User talk:ChadHansen

Welcome

Hello, ChadHansen, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. If you are looking for help, please do any of the following:

visit the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have
type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will answer your questions shortly
visit the directory of help pages

There are a lot of standards and policies here, but as long as you are editing in good faith, you are encouraged to be bold in updating pages. Here are a few links you might find useful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. Also, it would be a huge help if you could explain each of your edits with an edit summary. Again, welcome! --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Taoism, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Vassyana (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary unsupported by the sources to Taoism. It is problematic for a variety of reasons, including misrepresenting what is stated by the sources. For example, Maspero does not attribute the idea that Taoism is a quest for immortality with an "early post-Han attitude". If you wish to elaborate on points not supported by the current sources, please cite one or more reliable sources that can be verified by other editors that directly support the information you are adding. Vassyana (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your obvious expert knowledge regarding Taoism, your approach is sometimes contrary to the underlying principles of Wikipedia. Our purpose here is not to present what any given editor, regardless of experience or expertise, believes to be correct. Instead, we present information about topics as they are represented in the body of reliable sources. This is a common point of difficulty for those of us with academic experience. It can seem counterintuitive, and even plain wrong, to "simply regurgitate" what reputable references say, regardless of other factors. However, Wikipedia lacks any "real" editorial oversight or expert peer review, largely depending on amateur volunteer contributors. We instead rely on sources from established experts, peer-reviewed and oft-cited journals, publishers with a reputation for a solid editorial process, and so forth.

Touching base on specific edits: The view put forward by Mair that the distinctions between "philosophical" and "religious" Taoism are fraught with hermeneutic difficulties is one very commonly repeated (in a variety of ways) in reliable literature about Taoism. Your edit distorts the citation to Mair, making it appear that Mair forwards a view that he does not. Inaccurate citations of this sort are always unacceptable, whether on Wikipedia or in "the real world". Additionally, your point is only representative of a small minority viewpoint, making it likely to be inappropriate for inclusion. This edit removes cited information claiming "argumentum ad populum" as the justification. While I appreciate the point from an intellectual stance, it is directly counter to our purposes here. Wikipedia explicitly intends to report the majority view and give it the most coverage. This goes hand in hand with Wikipedia's intent to represent the body of extant reliable sources, rather than attempting to present either the "most correct" or "leading edge" knowledge and research. I hope this helps explain the intent and principles of Wikipedia, thus explaining why I am reverting some of your changes. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit indicates to me that I have failed in my attempt to reach out to you and explain the rules of Wikipedia. I have tried to clearly explain the problem with both changes you reinstated. I will attempt to rephrase my concerns, in the hopes that I can better convey the problem with the edit. This causes the citation to Mair to become inaccurate. Distorted citations, where the citation does not support the related text, are not acceptable. [This removes information about the majority view. Wikipedia's purpose is to report information as it is reported in the overall body of reliable sources, including reporting the clear majority views and giving them the most coverage. If I am being unclear in any way, if you fail to understand what I am trying to convey or there is otherwise some failure to communicate, please do not hesitate to ask questions or raise your concerns to me. Vassyana (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I earnestly would like to help you address the concerns you raise and improve our coverage of Taoism. Explaining a bit, because Wikipedia is not solely edited by academics, ensuring that we stick closely to reputable sources is the only way to make sure that any kind of scholarship is maintained. I do understand it can be a bit of an inconvenience, but Wikipedia lacks central editorial oversight or expert peer review, relying on the volunteer labor of (mainly) amateurs and non-academics. This means that things have to be cited in far more detail than in academia, where readers and reviewers can be reasonably expected to have a solid understanding of the material, in order to keep the material reasonably accurate and verifiable. While it may seem of benefit to provide an exception for experts, because articles keep getting edited it would become unclear over time what is the expert material and what is random speculation. For better and for worse, Wikipedia relies on the conventional wisdom, or rather what is reported in the majority of sources, for the bulk of its coverage. Significant minority views are also welcome for inclusion, though to a smaller degree and with less coverage. That all said, if you could provide a few citations regarding scholars that maintain the usefulness of the religious/philosophical dichotomy and that explicitly talk about the treatment of Taoism in comparative philosophy, I would be pleased to help you integrate the material. Vassyana (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]