Talk:Chinese creation myths

message: To the original creators of this article: 
:I humbly apologize for such an extensive rewrite of your work. I want you to know I did not do this lightly. 
:The fact is, I have followed this topic for some time, and have seen people copy (and recopy) this myth without looking at the big picture.
:As you can see from the update and references, we do web readers a disservice to list again (and again, and again) this very popular myth without some context.
:Thanks for understanding. mamgeorge 22:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You tried to laugh at the relative-late appearing creationsim in china?I don't see the links between the span of Chinese History and the appearance of creationism.History is to record the human activities not the creationism.Unless you can give the conclusion for the link between the appearance of Creationism and span of History,donn't try to mention it.--Ksyrie 00:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may mix up the History and folk lore of Origin belief.The Vikings may had their origin belief very old,but on the other hand,their history records are very few and limited.I didn't see the necessary to talk about History in Creationism.--Ksyrie 00:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Aren't Tiantang youji (天堂遊記 玉詔) and related myths specific to Yiguandao ? 125.225.67.230 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out this 一貫道 connection, which might clarify some of the editorial problems. Keahapana (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Yiguandao

message: Deadkid dk, thanks for your constructive edits. Did you know this article relates to several others that lack citations and reliable references? Keahapana (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting me know, but unfortunately I can't help too much in that regard. I just felt compelled to straighten this article up since it is a fairly high profile page that could possibly mislead thousands of people per month. _dk (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced fringe texts 

message: This edit established the usage of this page as . Kindly maintain it consistently pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 23:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:ERA

message: I removed the tag about the article being "overquoted", since there's nothing so terrible about walking carefully through a muddled subject like this by noting exactly where each opinion and analysis comes from. On the other hand, if these scholars (e.g. Birrell and Girardot) aren't important enough to deserve their own easily-linked Wikipedia page, then we probably shouldn't be leaning so heavily on their analyses. On the third hand, if they are fine and are well known authorities for this field, then they should have their own pages detailing their authority on the subject, beyond getting a single book on the topic published by a single publisher. — LlywelynII 23:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about this myself ... here we have an article about the chinese origin story (notice how cleverly I avoided the 'creation' tag :) ) but why the interpretation and discussion ? Two western academics who probably don't know doodly while no one chinese is referenced. I criticize this from experience, because in both the west and in china where I live, academics generally know everything but understand nothing. I would personally rather see an exposition of the various stories without the "explanations" by people who most likely couldn't buy a bus ticket in china. 116.231.75.71 (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Overquoted