Talk:Sima Qian

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.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] It is time for us to choose an editor for this page

Hello, i had found some interesting pictures. hope you will like it.

Also Thank you for contributing the project, right now, we got enough information, but our page isn't very well organized. thus, i would like to ask volunteer , who is good at english , to try to make it consistent in the style of writing. (I feel sorry that I am not proficient in writing english >.< )

More, I would like to delete some para, which is related to the journalism , coz our project is supposed to be seen by the world, and they are not taking a journal class. (by LO, --0101LOcw)

Hi groupmates,

I also think it's a difficult problem in making a balance regarding the proportion of journalism in this project. However, the required research questions are also predominately regarding on journlaism. So do we need to answer all those suggested questions? Does anyone has any suggestion on this? Pls feel free to comment on this.0101CHEUNGKH0101CHEUNGKH

Hi~ groupmates, sorry for coming late. I think the article has covered most of the required research questions. Since the topic of this project is 'Journalists as Great Authors', I think we should include some literary component in the article. SO I added something about literature in the article.0101CHANYP

Hi groupmates,

I agree with groupmate Chan, since this project is titled "Journalists as Great Authors". It is no doubt that our focus should be put on " as a journalist" and "as an author". Besides, the research questions also addressed the contributions of the character on journalism and literature as well as the elements of journalism that he met. I hope we can on the right track. So happy we can communicate through this page.0101CHEUNGKH0101CHEUNGKH

Hi guys I agree that this page of Sima Qian is open to the public and will be read by people who do not study journalism.

It seems that we are putting too much emphasis on the link between Sima Qian and Journalism. Imagine if you are the user of the internet, i am sure that you dont know what "level 1, level 2, and level 3" mean.

And also, too many pictures in our page will surely distract the readers. We should delete some of them.

-- Hello fellows, Could you sign off your message with your signature and timestamp. Try the button right above the editing window. Thanks. (by Almond, --0101WONGfm 19:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Hi groupmates,

I understand your concerns about the proportion of 'journalism' in our page. It is because Sima Qian is a historical figure and 'journalism' has not yet emerged during his time and so we'll feel strange in linking him to journalism.(which other groups won't encounter this problem as the person they do is definitely a journlaist) However, since the topic is "journalist as great author" and our course is indeed a journalism course, it is obvious that we need to make some linkage between the two. so I think we can now keep the stuff in our page first and edit them finally before we think carefully about the proportion.0101CHEUNGKH

Hi groupmates, I've just checked the e-mail sent bu Professor Chan, which stated that this project will be graded on the emphasis on journalism. Hope this will help us to reconsider how much should we focus on this aspect.0101CHEUNGKH

[edit] ========================================================

Hello, I got some suggestions about the proportion of "journalism". Since journalism has not appeared yet in the Han dynasty as Cheung mentioned, it is odd if we say Sima qian was a journalist, thus,

First, we should bear in mind that Sima qian only make great contribution on the later development of Journalism. This is our stance.

Second, we can figure out how Sima qian writing's attitude, style and method meeting the elements of journalism. While giving examples, we can mention some comtemporary journalists who are strongly influenced by Sima qian and always uphold his principle.

Lastly, remember to give neutral point of views, only the facts, no personal comments.(by LO, --0101LOcw)

Hi groupmates,

I agree with Lo that we should interlock our page with journalism by stating how Sima Qian influence the later development of journalism. By stating how Sima Qian meeting the three levels of journalism, the main point is not only linking to journalism but to give more details about Shiji.

[edit] ===

I have no intention to delete the journalism thingy from this article (though it's rather odd showing the rest of the world that it's, indeed, a piece of assignment). But I did delete few sentences like "this valuable experience made him...". Because this is not "fact/history" but "how we interpret the fact/history" and seems we'll never find a way to prove that there's such a cause-and-effect. (by Almond, --0101WONGfm 10:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Hello, groupmates, do you think that we should add more words on the historial achievements? since sima qian is a grand historian..... and i have just made some sub-headings under the "a literar yauthor ",but i think it doesn't look pretty, how can i change it so as to look better?

[edit] Hi

I added 2 new paragraphs on history and literature influences. Also added a paragraph on the level 3 reporting abt the Grand Historian Remark. So maybe you can see if that suffice (in response to the previous dropin message).

Moreover, I don't know the Chinese translation for some names and I need you guys help me translating them.

I think it's almost time for us to edit. (And a lot of things to do on that, which i'm not able to do in these 2 days) So add oil la, group mates!!! --0101YOUNGhy 06:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Element of Journalism number 8

Element eight: Journalists must keep the news in proportion and make it comprehensive.

