Talk:Xian (Taoism)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Changes

I’m glad to see there is a page on this subject, but it needs A LOT of work. I’ve formatted the page per the article of style and added some info about the five classes of immortals. I plan on adding additional material about the three ranks of immortals and the four schools of immortality as set by Ge Hong. I also made some redirect pages, so when a person types in “Chinese immortal” or “Chinese immortality” it comes straight to the article. (Ghostexorcist 22:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for your additions and improvements to the Xian page, but I believe it should be moved back to Xian (Taoist immortal). I wouldn't presume to generalize about "English speaking people", but I do know that search engines better reflect English usage than your idiolect or mine. Google finds 14,800 pages for the phrase "Taoist immortal", 2,810 for "Chinese immortal", and 1,870 for "Daoist immortal". Please move it back. Thanks. Keahapana 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well OK, I'll move it to the more common Daoist/Taoist immortal. Keahapana 19:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure that you correct the "redirects" the next time you move the page. Before, the phrases "Chinese immortal, Chinese immortality, etc." were redirects to "Xian (Chinese immortal)". Now they don't go anywhere. But I have corrected the redirects and even added the "Daoist immortal" and the like to the redirects. Read here for more info on redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirect

I learned how to do this from watching what others did. (Ghostexorcist 22:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but I didn't know how to move a page properly and I've screwed up this one. I tried but kept getting error messages, so I eventually just cut and pasted into this new page. Now I see what I did wrong, but I don't know how to correct it. The history is still under the Xian (Chinese immortal) page. Do you know how my mistake can be repaired? I do know how to redirect pages and will be glad to do that. Again, I apologize. Keahapana 18:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That I don't know. I made the mistake of doing that myself with the Jow Tong article that I wrote. You should contact an administrator about that. Try an admin named Fire Star, he's a nice guy. (Ghostexorcist 18:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC))

Opening paragraph

I took some of the "translation" info and put it into the "etymology" section. Then worked off of the first sentence to expand it into a paragraph. But it needs to be expanded more in order to summarize everything covered in the entire article.(Ghostexorcist 20:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

I think this "Etymology" section should be deleted since none of it concerns the etymon of the Chinese word xian. The characters used to write a word don't have any more etymological significance than whether you Romanize it xian or hsien. The Chinese Wikipedia 神仙 article gives shen 神 as the etymology for xian 仙. I'll check this out and if it's verifiable, we can start a new Etymology section later. But for now, I think this information about translations, characters, and compounds needs to be moved back to the opening paragraph. What do you think? Best wishes. Keahapana 20:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I kind of threw that etymology section together at the last minute since the article needed to be Wikified as per the manual of style. I WOULD NOT trust any form of Wikipedia (English, Chinese, whatever) as a source. Only use outside sources. (The creator of Wikipedia has even said that wikipedia is supposed to be a "starting point" in someone's research. Its a collection of various sources that should be referenced and not the article itself.) The part where it says Xian can translate into "immortal, transcendent..." could be moved back to the top. But the second paragraph should stay since it describes what group of radical characters makes just one character.

As you know, 仙 and 僊 are pretty much mean the same thing.Yellow Bridge has a very nice dictionary that shows a character’s etymology. It says…

仙 = 亻 (rén – “person”) + 山 (shān – “Mountain”)[1]

僊 = 亻 (rén – “person”) + ? (qiān – “to climb”) (they didn’t have a text character for it, only a jpg.)[2]

(Ghostexorcist 22:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC))

