Talk:Chinese classic texts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Ancient vs. recent classics 2 chinese classic texts 3 Recent attempt to move page 4 Unable to move to Chinese Classical Texts 5 Dates

[edit] Ancient vs. recent classics

This sentence seems to be out of place in the article.

Chinese children first studied the Chinese characters with the Hundred Family Surnames (Bai Jia Xing) and the Three Character Classic (三字經 San Zi Jing). Then, they studied the following Classics, in order to climb the social hierarchy.

The article started out on ancient Chinese text that have become classic. Then the second paragraph turned into Three Character Classic which is NOT an ancient creation. The text is less than 100 years old. Within the text of the Three Character Classic, there are a few phrases

清順治，據神京。
至十傳，宣統遜。
舉總統，共和成。
復漢土，民國興。

which describe the rise and downfall of Qing Dynasty followed by the establishment of the republic after the nomination of a president. So this classic could not have existed before 1911. So this sentence should be moved under a subsection for recent classic or something like that at best. IMHO, it does not even belong in this article. Kowloonese 01:46, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] chinese classic texts

I am concerned that the level of this page falls below Wikipedia standards, and I say so based on specific inaccuracies and general lack of organizational clarity.

In terms of inaccuracy, I would point to the list of the Five Flassics that includes the Classic of Filial Piety, but not that of Music within the five. In point of fact, the Five Classics should include Changes, History, Poetry, Ritual, and Music (in this order, not that of the page). This was true up through the middle of the Western Han (206 BC- 9 AD) as indicated by many sources, from the Hanshu Yiwenzhi to the Mawangdui manuscript commentaries on the Changes. Although the Filial Piety was a respected text used for the education of the emperor and quoted in court debate after Emperor Wu of the Han (d 87 BC), it was not actually referred to as a classic unitil much later, when the number of texts that were designated as such had expanded substantially beyond five.

Secondly, to refer to the Four Books as if they were four Classics ignores the fact that two of the Four Books (Great Learning and the Mean) are actually excerpts from one of the Classics (Ritual).

Thirdly, the page does not clarify the issue of what is a commentary and what is a classic, which may indeed be difficult to define precisely, but is an essential foundation to approaching these texts.

Finally, the page is very fuzzy on the issue of the canonical (Confucian) Chinese Classics since it also includes "classic" texts from many other lines of thought (though for some reason completely neglecting Buddhism). Chinese thought is certainly much broader than Confucianism, but I am concerned that this page may confuse as much as it clarifies.

sinica

[edit] Recent attempt to move page

User:Eiorgiomugini recently moved the article to Chinese Classical Texts, as well as making a long string of changes to the article, none of them explained (not even edit summaries), most incorrectly marked as minor. I've reverted it all. If he has reasons for these changes, could he explain them here? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It better understanding for other in my version, I tidy it up, and I don't sees why you could revert all of it, I'm making a contribute here. Eiorgiomugini 14:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

More information: he had inserted another {copyedit} on Period of Disunity and Jie (ethnic group), and reverted my verion at Erya to his own version without explaining. Eiorgiomugini 15:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unable to move to Chinese Classical Texts

I'm pissed right now. Could somebody else care to explain me why I can't move to that section anymore, since after Mel Etitis had moved to another page:

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Eiorgiomugini 14:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert to your version and try to move the page back without proper explanation? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please answer my question first: Could somebody else care to explain me why I can't move to that section anymore, since after Mel Etitis had moved to another page:

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Eiorgiomugini 15:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The natural English name for this is Chinese classics. Please stop this. Septentrionalis 04:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Somehow in the recent mess of moves and edits, the article first gained a mixture of BC/AD and BCE/BC, and I then made it consistent by making them all the latter (misremembering how it was to start with). As the article has no relation to Christianity, it's a prime candidate for the BCE/CE system. Does anyone strongly object if it stays as it is? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to take note that BC/AD are more popularity in use than BCE/CE Eiorgiomugini 17:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a debate that has been gone through at length in Wikipedia; the BCE/CE system is in fact more common in modern academic English, but the point is that we have established an approach.

With regard to your insistence on making some links to the article titles and some to piped English translations, would you explain? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not trying to make a double standards here, but when there's a interpretation of the title, then I would prefer to use it, instead of romanisation, after all this edition of Wikipedia is in English. Eiorgiomugini 17:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

But the fact that the articles in question aren't in English should tell you something. We use the title by which a book, person, or thing is best known. if a book is best known by its original name, not by a translation, then we use the original. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Its in a kind of English–Chinese bilingual edition. I had not yet not to see any books of translation work known as Zhan Guo Ce or Guo Yu in English, with exception let say Tao De Jing instead of Daodejing in publishing, care to help me out. Eiorgiomugini 22:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The refernces in the text aren't to the translations, but the books themselves. If a book is best known by an English translation, then we use that form; otherwise we use the original form. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly which was what I said, Zhan Guo Ce is probably more well known as the Stratagems of the Warring States, as shown in google search results, not sure about Guo Yu, though Shan Hai Jing are known better in its English translation anyway. Eiorgiomugini 10:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)