Hi Guys, so good to see such vibrant discussions. There is no need for you to strech the truth about Sima Qian in order to answer the research questions. I completely agree with your teammate "?":

"First, we should bear in mind that Sima qian only make great contribution on the later development of Journalism. This is our stance.

Lastly, remember to give neutral point of views, only the facts, no personal comments."

Use your best judgment, but whatever his connection to journalism is, it should be mentioned in the lead paragraph.

be sure to sign off your discussion message with 4 tilde signs (~) at the end like this:Lfcho 14:13, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)to include your name, time and date.

(JMSC0101 TA) - Li Lfcho 14:13, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] =====================

Suggest some of us to do this and some that, and stop adding things. I'm afraid we've been doing something similiar like verifying figures/numbers, checking grammar, finetuning, etc. To avoid changing the same material back and forth, perhaps we can do it in this way: groupmate A to check the tense, B to check the spelling, C to check the capitilization, D to check the numbers... etc (a bit tedious so please suggest). Think we should let go and not that greedy to rectify all the things by oneself, without knowing what the others are doing. I'm checking the spelling now. Your thought? (by Almond, --0101WONGfm 18:14, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC))

[edit] =====================

Hello ~~While editing, I suggest visiting other group's web sites so that we can make comparison and learm from the other. ^.^ Work hard! I hope that our we site would be easy to read, thus, i am now trying to make some sub-title? Is there any good suggection?

I have added some no. to the topic.....but the "content", which is pink in color, looks strange at the same time , how can I do? Can anyone edit the "content"? (by LO, --0101LOcw 22:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC))

[edit] Re: Comments after Editing

Questions while editing.

Does anyone know what barbarian tribes exactly that was referred when he went west to perform military roles.

There are many words which i doubt whether we need to make links. Such as 'eclipse', 'sun'.

I think 'Feng Sacrifice' should have a link instead.

In terms of the influence, there should be more support on specifically how things/authors were influenced. There is thin materials on that.

Remember that we agreed that we should not refer him as a journalist

What is with the phrase from 'literature' - 'skillful depiction' - 'a large proportion conservation'?? May the contributor please check on what it means cuz i have no idea..

Add oil ma team-mates~

Cheers

0101YOUNGhy

[edit] Re: Smething to add

Also may also someone verify how we suppose to praise our sources. thx.

I have made some changes to the lit. part and I think some pictures ,not to many, will be better for the project. that is sufficed now .(by LO, --0101LOcw

i have deleted some analysis of information , coz it is not so much related and the para is too long

[edit] IMPORTANT: REFERENCE

We have not mentioned our references!!! Pls add your reference material for our site! If you don't know how, this is the way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources

Add oil! One more day to go~

--0101YOUNGhy 18:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] important: chinese translation

can some please do some translation for me Ban Gu’s [Pan Ku’s] History of the Han (Han Shu)

--- to make it consistent, can someone change Pan Ku to Chinese characters please.

Thx!

0101YOUNGhy

[edit] note

A question:

I really think our arguement is quite thin for saying that sima qian effected the later development of journalism.

I tried to search but there is no direct linkage to the two.

In our section on "Contribution to the development of Journalism"

It's basically about how his writing fulfulls the 3 levels of reporting.

I suggest to change the title and the intro paragraph of that section.

Title something like: Sima Qian as a Role Model to Journalist

Any questions please raise in the discussion

cheers--0101YOUNGhy 20:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello Groupmates,

I agree that the argument of saying Sima Qian meeting the three levels = contributions is quite weak. Thus, I 've change the wordings a little bit. Besides, I've also change the wordings like "good" because "good" is too subjective and is too vague in meaning which is not a journalistic tone.

Although Sima Qian had no direct connection with journalism, I think he and Shiji really have influence in this sphere for his writing method and style are objective and netural. I think the only point is that journalism had not yet evolved at his time and thus we would find linking him with the topic difficult.

I also call for all of you to add external links and references on the page. Thanks 0101CHEUNGKH 05:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)0101CHEUNGKH

[edit] Caption for Pictures

For contributors who added pictures, please make a caption for it. Thx~ Or anyone who knows what to write abt them.

why was there only a few paragraphs..?? who chopped them all.. i added them back

[edit] I did a presentation on him for Chinese history class

I've also read some of his "Records of the Grand Historian." I haven't worked on this, but if it still would need any I'd be glad to help.(Depending on how things are going in my studies)--T. Anthony 10:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

The main problem is that a number of sections are presented in staccato, non-sentence, note form. The English is often rather odd, too. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I searched the cleanup dispute, its said only ungrammatical, poorly formatted, confusing can be considered needed to "clean-up", I don't see any of these. And please do not remove the date I provided earlier (I did not change any of the contents nor Wikipedia style), those are real date from primary sources, because you can't see you're doing. So please don't do this again 08:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As English is clearly not your first language, you're not in a position to judge. Please don't remove the template until the work is done. Also, stop reverting correct Wikipedia coding to incorrect. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What kind of lousy respose is that, I am only adding the date, do you have a myopia problem??? Since when did I reverted any coding, I am not in not in a position to judge?? Well since I provided a sources with cited, I don't think you're in in a position to judge either. I'm not got to talk to you with this shit. 23:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You said: "I searched the cleanup dispute, its said only ungrammatical, poorly formatted, confusing can be considered needed to "clean-up", I don't see any of these." I responded, on the evidence of this and other of your edits, that English wasn't your first language and that that was why you didn't see the problems (even though I'd explained what they were on this page).

You've refused to explain on this page what the basis of your edits are; you say that you've cited a source, but as this shows, you haven't. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 07:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Years of birth/death

Folks, please talk this through and cite sources. Right now, this revert war is not productive. --Nlu (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no discussion going on, I'm going to unprotect. Meanwhile, it should be noted that I am unable to locate any references as to age in Sima Qian's biography in Han Shu (ch. 62, [1]). --Nlu (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've checked a large number of Web pages, and most of them are even vaguer about his dates than the article. I can find no ground for making the dates more precise and definite. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The anon. still refuses to discuss this issue here, merely reverting with telegraphic explanations in edit summaries ("According to Zheng Yi which is a primary sources and a scholarly secondary source from Wang Guowei who work over his date, I was right" — hardly useful as a citation). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the date of birth for Sima Qian was given by Zheng Shoujie commentary under Shiji, 130 to 145 BC (calculated from his age at 41 given at 104 BCE)[2], so it was an attestation within primary sources, his date of death was however unknown, most scholars believe he died around 80s, so its ludicrous for you to state a circa date 145-90, this is wrong, it should be stated as 145-80s BCE. About Laozi, Sima Qian has given us an account that he was a senior of Confucius, so it is prattle to said that scholars would have placed him in around 4th century BC, not unless it is sourced, btw, both date of birth and death of Confucius came from Shiji, 47 and Chunqiu. 02:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Which chapter of Shiji is this from? --Nlu (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Which are you refering to? 02:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You said that your source is the commentary to Shiji -- but to which chapter (卷)? That way, I can verify it. --Nlu (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Shiji, 130 （史记正义） 02:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, Mel, I think that's enough of a citation to let it stand. Mr./Ms. Anon, go ahead and change it back. Mel, if you disagree, maybe call for a RfC? --Nlu (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside his incivility, this isn't sufficient. He cites an ancient (c. 1st century BCE) history against all the modern scholarly sources that I've been able to find. A common feature of ancient sources is that they pretend to a precision and certainty to which they're not entitled.

With regard to Laozi, the anon seems again to assert that Sima Qian is infallible. A common view is that Laozi didn't exist at all, and even if he did, the question as to his chronological relationship with Confucius is far from clear. The dates given in the Laozi article are cited (see the References section).

