This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sword of Goujian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Sword of Goujian be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Hubei may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Please edit to further define, or link to a page that defines, first-level protection, or reword the sentence. It is difficult to understand what is meant by first-level, and how this would differ from second or third levels, if they exist. Is this in a museum context, or government security context? AtenRa 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I just searched for "first-level protected artifact" on Google and top hit was this wikipedia article with no other top 10 hit making sense. 66.63.57.2 ( talk) 19:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious does anyone know if the pattern is external or internal, i.e. is it a purely decorative pattern etched to the finished weapon , or is it a result of plaiting together metal billets around a central core and Pattern welding them together? KTo288 21:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Well if this small snippet referencing the Beijing Daily is anything to go by, it appears to be patterned after the sword was forged or as a part of the quenching process? I'm afraid Chinese to English doesn't always convey proper meanings, especially with my mediocre skills in Chinese. Heliatrope Fish ( talk) 07:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC) --
So this is an ancient sword, discovered during the cultural revolution, made mostly of copper, that emerged untarnished in its wooden scabbard after 1000's of years in a waterlogged grave? Doesn't this sound a little implausible? This article really needs citations to independent scholarly research on this amazing artifact. Ϙ ( talk) 08:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw that sword in an exhibition 30+ yrs ago so it couldn't be a modern reproduction or "fake". The scabbard was never seen by the public, so I assumed that was not exist at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.8.117 ( talk) 13:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Why does this paragraph (below) even need a citation?
The sword was found sheathed in a wooden scabbard finished in black lacquer. The scabbard had an almost air-tight fit with the sword body. Unsheathing the sword revealed an untarnished blade, despite the tomb being soaked in underground water for over 2,000 years.[citation needed]
So no one knows how to subtract and obtain "over 2,000 years"? Sheesh. At the very least, the "citation needed" ought to be moved to an earlier sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutefidgety ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The video [T1] includes an interview with Olivia Milburn (a cultural historian, not an archaeologist). The video's description links to the website that I find contains the page [T2], which (if you scroll down) does appear to show the sword in question in quite a few high-resolution photos that certainly do look old-ish (but I'm no archaeologist myself).
I'll go ahead and paste the references from that page here verbatim:
For convenience, GPT 3.5 translates these as
FWIW, I found [T3] about a modern analysis of a sword claimed to have been found in 1965 and inscribed with "King Gou Jian of Yue, Self-used Sword". However, the pictures are of a completely different, degraded and fragmentary artifact.
Seems like this is just advertising. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:8F83:FBCB:F8BF:F963 ( talk) 14:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
is somebody trying to imply that is what this sword is made off. Is ANY of this from any source besides the CCP? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:8F83:FBCB:F8BF:F963 ( talk) 14:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
but I'm probably racist right wiki? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:8F83:FBCB:F8BF:F963 ( talk) 14:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
there seems to be no record of this ever happening until AFTER the sword was in China and nobody in archaeology was allowed to see it. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:8F83:FBCB:F8BF:F963 ( talk) 14:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Seems like these are both very simple questions is there ANY scientific rigou, any scientific qualifications, or not? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:8F83:FBCB:F8BF:F963 ( talk) 14:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Was there EVER an actual reference or is this entire page pure fabrication? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:8F83:FBCB:F8BF:F963 ( talk) 14:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sword of Goujian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Sword of Goujian be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Hubei may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Please edit to further define, or link to a page that defines, first-level protection, or reword the sentence. It is difficult to understand what is meant by first-level, and how this would differ from second or third levels, if they exist. Is this in a museum context, or government security context? AtenRa 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I just searched for "first-level protected artifact" on Google and top hit was this wikipedia article with no other top 10 hit making sense. 66.63.57.2 ( talk) 19:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious does anyone know if the pattern is external or internal, i.e. is it a purely decorative pattern etched to the finished weapon , or is it a result of plaiting together metal billets around a central core and Pattern welding them together? KTo288 21:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Well if this small snippet referencing the Beijing Daily is anything to go by, it appears to be patterned after the sword was forged or as a part of the quenching process? I'm afraid Chinese to English doesn't always convey proper meanings, especially with my mediocre skills in Chinese. Heliatrope Fish ( talk) 07:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC) --
So this is an ancient sword, discovered during the cultural revolution, made mostly of copper, that emerged untarnished in its wooden scabbard after 1000's of years in a waterlogged grave? Doesn't this sound a little implausible? This article really needs citations to independent scholarly research on this amazing artifact. Ϙ ( talk) 08:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw that sword in an exhibition 30+ yrs ago so it couldn't be a modern reproduction or "fake". The scabbard was never seen by the public, so I assumed that was not exist at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.8.117 ( talk) 13:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Why does this paragraph (below) even need a citation?
The sword was found sheathed in a wooden scabbard finished in black lacquer. The scabbard had an almost air-tight fit with the sword body. Unsheathing the sword revealed an untarnished blade, despite the tomb being soaked in underground water for over 2,000 years.[citation needed]
So no one knows how to subtract and obtain "over 2,000 years"? Sheesh. At the very least, the "citation needed" ought to be moved to an earlier sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutefidgety ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The video [T1] includes an interview with Olivia Milburn (a cultural historian, not an archaeologist). The video's description links to the website that I find contains the page [T2], which (if you scroll down) does appear to show the sword in question in quite a few high-resolution photos that certainly do look old-ish (but I'm no archaeologist myself).
I'll go ahead and paste the references from that page here verbatim:
For convenience, GPT 3.5 translates these as
FWIW, I found [T3] about a modern analysis of a sword claimed to have been found in 1965 and inscribed with "King Gou Jian of Yue, Self-used Sword". However, the pictures are of a completely different, degraded and fragmentary artifact.
Seems like this is just advertising. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:8F83:FBCB:F8BF:F963 ( talk) 14:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
is somebody trying to imply that is what this sword is made off. Is ANY of this from any source besides the CCP? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:8F83:FBCB:F8BF:F963 ( talk) 14:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
but I'm probably racist right wiki? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:8F83:FBCB:F8BF:F963 ( talk) 14:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
there seems to be no record of this ever happening until AFTER the sword was in China and nobody in archaeology was allowed to see it. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:8F83:FBCB:F8BF:F963 ( talk) 14:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Seems like these are both very simple questions is there ANY scientific rigou, any scientific qualifications, or not? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:8F83:FBCB:F8BF:F963 ( talk) 14:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Was there EVER an actual reference or is this entire page pure fabrication? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:8F83:FBCB:F8BF:F963 ( talk) 14:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)