Talk:Daoism–Taoism romanization issue

message: this is a rather ridiculous page. Maybe it could be deleted? The "issue" is just a matter of which romanization system is used. The problem of interpretation results in English speakers not knowing the systems and using an English spelling pronunciation. Also the phonetics of word-initial voiced stops are not so accurate (as Angr above mentions). – ishwar  (speak) 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an outgrowth of several-year-old arguments here on Wikipedia. I suggest we merge any material worth keeping with Romanization and either delete this or make it a redirect. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be wrong, but I don't see any reasons to merge, excluding individual disinterest in the topic. This article meets inclusion criteria, and seems linguistically, sinologically, and lexicographically informative. In addition, as Bradeos Graphon mentions, there are in-house Wikipedia reasons (note the numerous internal links) not to merge. Since the internal arguments over Daoism/Taoism and Daode jing/Tao Te Ching are ongoing, new and future editors (for instance) will continue needing this article. Could we find someone expert in phonological terminology to correct the inaccuracies about voiced/voiceless stops? Best wishes. Keahapana (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the topic certainly deserves an in-depth treatment somewhere; I'd always received the impression that Taoism and Daoism were different and separate concepts. In fact, I think it would be worthwhile to expand on the differences between the concepts associated in English with Daoism and with Taoism; to differentiate between the most current understanding of the original Chinese philosophy, versus how the West previously popularly imagined that philosophy to be. Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - if some people think that Daoism and Taoism are different, then one might resolve the riddle. One could write something like: "Depending on the romanization scheme, 道 may be transcribed as "Dao" (Hanyu Pinyin), "Tao" (Wade-Giles) or other. Hanyu Pinyin is the international standard (and Wikipedia standard) today.  Since Wade-Giles used to be de-facto standard until the 1970s, "Taoism" is still frequently found."  THAT'S ALL WE NEED - anything else is interesting for chinese romanisation in general but not Dao/Tao specific. Wassermaus (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Pointless

message: Kawmi鏡, thank you for fixing the IPA formatting. On earlier versions of this article, I used  instead of  for the voiceless unaspirated Chinese 道, but now I'm confused whether it should be , , or . Which is correct? Keahapana (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks and question 

message: I found that the article was written very well with plenty of footnotes. In keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines, there is no original research and the tone is not polemic. I don't understand why the article was flagged at the top for being written like a "magazine" article. The accusation itself is odd--magazine pieces are not necessarily biased. They can run the gamut from opinion to factual. Maybe the critic means that it is written like an opinion piece? But this isn't the case; I don't really detect a bias. The only criticism I have is it is a bit pedantic but given the pointless stuff people write about (Texas Longhorns, etc), this seems like a worthwhile article. 
Ian Johnson (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct about this frivolous tag and I'll delete it. Keahapana (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good article but technical 

message: Could someone record the three different versions - chinese, tao, and dao? Hearing these things being said might make it more clear (even just the chinese version would be good).
El sjaako (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I don't know of any links for these. Keahapana (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of how it's said 

message: Kwamikagami, thank you for diligently correcting IPA templates in so many articles. When you have time, I'd like to ask about your recent edits. I knew about {{IPA-cmn but not about using the template with a Hanzi like 道. What does it represent? You wrote, "Wade Giles is actually a better guide for the naive English reader than pinyin is." I've never read (but would like to) anything supporting the phonetic superiority of W-G over Pinyin for English readers. Could you provide some references? Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. I misread the diffs (you were only correcting the mistaken IPA usage) and reverted Carr's original quotation, which seems less dubious than the unsupported assertion that W-G is better. Keahapana (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two questions 