YellowBridge is OK, but there are more reliable dictionaries. (I'd be glad to suggest some, if you like). If it says 仙 is simplified and 僊 is traditional, that's wrong; 仙 is both traditional and simplified and 僊 is an archaic variant. Click here 仙. What YellowBridge refers to as "Character Etymology" is an oxymoron. Do you know about what John DeFrancis calls the "Ideographic myth"? It's the common misunderstanding that Chinese characters have meanings or etymologies, but they actually only represent words. "Character etymology/splitting" is like "folk etymology", interesting but usually linguistic garbage. For example, English favor comes from Latin favor "good will; support," and whether it's written favor or favour is irrelevant to etymology, in the same way that whether you write xian, hsien, 仙, or 僊 has nothing to do with the historical linguistics of Sino-Tibetan etymology. I'm trying to be helpful, not argumentative, but I don't know how much Chinese you've studied. It's important that Wikipedia correct the misunderstanding that Chinese characters represent something other than spoken words. Best wishes. Keahapana 18:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it didn't say they were simplified and traditional variants of eachother. It calls them "historical" variants. It was my blunder to assume that since I was half asleep when I originally wrote it (I work 9pm-6am and do other things during the day). That's why I changed what I wrote as soon as I read it shortly thereafter. You seem to know a great deal about Chinese. I take it you are a native speaker? I've got a basic understanding of Chinese. I realize that they are words and not just pictures. What is a better dictionary? (Ghostexorcist 18:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC))

Copyright violation?

Hi Ghostexorcist

I suspect this "Teachings of Immortals Chung and Lu" at www.universal-tao.com is plagiarized. Try searching inside this book by Eva Wong and let me know what you think. Best wishes. Keahapana 20:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the website plagiarized from the book or that I plagiarized from the website itself? I knew about the book, but I don’t have it. So I couldn’t cite it from the source as I've never read it. I paraphrased the content because I knew it was copyright according to the webpage. If you know that it comes from the book, then change the citation. (Ghostexorcist 22:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC))

Sorry again, I never thought that you'd plagiarized, but wanted to warn you that this universal-tao website looks bogus. That's why I marked it "Chung ??". I thought you'd put in the pages where I had (Hsi 2001:?), etc. I could be wrong (yet again), but I thought this MOS says either Harvard Referencing or Footnotes is acceptable, and that subsequent edits should follow the existing citation format. Doesn't format style work like either American or British English being acceptable in Wikipedia articles?

I regret my mistakes and that we've gotten off on the wrong foot, but I appreciate our shared interest in xian and hope we can work together to improve this article. I'll wait until I hear from you before making any more edits here. Best wishes. Keahapana 18:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wasn’t offended in any way. The MOS page recommends...

Inline citations may use one of the following three systems.

• Embedded HTML links
• Harvard referencing
• Footnotes (most often using <ref> and <references/> elements)

...so either of them are still good. I'm just in the habit of using the embedded kind. I've noticed that a very large majority of the articles that I occasionally edit have switched to embedded. I haven't used the format you are using since I was in highschool. Ah, fond memories. I won't change the format again so we can keep consistancy.

I'm not trying to take the page over (although it may seem that way). That's why I contacted you in the first place. Feel free to edit as much as you like, just warn me if you are ever going to delete the "Chung" info. Just as long as the "Campany" info stays, I won't care.(Ghostexorcist 18:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC))

Section reorganization

What would be the best arrangement of these Xian sections? Something like the French article?

The way it is now, "Descriptions" (I'll delete Akahori) and "History and famous works" overlap. One possible arrangement would be an "Early textual references" section historically subdivided into Zhuangzi, Liezi, Huainanzi, Liexian zhuan, Baopuzi, etc. Any ideas? Keahapana 23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the french have themselves a pretty nice page. Your idea sounds fine since it currently overlaps. I just threw those together because the page originally needed to be wikified. (Ghostexorcist 23:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

OK. I'm going to insert another image. Is there a way to move this unsightly Taoism portal to a header or footer? Keahapana 23:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I've figured it out. Best wishes. Keahapana 00:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You read my mind. I was getting ready to suggest moving the photo up. Good work. (Ghostexorcist 00:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC))

Merge

I'm of the opinion that Seen (daoist immortals) be redirected and merged into this article - from what I can tell, these uses of Xian and Seen are different transliterations of the same concept. Further, the Xian page is older, has had more contributors and is better referenced. WLU 11:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, merge. You're correct; seen is the Cantonese pronunciation of xian. It appears that User Alphone created Seen (Immortal) in duplication of Xian (Daoist Immortal), relying on http://www.xiulian.com/world/index.html. Keahapana 21:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Merged. I have redirected Seen (Immortal) to Xian (Daoist immortal). Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

