Talk:Chinese theology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinese theology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Celestial bureaucracy

The article was made a redirect here in 2014, but there is no trace of the contents so nowhere for me to insert the bolded term. It would be good if someone who knows the material - I suspect it comes under "traditional theology"? - could add a suitable mention of the term. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been expanded and now uses the term in context. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Luna-Reflection-Sea-Superluna-Night-Super-Water-1826849.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Immanent Transcendence

This section provides quite a narrow view of Christian theology. It seems to completely ignore the Panentheism like theology of of Eastern Orthodoxy. Other doctrines like Theosis also hold clear parallels to the ideas found in this section. I understand that there probably aren't many sources comparing specifically New Confucian Immanent Transcendence and Eastern Orthodox Essence–Energies Distinction and Theosis, but I think it should be at least mentioned. I may do it myself when I have the time.

Canodae (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The dragon and Draco, and other weaknesses

In the second section, the article makes several mentions of the constellation Draco being associated with the dragon. This is patently absurd and is in fact directly refuted by the cited reference (Pankenier 2013, p. 55). Anyone with a cursory knowledge of Chinese astronomy know that the dragon (later the Azure Dragon) is formed by stars in Virgo, Libra, and Scorpio. Draco is known as the dragon not to the Chinese but to the Greeks, hence its name. If equivalence between Western and Eastern dragons is implied in this of all articles, that would be alarming indeed.

The entire article synthesizes sources among which many are either ill-informed or contradictory. The next section cites Pankenier (2004; 2013) to complement Didier (2009)'s discussions of the square godhead of the northern culmen, notwithstanding the fact that their views on this matter are directly at odds with each other (see Pankenier 2013, p. 106; also this essay published online).

This article is highly informative and discusses topics that are not covered elsewhere on Wikipedia, but as for these sections which seem to have no idea what they're talking about, these should either be fixed or, in the absence of anyone with the requisite knowledge and free time, simply deleted. Sertheta (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]