Some of the problem – including, perhaps, some of the incivility – probably stems from the anon's unfamiliarity with English, and with Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but what's makes you think you're in a position to judge or even to make a dubious grounds on other, do you even read modern or classical chinese like modern scholar Wang Guowei? With regard to Laozi, most scholars do believe that he did existed, I had no idea of what did you meant by a common view, a common view of yours I suppose, he was only mythicise by the later Taoist, in the work of Sima Qian, he wasn't even a mythic figure at all. Furthermore, what makes you think that you could assert the incredibility on Shiji, do you even read Shiji, it is a measure of the thoroughness of his predecessors that Sima Qian can give accurately the names of Shang kings more than 1000 years before his time (modern scholars assume these details to be legendary, until they are confirmed by inscriptions on the Shang oracle bones). I can play this little game of yours until I'm dead. 00:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"The dates given in the Laozi article are cited (see the References section)." Leaving aside his ignorance, this isn't sufficient. I'm afraid none of those references even placed him from the 4th century BCE on the section. It is not UP to you to decide, unless you could quoted some of those references (note that it state many scholars under the edits [3], so it must be five to ten of them that supported his view). 00:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"I've checked a large number of Web pages, and most of them are even vaguer about his dates than the article." "He cites an ancient (c. 1st century BCE) history against all the modern scholarly sources that I've been able to find." I believe this guy has still not read any of these records. Trawling through the internet for possible clues is always easier, but how reliable are they. Scholarly sources from google, or just your assumption? 01:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Mel, leaving aside the alleged incivility, I think a primary ancient source is likely to be more, not less, reliable. --Nlu (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged incivility"? Do you take "prattle" to be civil? "I can play this little game of yours until I'm dead"? "Leaving aside his ignorance"? The edit summary: "Rv; Mel Etitis's usual garbage"? What do you take incivility to be?
Why do you think that ancient sources are more reliable? That's almost never the case, in any culture, for all sorts of reasons (local politics, confusion of myth and history, poor scholarship, etc.). Primary sources are often useful in determining dates, but they're also often very misleading. Note that modern scholars are aware of the ancient sources, and still say that Sima Qian's dates are unclear. The anon is reduced to sneers and vague statements about my knowledge, which should give a hint as to the strength of his position.
As for Laozi (and why we're discussing him here I'm unclear) — some citations just from backs to hand on my own shelves:
- "the 'founder' of philosophical Daoism is the quasi-legendary Laodan [...]. According to tradition he was an older contemporary of Confucius, with dates ranging from 580 to 480BC. Zhuangzi [...] has a more solid historical status" (Charles Wei-hsun Fu, "Daoism in Chinese philosophy", in Carr & Mahalingam [edd] Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy. Routledge, 2001; p. 553.)
- "the early third-century BCE Tao-te ching [...] also known as the Lao-tzu after its eponymous 'author', Lao Tan" (Daniel L. Overmyer, "Chinese religion", in Kitagawa [ed.]The Religious Traditions of Asia. Macmillan, 1987; p.265)
- "Lao-zi: c.570–490BCE?. Like the Greek bard Homer, it is not clear who Lao-zi was, or even if he existed." (Peter J. King, One Hundred Philosophers. Barron's, 2004)
- "Laozi (dates uncertain; speculation ranges from 600 to 200 BCE) is, we assume, the author of the Daode Jing [...] The figure of Laozi has always been shrouded in mystery" (details of scholarly disagreement over dating of text) "Many scholars, however, dismiss Laozi as mythological or use his name as shorthand for 'the author(s) of the Daode Jing." (Chad Hansen, "Laozi", in A Companion to the Philosophers. Blackwell, 2001; pp77–78)

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ancient sources are more reliable, as far as chronology is concerned, because they are made closer in time to the events in question. The situation here is analogous to, ironic enough, Shijis dating of Warring States period monarchs compared to the Bamboo Annals, in my opinion -- which was only discovered (specifically, removed from an ancient tomb) in the Jin Dynasty but was immediately recognized for its ancient origins. Historians generally acknowledge the dating in the Bamboo Annals to be more reliable than that in the Shiji. No, ancient sources aren't always more reliable, but as far as the dating is concerned, I'd say that they're likely to be more reliable. --Nlu (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The general claim simply isn't true, I'm afraid, as ancient historians would all confirm. The discipline is full of cases in which ancient sources either get wrong or simply misrepresent the facts. (As you don't rrespond to all my other points, doi I take it that you now accept them?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"As you don't rrespond to all my other points, doi I take it that you now accept them?" There is nothing clear and straight on your points, much less to accept it. Your inability to clearly give a reason for your argument shows that it doesn't have a solid base to back up. For you had done nothing but rats, why don't you care to explain about your points. The general claim of that is certainly true, I'm afraid none of your claims are worth replying for the other. 04:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of civil, I consider you to be rude for reverting edits that other had provided. For reasons you couldn't even verify the citation I had given even as you insists you're right.
To be fair and objective I had read, most modern scholars are aware of the ancient sources, and still say that Sima Qian's dates are clear. Scholar such as Wang Guowei had no disagreement to the date that I given, since there is ground for making the dates more precise and definite, its not something that needs to be reevaluated, primary sources are often useful in determining dates, they're only misleading when there is diffuse of varied range of dates within, which is not the case for the date of birth of Sima Qian. The ancient sources are more realible for as much as all secondary sources are based upon them, they would have lay no claim to historical objectivity if they don't. Since those records are our only evidence of what happened in the past, any claims of what happened then need to be supported by evidence from those records or any convincing scientifically method. Or else someone like myself can easily make the argument on some nonsensical testimony, and nobody can prove me wrong. The varied date of Sima Qian thoughout a large number of Web pages are because they're unreliable, not because they were vary from the original sources.
As for Laozi, apart from his work, almost all four sources you provided seem to consider Laozi was an older contemporary of Confucius, and why we're still disputing him I'm unclear, be it historical or mythical figure.

06:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility. Your most recent edit summary also violates civility. As you've already been blocked for other reasons, I'll leave this for the moment.
Modern scholarship uses ancient texts, but often corrects them (and they're certainly not our only evidence for what happened in the past, as archaeologists and ancient historians would confirm).
You denied that many scholars believed Laozi to be mythical, and the citations demonstrate that you're wrong on that. Moreover they make clear that the notion that he was a senior contemporary of Confucius is merely what tradition says – they don't accept it as fact – and none of them places him in one particular century. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is coming from someone who has the guts to comment on Sima Qian when he can't even verify the citation I given?
You had based off upoon your insufficient knowledge regarding to Sima Qian, when it came to ancient sources, modern scholarship corrects them with specific reasons, not just mere intuition, I never dismiss the archaeological facts. But since we're talking about the precise and definite dates of a particular individual, its not something that archaeologists would have confirm, neither do the carbon dating is good enough.
Wrong, since when did I denied that, he's somewhere in between historical and mythical. Before you propose anymore of your unsupported rubbish, at least get a clue on that. Your narration demonstrate that you're wrong on that, they make clear on the notion that he was a senior contemporary of Confucius from the tradition tells, what they don't accept it as fact is not the issue here, and certainly placing him from 4th century BC and not backed by sufficient facts is something that's without a good reasoning. In case you didnt aware of it, almost all three sources you provided placed him in one particular century.

03:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you find it impossible to discuss this matter without descending to childish insult?
You said: "With regard to Laozi, most scholars do believe that he did existed, I had no idea of what did you meant by a common view, a common view of yours I suppose, he was only mythicise by the later Taoist, in the work of Sima Qian, he wasn't even a mythic figure at all." When I cited sources indicating that many scholars don't believe that Laozi existed, you say: "since when did I denied that, he's somewhere in between historical and mythical".
It's difficult to follow some of what you say, but none of the (four) sources that I cited place Laozi unequivocally in the 4th century BCE (1. "according to tradition" 580–480; 2. early 3rd century; 3. c.570–490BCE?; 4. 600 to 200 BCE). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I found it impossible to discuss this matter with you beacuase of your insufficient knowledge regarding to my previously citations I provided.
"When I cited sources indicating that many scholars don't believe that Laozi existed" Your sources never state that he doesn't existed, and they certainly doesn't placed him from the 4th century BC. You said "You denied that many scholars believed Laozi to be mythical" and I replied "Wrong, since when did I denied that" and added he's somewhere in the middle of historical and mythical, what's wrong with that. Why don't you say something about Sima Qian dating by the way.
No, I said all of your three sources, but now I see it should be two of them (dates ranging from 580 to 480BC; c.570–490BCE?), the point is that your sources doesn't supported your claim about Laozi dating to the 4th century BC, and even if they did it must has some reasoning. 10:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reprotection

This revert war is unseemingly and unproductive. If both of you feel this strongly, surely either of you would be able to file an RfC on the subject. --Nlu (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already approached an editor whom I know to be a Chinese scholar. Perhaps an RfC is a also good idea. I'm a little disturbed that you've protected twice, both times locking the article in the anon's version, for which you've suggested that you have a preference. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And the fact that is you whom failed to provide your references that supported your claims, it is not up to you to push the blame on other. 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC has been filed. --Nlu (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC comments

Crikey. Would the Anon kindly read WP:NPA. In terms of the latest edit, mass deleting a large chunk which contains useful material/links etc does not bode well for establishing your bona fides (nor does remaining anonymous and never signing your notes). Although you may know this subject inside-out, you should consider that an obvious lack of total grasp of the english language indicates you should be a little more careful in how you say things - consider how easy it is for foreigners to be insulting and inadvertently say dumb things in Chinese. Dates going that far back - unless someone has a birth certificate, 'circa' is normally appropriate, although I agree that the 80's based on above argument appear more credible than the 90's. Deleted pieces could use some NPOVing as well. Bridesmill 17:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now heard back (off-Wikipedia) from the person whom I asked to comment; I'm hoping that he'll post a fuller comment here. He reports, though, that one of the sources provided by the anon to support the use of a definitive date actually gives two possible alternatives, and explains that they're both sippositional. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"In terms of the latest edit, mass deleting a large chunk which contains useful material/links etc does not bode well for establishing your bona fides (nor does remaining anonymous and never signing your notes)." All I can say it was an accident through reverting, anyway if he didn't start off this edit war on the first place, things like this won't be happened. 18:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"He reports, though, that one of the sources provided by the anon to support the use of a definitive date actually gives two possible alternatives, and explains that they're both sippositional." Oh by way, there were already a major interpretation through profound scholarship by Wang Guowei for that, so save your energy. 202.156.6.54, 18:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this right, you are insisting on the date of 145 exactly even though you know that your own source gives two possible dates based on calculations of when Sima Qian got various titles and jobs? I wonder, is it possible to block people who needlessly create conflict where there is no need for it? Lao Wai 13:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There are two ages given; 28 and 42 at a certain year. First your statement was not only facetious but preposterous in every way. So let me get this right, Its not what I insisting nor did I insisted on anything, because for every one I can name at least five scholars are in favor for over one date, so keep that comments to yourself. As for scholars who are in favor of the date 145 are primarily due to the further possibilities in number crunching that three (三) was easiler misinterpreted as two (二) than to four (四). Since you can understand it what are you bitching about? 02:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Source:

司马迁当了五年太史令，汉武帝改元太初，张守节的《正义》就在“五年而当太初元年”下备注说：“迁年四十二岁。”太初元年是公元前104年，司马迁年四十二，王国维先生据此推算，司马迁当生于汉景帝中元五年，即公元前145年。王国维先生在《太史公行年考》中认为后人引用《博物志》所载“年二十八”应是“年三十八”之误。因为古籍中“二、三、四”与“廿、卅”常常发生讹误。王国维所著《太史公行年考》注意到了司马贞与张守节的两条注，并谈了自己的看法：“疑今本《索隐》所引《博物志》‘年二十八’，张守节所见本作‘年三十八’。三讹为二，乃事之常；三讹为四，则于理为远。以此观之，则史公生年，当为孝景中元五年，而非孝武建元六年矣。”。总之，《博物志》“太史令”条，写的是汉武帝三年（即建元三年）除司马谈为太史令之事，只是“己卯”误为“乙卯”而已。弄出麻烦来的，是司马贞张冠李戴，将此条引注于《自序》“卒三岁而迁为太史令”之下。-- Prof Shi

Sorry this is a little late. I do admire someone with such winning ways with the English language. Not only facetious but preposterous in every way? Wonderful. So, to try an umangle your Chinglish to something vaguely understandable, you are arguing that you have found a highly popular date with Chinese scholars? You are arguing that they argue that the dispute over SMQ's birthday comes down to a very easy confusion between three, two and even four? Which is all fine. But producing a scholar that claims a likely date is not the same as proving a date. There is a dispute over this date and you may be right for all I know, but it is not a matter of consensus among China scholars. Therefore "c. 145" seems about right to me. Why are you objecting to that when your own source discusses the dispute? Lao Wai 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

This article has been protected for weeks and weeks and weeks, and nobody has edited the talk page in a week. Oh for heaven's sake. Unprotected. --Tony Sidaway 00:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Question

Please let me ask the question: why mangle his name. Chinese language uses single characters that combines to word/phrases. In this instance his last name is made up of two characters (rare in modern Chinese last names), so I think should be designated "Si Ma" to reflect this.

A rule of Pinyin is to write surname and given names in two words, e.g. Mao Zedong, Jiang Zemin, Ouyang Xiu. I saw the usage in this article is sometimes "Sima Qian" and others "Si Ma Qian". I converted all instances of "Si Ma Qian" to "Sima Qian". --Joshua C hi e w 13:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories: B-Class China-related articles | B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance | Top-importance China-related articles | Biography articles without listas parameter | B-Class biography articles

Talk:Sima Qian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] It is time for us to choose an editor for this page

[edit] ========================================================

[edit] ===

[edit] Hi

[edit] Element of Journalism number 8

[edit] =====================

[edit] =====================

[edit] Re: Comments after Editing

[edit] Re: Smething to add

[edit] IMPORTANT: REFERENCE

[edit] important: chinese translation

[edit] note

[edit] Caption for Pictures

[edit] I did a presentation on him for Chinese history class

[edit] Clean-up

[edit] Years of birth/death

[edit] Reprotection

[edit] RfC comments

[edit] Unprotected

[edit] New Question

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search