About the Sexual Practices

As I have commented for the page on "Sexual practices in Orthodox Taoism," whoever is writing these articles have a very slanted view of Taoism. While some sects historically have discouraged sexual alchemy, sexual alchemy is without a doubt a core part of Taoism. I quote from 道教通論:

Ever since Wei Boyang used hidden words to record the secret techniques of 同類陰陽, "密示青州徐從事，徐乃隱名而注之"...we know that 徐從事's 參同契 is based on 陰陽. Here 陰陽 refers to the 合陰陽 of Mawangdui, which means 男女合炁之朮. Cantongqi says "Things without yinyang betray heaven and origin; female cow and hen which give eggs themselves, their offsprings are incomplete." This means that sexual alchemy which incorporates 陰陽丹法 accords with the principles of nature...

The quotes go on and on, but I'll leave you with that.

Look. I like that fact that someone is finally representing Taoism on Wikipedia. But I fear that this person is overzealous and sectarian, teaching others without first teaching himself. Sexual alchemy precedes 清修 historically. To claim that sexual alchemy is not part of Taoism is to be ignorant of alchemical history.

Maybe your 師傅 teaches you not to engage in sexual alchemy. I respect that. But to claim that sexual alchemy is not Taoism is like saying sexual practices is not part of Tantra. It just ain't true.

By the way, 房中朮 is different from 同類陰陽. One is a sexual practice, also based on early Taoism, designed to enhance health. The latter is the highest form of alchemy, which involves exchanging the middle of Li/Kan for Qian/Qun. I think you got these confused. But both are part of Taoism.

Another thing - it seems that the writer of this article likes to repeat "Orthodox Taoism." You should know that there are many Taoist sects. Perhaps you should check with other Taoist sects before you write polemic articles.

Vaibhasika 09:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? Passages about Taoist sexual practices are included in the page. Unless some previous vandalism slipped by me, it never once says anything about sexual practices not being apart of Taoism. --Ghostexorcist 09:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I refer to the other article "Seen," or something like that, which is about to merged into this article. The same polemic author also modified the page on "Sexual practices in Orthodox Taoism." Vaibhasika 10:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Philological remarks

Forgive my fussiness: the character for xian was 屳, not 仚, which is given the fanqie spelling 許堅切 by Xu Xuan 徐鉉 in his edition of Shuowen. So 仚 originally represented another word (*hin), not *sin. Now 仚 and 屳 have merged, representing only the word xian. Still, I doubt whether Schipper's fanciful analysis should be kept. Regards.--K.C. Tang 07:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In Japanese: Sendou?

Is this Xian called Sendou in Japanese? I apologize that I could not find the kanji. I'm basing this question on an English translation of Sengoku Youko which says they are equivalent. However, my Japanese is poor and my Chinese is non-existent, so since I haven't been able to find an answer in English, I'm unable to add anything to the article but this question. Thanks! --Geekdiva (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Xian is Japanese sen 仙, the person xianren is sennin 仙人, and the doctrine xiandao is sendō 仙道. Keahapana (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not editorial suggestions belong on the Talk page, rather than in main article space?

Moved editorial comment transclusion from main article space to Talk page for editors' further consideration:

Dcattell (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Dcattell, thanks for moving the drive-by tagging here to the Talk page. The first of the "Multiple issues" tags is a misunderstanding of WP conventions. The present article, as noted with the Template:Use Harvard referencing at the top, already has numerous inline citations. The misnamed Template:More footnotes says, "An inline citation is any system that associates a given piece of an article with a specific citation. The two most popular forms are clickable footnotes (<ref> tags, which produce numbered footnotes like this: [1]) and parenthetical references (e.g., (Smith 2010)). ... Do not add this tag to articles that use the "wrong" style of inline citation." Other than cases of copyright infringement, which doesn't apply here, the second Template:Overquotation is a matter of opinion about an undefined "encyclopedic writing style". Since 2006, this article has had over 285,000 pageviews, but only one complaint about the number of quotations. In my experience, close paraphrasing rarely improves a well-written quote, but if anyone wants to try, please do and interested editors can discuss the results here. Keahapana (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)