Talk:Shiming: Difference between revisions

Revert redux

Eiorgiomugini, thanks for adding the tone marks consistently, although it may be a bit of overkill. I have a few questions.

First, "we don't need a single scholar for such POV, it should be NPOV." Neutral doesn't mean multiple. Can't a single opinion be neutral? Bodman's book is the most authoratative English study of the Shiming and this quote admits the differing viewpoints. I changed your "evidence like those who disagreed" back to grammatical English. Have you read Bodman's book?

Second, "we have no date when did Liu Zhen had dead [sic]." Thanks for correcting your mistake with "Confirm on Hou Hanshu." I double-checked Liu's original biography (Zhonghua ed., p. 2617) and it was 126.

Third, there is no accurate dating for the Shiming. First you wrote "circa 200 should changed [sic] to 2nd century CE, since it was written between Lingdi era", and then you revised it again to "circa 180 to 200." What is your source for the Shiming being written during the reign of Emperor Ling? If there is proof, then wasn't the reign 168-189 CE? Noting the absence of a Hou Hanshu biography for Liu Xi, Bodman (1954: 4) uses those of his famous students in the Wu shu section of the Sanguo Zhi and says: "Sufficient dates are known from the biographies of his students to set up the approximate date of 200 A.D. as the period when they were under his instruction. There are no data to indicate whether the Shih ming was written during this period, or a few years earlier or later." Thus, "circa 200" seems the shortest and most accurate dating.

Fourth, you inexplicably changed "27 chapters (篇)" to "8 volumes (unknown chapters)." It originally was "eight volumes (juàn 卷, "roll; scroll") … 27 chapters (piān 篇)" but on 20 June someone at IP 202.156.6.54 (Did you forget to log in?) deleted the Chinese and changed it to "8 volumes … 27 chapters." As a non-native speaker of English, I assume you understand why it's necessary to give the Chinese (character at minimum) for translations like "chapter" that can be 章, 節, 卷, 篇, etc.

Fifth, are you familiar with the convention of using square brackets to indicate changes within direct quotations? To otherwise change quotes (like you did on 1 June and 4 June under the Erya entry) borders upon plagiarism. You'll see that I've corrected this again.

Best wishes, Keahapana 22:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

First, this had proven that you probaby knew nothing about this book. Instead on based one book why don't you read about other had given? Now, this is hardly a NPOV. At first glance, I had no idea where did you get your "scholars disagree over whether the Shìmíng was one text or two, and whether Liu Zhen influenced Liu Xi", I changed it to "some", I hope that clarity things. You had shown nothing other than his book was an authoratative English study for amateurs who are new on this book. We don't need a single viewpoint.

Seoncd, there is no accurate dating for the Shiming, read the edits yourself, I changed it to 180-200, not precisely, as said on your book Bodman himself estimated approximate date of 200 A.D for the book. Which seemed to matched my edits. Although I had no idea what did he meant by "sufficient dates in sanguozhi given to Liu Xi".

Thrid, for you information the catalogue of Siku Quanshu in the 18th century listed the book as 20 chapters. And it should be noted that we knew nothing about the extant's chapters until now. And no a chapter can be 章, 節, 卷, 篇 are depended on different book, not necessarily to indicated, infact there's no rules that tries on this.

Fourth, Yes I did, and I don't remembered anything of that you said under the Erya entry. I don't think its me. Do you meant by this and this.

Eiorgiomugini 01:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Since you didn't answer whether you've read Bodman (1954), I'll take your insulting and autocratic response as a No. I agree this entry could use more POVs but instead of criticizing a book that you haven't seen, why don't contribute some additional English-language references?

3. Why did you fail to cite a source for "180," "Lingdi," or "220"? Is there a reason why you changed "200" to "220"[1], back to "200"[2], and then back again to "220"[3]? Searching the Web reveals many pages that date the Shiming "circa 200" such as [4], [5], or [6]; but none that have 180 to 200.

4. I'll assume in good faith that you misunderstand what "extant" means. Every Shiming edition I've checked has 8 卷 and 27 "chapters" that Liu's preface calls 27 篇. What extant version has "8 volumes (unknown chapters)"?

5. No, I meant this where you changed the punctuation and wording of a quotation without following the accepted convention of brackets. Here's another example. If you don't understand the rules about ellipsis and brackets within quotes, this might help.

Keahapana 00:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I had no ideas what are you talking about, I had read Bodman view point from your writings, and I found that his view point cannot be taken as a whole in scholarly community. And please do not take my response as an insulting and autocratic, beacuse there's none. You're quoting an author, which is very much a POV, I repeat again we don't need that, especially when the topic is disputed. Those are scholarly references not a bible, we shouldn't take one scholar words as a whole.

Second, Why should I cited the date 180-200? Liu Xi had clearly lived by the end of Eastern Han, read Cheng Bing biography yourself, his biography give us a clue on when he lived. Bodman given it as a few years earlier or later between 200, now what's wrong with changing 200 to 180-220? And no I had only changed it once from 180-200 to 180-220, so please don't make up nonsense.

Third, Why don't you just read my edits and before you start nagging with me, in my edits it said "all histories listed it as 8 juan", I not sure about the preface of Shiming, but the catalogue of Siku Quanshu listed it differently, as in all official histories. I did not misunderstood what "extant" means.

Fourth, now you had confusing me, in the links here I could only see I removed your extraneous templates, I don't see any problems here, what's really your problem with the links by the way. Btw, this is what you cited "It is not impossible that Liu [Zhen] did compose such a work and that Liu [Xi] might have used some of its material in his own work, but the chance of this having happened is very small." originally (00:02, 25 June 2006), I changed it to ""It is not impossible that Liú [Zhēn] did compose such a work and that Liú [Xī] might have used some of its material in his own work, but the chance of this having happened is very small." on the next edit. Here's another example of Wikipedia:Citing sources: You should always add a citation when quoting published material, and the citation should be placed directly after the quote, which should be enclosed within double quotation marks — "like this" — or single quotation marks if it's a quote-within-a-quote — "and here is such a 'quote' as an example." You had placed directly before the quote in here.

Eiorgiomugini 02:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Eiorgiomugini, I'm glad to see you're puttin