Talk:Jixia Academy
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Title: Jixia Academy
editThis article should be titled Jixia Academy, the normal name used in English. There are zero mentions of "Academy of the Gate of Chi" in Google; it's a literal translation of Jixia Academy (in Chinese). I am going to change it to the normal version. Evangeline (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Zero mentions? Then we should remove the OR pending some usage cites. — LlywelynII 12:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah. Editor above wasn't nearly correct. Needham, i.a., uses it. — LlywelynII 12:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Should be removed even though Needham used it: (a) it's the wrong Romanization (Needham's "Chi" = our "Ji"), (b) it's inaccurate; Jixia means "BENEATH the gate of Ji," not "the gate of Ji."--108.16.230.212 (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Merger proposal
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result was do not merge into Jixia Academy. -- DarkCrowCaw 13:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Lacouperie's idiosyncratic term "Wonderism" refers to the Jixia Academy. Shouldn't these articles be merged? Keahapana (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I discussed this on the Jixia Academy page. I believe the articles should not be merged. Evangeline (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- The articles should not be merged. Lacouperie speculates on western influence by noting parallels between hinduism and jixia proto-daoism, but in no way proves such influence. His thesis is not shared by other scholars, so it does not merit inclusion in this article. ShaziDaoren (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:ERA, ENGVAR
editPer this edit, the usage of the page is American English (will clean that up in a sec). Ditto BC/AD by the page founder. — LlywelynII 12:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Sources for article expansion
editBibliography sections are always unhelpful wastes of space that give editors an excuse not to bother with references, but this work – unavailable through Google Books – may have some more information on the topic for those who would like to expand the article: