to publish some works, in the future, about this cultural exchange).

With the explanation of the etymology of the philosophical terms that I often employ ("theology" → "discourse about God/divinity"; "incarnation" → "God/divinity coming in the flesh"; "God" → "(capitalised) the highest being in the universe") I meant to illustrate their acceptation, i.e. how they can be used in a text. I did not mean that our source contains, for instance, "God/divinity coming in the flesh". What I meant to say is also that they can be used in a variety of contexts, as they are no longer associated exclusively to Christianity. It is out of doubt that terms like "theology" were formulated in the ancient Christian world to refer to "Christian theology/discourse about god", but they are no longer restricted to this field.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I ask you to restore the content from Zhou, Espesset and Didier with the rewording that you consider necessary and pointing out what are considered to be (Zhou's and Didier's) controversial theories.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! I'll address this and other concerns in a new section below, but I want to take a few hours in order to be clear, concise, and helpful.ch (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Other copyvios

A cursory look at the third paragraph of this section, which is referenced to the Espesset article, reveals at least two formulations that are so close to the original that they constitute copyright violations, an issue that Wikipedia takes very seriously. The passages in bold appear verbatim in the original source:

Espesset: "An interesting intellectual and social feature of the territorial entity ruled by Lu was its strong non-Chinese ethnic component." (pp. 11–12)

Wikipedia: "An interesting feature of the territorial entity governed by Lu was its strong non-Chinese ethnic component."

Espesset: "Between 215 and 219, inhabitants of the Hanzhong area were forced to migrate northwards, possibly in several successive waves, which led to the spread of the new Daoist religion to other parts of the empire" (last sentence of the last complete paragraph on p. 15)

Wikipedia: "... between 215 and 219 the inhabitants of Hanzhong were forced to migrate northwards in different waves, which led to the spread of Celestial Masters' Taoism to other parts of the empire."

@Aethelwolf Emsworth: You are a serious content editor, and I know your purpose is not to violate copyrights, but considering the Didier incident above, you should perhaps be more careful when you add content. :) One good technique is to wait for a minute or two without looking at your source, and then compose something from memory to reflect its content. Then compare your wording with that of the original source: if it's still too close, reshuffle the whole thing, or change the terminology completely — without using loaded concepts like "incarnation" which introduce alien concepts into our topic, should I remind you! You can also work on these passage in a sandbox. Then we can all peaceful editing experience. :)

Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I will rewrite the passages from Espesset and will be more careful in rewording the content of sources in future edits.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Aethelwolf Emsworth: I second Madalibi's high regard for your serious dedication and I add admiration for your accomplishments in developing this and other articles in the Chinese Folk Religion portal, to say nothing of your tenacity.

I join him in urging that you take things more deliberately and be mindful of Wikipedia policies. You and I have discussed these issues at Talk:Chinese folk religion#Original Research, Misuse of sources at Terminology and definition.

Please note that at the head of the section on Didier I cited several other policies, which are relevant even aside from the copyright question. More later, but in the meantime, all best wishes.ch (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)