This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yliu480. Peer reviewers: Yliu480.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jtabron.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I know everything's still a mess and much of the history coming out of the PRC is politicized, but we really ought to
For example, this article – even if not necessarily correct in all its particulars – should have its outline of the scholarly disagreements, consensuses, and concerns mentioned somewhere, even though here isn't really the place. Right now, we've got a branch out at Western Zhou but not Eastern Zhou and the closest thing to covering their early history is the stub I put up at Duchy of Zhou... but there really should be something like a History of the Zhou Dynasty article to tie it all together... — LlywelynII 12:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
This article needs to be seriously "de-crapped" I remember when it used to be good. here are some issues:
I propose the sections for xia/shang/zhou should be: Etemology, Ethnicity, Political History, Archeology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurdjieff ( talk • contribs) 05:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Current version of this page says that the beginning year of Zhou is BC 1046. However, Korean historian Min Hooki says in his article A Survery and Criticism on the Date of the King Wu's Conquest of Shang" and "the Chronology of the Late Shang" in the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project(하상주단대공정 중의 '무왕극상년'과 '상대 후기 연대학'에 대한 검토와 비판) there are many different theories assuming the starting year of Zhou. The earlist year among them is BC 1130, and the last year is BC 1018. The BC 1046 is just one of these theories, supported by Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project. This project caused severe conflict between scholars participating this project and the others, including Western scholars and even minor Chineses. David Nivison and Edward Shaughnessy don't accept this result and claimed BC 1045 (see The Cambridge History of Ancient China). I think there is no orthodox theory for estimating Zhou chronology, even the result of Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project is accepted as orthodox in china. Therefore, I think that description of the starting year of Zhou should not point a certain year.-- Synparaorthodox ( talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a move request to decapitalize "dynasty" in the Chinese dynasty articles, as in Han Dynasty → Han dynasty. For more information and to give your input, see [1]. -- Cold Season ( talk) 17:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Title Early Chinese Religion: Part One: Shang Through Han (1250 BC-220 AD) (2 Vols) Early Chinese Religion Editors John Lagerwey, Marc Kalinowski Publisher BRILL, 2008 ISBN 9004168354, 9789004168350
Rajmaan ( talk) 19:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
According to Scott DeLancey, the growth of the Shang state probably led to the adoption of its language as a lingua franca among the southern Baiyue and the Sino-Tibetan speaking Zhou to the West, creating a common lexical stock. The rise of the Zhou within the Shang state in turn, strengthened the Sino-Tibetan component, and, when the Zhou established a dynasty, the lingua franca underwent creolization with a stronger Zhou Sino-Tibetan lexicon while building on a morphology that was inherited from the Shang dynasty speakers. The sum effect of the Zhou diffusion of their version of the lingua franca was, he argues, one of Tibeto-Burmanization, with a concomitant shift from a SVO morphological substrate to a language with an increasing tendency towards SOV structure. [1] Linguist Paul K. Benedict also proposed that the Shang may have not been Sinitic speakers and that the Zhou invaders from the west were the bearers of proto-Sinitic languages. [2]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani ( talk • contribs) 06:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted false IPA spelling. Can fix later. Lollipop ( talk) 17:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I could use an expert (or other opinions) rather than handling this myself, but in "culture and society", I am going to put agriuculture closer to the top, as a subsection of fengjian (well-field system). I would put mandate of heaven at the top of this section, as I am given to understand that it emerged very early, even before fengjian. FourLights ( talk) 22:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
"The capital was moved eastward to Chengzhou": shouldn't that be Luoyang? Languagehat ( talk) 14:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I have again reverted a claim cited to the Shiji. We should not be citing ancient sources, which need expert interpretation, and especially not Sima Qian on the Shang. He had no access to the oracle bones, which show that wáng 王 referred to the ruler, while dì 帝 referred to the deity or mainline ancestors. Kanguole 22:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
As a Chinese history student, I can understand most part of this article. However, this article looks like a collection of a bunch of data. So there is a "Chinese wiki" you guys can refer to. Here is the link " https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%91%A8%E6%9C%9D/1575". Yliu480 ( talk) 00:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
According to Wolfram Eberhard, a German linguist and racialist, the Chou dynasty is of Turkic origin. The use of iron began in China during the Chou dynasty, and according to many, Chinese bronze ware making reached its peak during this period. AzərbaycanTürküAze ( talk) 07:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I know it's confusing af in translation but, for the main introductory article to this period, the current treatment of the names is completely unacceptable.
None of these people were at any time named "Tai", "Wen", or "Wu". Those are posthumous adjectives that need to go along with the noun king (sometimes implicit in Chinese but never so in English) and are not in any sense personal names. The "Great King of Zhou"—mistranslated since Legge if not before as " King Tai of Zhou"—is an honorific for a guy actually named Dan who was never king for any purpose except ancestral veneration. Ditto the "Literary" or "Civilized King of Zhou" (" King Wen of Zhou") who was actually named Chang. Ditto the "Warrior" or "Martial King of Zhou" (" King Wu of Zhou"), who was actually named Fa [a] before becoming the first actual king of the Zhou dynasty.
