Jump to content

Talk:Tao Te Ching

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleTao Te Ching is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 21, 2001Brilliant proseNominated
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept
December 9, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article

source structure

[edit]

Why is this not using a standardized source format, like SFN? This format is more difficult to work with.FourLights (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the citations are in {{sfnp}}, but I'd guess that the reason is that the article predates {{sfn}} (in fact, it predates citations on Wikipedia entirely) and no one has bothered to convert it yet. Folly Mox (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction to SNFP just says its like SFN but uses paranthesis for the year. I don't know about it, I was directed towards using SFN. Do we prefer SFNP here? Even if I don't get it perfect, would it sound good to convert the article to one or the other?FourLights (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of them say harvp but don't all have page numbers. If people could agree to use a standardized format I could look for the page numbers. It's relevant for long term work to sort out the daodejing more.FourLights (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with standardizing sfnp here. Remsense 22:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll try to put in the effort to standardize it to SFNP some time, hopefully check the sources at the same time.FourLights (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are (and what's the difference between) received texts and transmitted texts?

[edit]

In the section,Textual History-Principal versions, there's mention of 'Transmitted editions', but what does that MEAN (that they were 'transmitted'?

And then below that section, in 'Archaeologically recovered manuscripts', is mentioned archaeological discoveries, some of which are older than any of the received texts. So what ARE 'RECEIVED TEXTS' ?? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. But I'd take "transmitted text" and "received text" to be synonyms, and to refer to text editions that are or have been widespread in a given tradition, school or culture, as opposed to the archeological finds. However, it's relative: The archeological versions may very well have been "transmitted/received texts" in an earlier period, and may become so again now that they have been unearthed.
There may be a better scholarly terminology than "transmitted/received texts"; I don't know. Received text redirects to an article about specific Bible texts, but I guess that neither strengthens nor weakens the case for that term. (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tae to Ching

[edit]

Tae to Ching 49.145.245.196 (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

reference check

[edit]

Although the references themselves are all there for it's present content, I will have to perform a reference check for proper placement in the "Chronological theories" section. That being said, there may not be anything out of place.FourLights (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]