message: It states "Romanization," but then goes on to list several systems of romanization, ending with Zhuyin Fuhao and the Cyrillization of Chinese, neither of which could be classified as Romanization, any way you slice it.
Perhaps opting for the more general term of "transliteration" which allows inclusion of Zhuyin and Palladius...or, keep "Romanization" and leave out those last two non-Roman scripts. Personally I would opt to rewrite it as "Transliteration" and keep them in for a wider showcase of how hanzi can be written phonetically (unless phrasing it like that opens a whole 'nother semantic can of worms vis-à-vis IPA)... 66.176.113.94 (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanization of Chinese 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Daoism–Taoism romanization issue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151211110432/http://www.daoistcenter.org:80/pwt.html to http://www.daoistcenter.org/pwt.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What content deleted from the last stable version should be restored? Keahapana (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're correct, the question (my first RfC) was badly phrased. Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about content removal 

message: This section has been restored: but it appears to me to be extremely confused, and simply in error, all over the place. A couple of quotes:
Michael Carr appears to say: "the prescriptively correct (/ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/) is based on Chinese romanization..." What is "prescriptively correct" about mispronouncing an unaspirated labiodental as a voiced labiodental? Who is Michael Carr - can't find anything other than some contributions to Language Log and the like.
Then "the American publications were faster to rectify the mistaken (/ˈtaʊ.ɪzəm/) pronunciation to (/ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/)". Well, no, this suggests a failure to understand the issue. Chinese has a distinction between aspirated and unaspirated labiodentals, which I'll call "t" for convenience. English has this difference too (but not phonemically): it's more or less the same as the difference between the 't' in 'top' and the 't' in 'stop'. You probably cannot hear the difference, but you can detect it easily by putting your hand in front of your mouth: you feel a puff of air in 'top', but no puff of air in 'stop'. This is not the same as the difference in pronunciation between English 't' in 'tot' and 'd' in 'dot', which is a difference of voicing. Unless someone can correct any error I have in understanding the issue, it seems to me that the stuff from Carr is simply incompatible with a correct description. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your useful criticisms. This is a first draft and any editorial suggestions or improvements will be appreciated. Yes, you are correct about the interlinguistic phonemic differences between Chinese aspiration and English voicing, which was (over)explained in the deleted Phonology section that also needs renovation. The present Lexicography section concentrates upon the changing English pronunciations of Taoism. Keahapana (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lexicography section 

message: The article at present appears to be no longer an encyclopedic description of anything -- it is a campaign to persuade us that the (English) word Taosism is "mispronounced", or "ought" to be written differently. This is not what WP is for. The first sentence of the lede starts the confusion: "The English words Daoism (/ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/) and Taoism (/ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/ or /ˈtaʊ.ɪzəm/) are alternative romanizations for the same-named Chinese philosophy and religion." No: the English words are English words, they are not romanizations of anything. The English word "Taoism" is pronounced (obviously) with an initial aspirated dental consonant ("t"), just is the initial 't' of every English word where is is followed by a vowel (exceptions, anyone?). Of course I understand that in Chinese the syllable Dao/Tao (WG/py) is pronounced with an unaspirated dental consonant, like the 't' in English "stop", which is neither an initial English "t" nor "d". So there is no "correction" to be done.  has been making a good faith effort to promote this campaign, but I think this is not what WP is for. The campaign can be described, but all the POV language should be removed. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your opinions, and I'll correct the lead. Please revise any language that you consider POV. Or if you prefer, give me a list of specific notes (Where does it say "ought"?) and I'll make changes. I admittedly may be misguided but my only interest is improving this article. Keahapana (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misguided campaign 

message: Should the present to "Daoism-Taoism romanization issue" be moved to "Daoism/Taoism romanization issue"? Keahapana (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No. (I think it's an en-dash, not a hyphen, but I'll type hyphens.) Daoism-Taoism is correct formal English style. Slashes are not. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move title? 

message: The present WP article was recently mentioned.
*Victor Mair, Tao vs. Dao: amazing restaurant sign near UPenn, Language Log, 24 December 2019.
"Linguistically, historically, culturally, and lexicographically, this article constitutes a significant contribution to human knowledge." Keahapana (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the news