Talk:Chinese spiritual world concepts

John Edwards

Buwahaha! Hoo, whoever wrote this is certainly gullible if they think a cut-rate cold reader like John Edwards is a legitimate spiritualist. People really should approach matters with more skepticism. 68.228.91.250 (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Tiantang yiuchi" [sic] references

Hi Benjwong. Perhaps I should have cited WP:VERIFY to explain deleting material from unreliable sources. The Tiantang Youji 天堂遊記 (misspelled "Tiantang yiuchi") is "spirit-writing" fiction by the self-styled "medium" Yang Zanru 楊贊儒. The other references are likewise undependable. Journeys to the Under-World is an "Occult novel", while Understanding Heaven and Hell and The Feast of Immortal Peaches were deleted as AfD on 14 and 15 October 2007 (see discussion here and here). In addition, there are three other dubious articles solely based on Tiantang Youji, I nominated Disha 72 ways on 15 February 2009 (deleted on 21 February), and nominated Tiangang 36 methods and Souyuan on 26 February (currently pending). I'll wait to hear from you before deleting again. Thanks. Keahapana (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is just a conceptual list. If it isn't well known, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I did not put the above contents in nor do I plan to verify the above. But please check with the original users who uploaded all those data. Benjwong (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also it is probably not good to say 天堂遊記 is unreliable because it is misspelled or used the wrong pinyin. Benjwong (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right that unfamiliar doesn't imply nonexistent, and right that this book isn't unreliable because mixes pinyin and Wade-Giles spellings. It's unreliable because fictional writings are not factual Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The original User:ACHKC quit editing WP and I'm just trying to undo some of the damage done. Best wishes. Keahapana (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is just unverified need citation. Unless you read this stuff already and highly disprove it, maybe? Benjwong (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. "Maybe" what? Yes I read Chinese, and the make-believe 天堂遊記, which Brian G. Brereton calls a "spirit travelogue"[1], undeniably violates WP policy for reliable references. It's OK if you'd rather delete the Tiantang youji material, otherwise I will. Keahapana (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Cantonese?

Why are words like Fan Tai Shui, Mun mai, and Yum si lou romanized in Cantonese instead of Pinyin? Are these spiritual concepts typically Hong Kong rather than Chinese? Keahapana (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

For cultural reasons south china regions are more into this stuff. Benjwong (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is extremely confusing. Some words are in pinyin, some in Cantonese Romanization, but the reader is left in the dark. If it's the case that Northerners do not believe in yinjian/yangjian (yanggan/yumgan), for example, then that is a relevant fact that should be provided. If they also believe in it, then additional Romanization and/or more detail should be made.Wakablogger (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Keahapana and Wakablogger. Mandarin, and hence pinyin romanization is the official language and romanization of China. They should be used. If we want to include Cantonese (Yue) also, that's fine. Bao Pu (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please add both romanizations when you have time. Benjwong (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sancao references?

I fact-tagged the Sancao 三曹 "Three Realms" material because I can't find any reliable sources for it (other than I-Kuan Tao). Chinese-language dictionaries define 三曹 as "the 3 Caos, Cao Cao, Cao Pi, and Cao Zhi" (cf. zh:三曹) or "plaintiff, defendant, and witness" – but not "3 spiritual realms". Keahapana (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chinese spiritual world concepts. 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://archive.is/20110529065202/http://163.32.84.102/cyberfair/2003%E5%B9%B4/%E5%9C%8B%E9%9A%9B%E5%BE%97%E7%8D%8E%E4%BD%9C%E5%93%81/2741/rock.htm to http://163.32.84.102/cyberfair/2003%E5%B9%B4/%E5%9C%8B%E9%9A%9B%E5%BE%97%E7%8D%8E%E4%BD%9C%E5%93%81/2741/rock.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611013154/http://www.fengshuiwindow.com/merchant.xhtml?pid=30&lastcatid=1&step=4 to http://www.fengshuiwindow.com/merchant.xhtml?pid=30&lastcatid=1&step=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)