You don't have to explain all of that here, of course, [b] but the founder of this dynasty was "Fa", "Ji Fa", or (at minimum) "King Wu" (where "the Wu King" is less common but much more correct) and not "Wu". Same applies across the board to almost any reference to these people. — LlywelynII 02:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Loads more on early history here, although probably most of it is a better fit for Predynastic Zhou. — LlywelynII
has more on the Shang and Zhou's relationships with the south in the area that later became Chu, Wu, and Yue. — LlywelynII 03:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yliu480. Peer reviewers: Yliu480.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jtabron.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I know everything's still a mess and much of the history coming out of the PRC is politicized, but we really ought to
For example, this article – even if not necessarily correct in all its particulars – should have its outline of the scholarly disagreements, consensuses, and concerns mentioned somewhere, even though here isn't really the place. Right now, we've got a branch out at Western Zhou but not Eastern Zhou and the closest thing to covering their early history is the stub I put up at Duchy of Zhou... but there really should be something like a History of the Zhou Dynasty article to tie it all together... — LlywelynII 12:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
This article needs to be seriously "de-crapped" I remember when it used to be good. here are some issues:
I propose the sections for xia/shang/zhou should be: Etemology, Ethnicity, Political History, Archeology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurdjieff ( talk • contribs) 05:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Current version of this page says that the beginning year of Zhou is BC 1046. However, Korean historian Min Hooki says in his article A Survery and Criticism on the Date of the King Wu's Conquest of Shang" and "the Chronology of the Late Shang" in the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project(하상주단대공정 중의 '무왕극상년'과 '상대 후기 연대학'에 대한 검토와 비판) there are many different theories assuming the starting year of Zhou. The earlist year among them is BC 1130, and the last year is BC 1018. The BC 1046 is just one of these theories, supported by Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project. This project caused severe conflict between scholars participating this project and the others, including Western scholars and even minor Chineses. David Nivison and Edward Shaughnessy don't accept this result and claimed BC 1045 (see The Cambridge History of Ancient China). I think there is no orthodox theory for estimating Zhou chronology, even the result of Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project is accepted as orthodox in china. Therefore, I think that description of the starting year of Zhou should not point a certain year.-- Synparaorthodox ( talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a move request to decapitalize "dynasty" in the Chinese dynasty articles, as in Han Dynasty → Han dynasty. For more information and to give your input, see [1]. -- Cold Season ( talk) 17:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Title Early Chinese Religion: Part One: Shang Through Han (1250 BC-220 AD) (2 Vols) Early Chinese Religion Editors John Lagerwey, Marc Kalinowski Publisher BRILL, 2008 ISBN 9004168354, 9789004168350
Rajmaan ( talk) 19:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
According to Scott DeLancey, the growth of the Shang state probably led to the adoption of its language as a lingua franca among the southern Baiyue and the Sino-Tibetan speaking Zhou to the West, creating a common lexical stock. The rise of the Zhou within the Shang state in turn, strengthened the Sino-Tibetan component, and, when the Zhou established a dynasty, the lingua franca underwent creolization with a stronger Zhou Sino-Tibetan lexicon while building on a morphology that was inherited from the Shang dynasty speakers. The sum effect of the Zhou diffusion of their version of the lingua franca was, he argues, one of Tibeto-Burmanization, with a concomitant shift from a SVO morphological substrate to a language with an increasing tendency towards SOV structure. [1] Linguist Paul K. Benedict also proposed that the Shang may have not been Sinitic speakers and that the Zhou invaders from the west were the bearers of proto-Sinitic languages. [2]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani ( talk • contribs) 06:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted false IPA spelling. Can fix later. Lollipop ( talk) 17:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I could use an expert (or other opinions) rather than handling this myself, but in "culture and society", I am going to put agriuculture closer to the top, as a subsection of fengjian (well-field system). I would put mandate of heaven at the top of this section, as I am given to understand that it emerged very early, even before fengjian. FourLights ( talk) 22:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
"The capital was moved eastward to Chengzhou": shouldn't that be Luoyang? Languagehat ( talk) 14:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I have again reverted a claim cited to the Shiji. We should not be citing ancient sources, which need expert interpretation, and especially not Sima Qian on the Shang. He had no access to the oracle bones, which show that wáng 王 referred to the ruler, while dì 帝 referred to the deity or mainline ancestors. Kanguole 22:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
As a Chinese history student, I can understand most part of this article. However, this article looks like a collection of a bunch of data. So there is a "Chinese wiki" you guys can refer to. Here is the link " https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%91%A8%E6%9C%9D/1575". Yliu480 ( talk) 00:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
According to Wolfram Eberhard, a German linguist and racialist, the Chou dynasty is of Turkic origin. The use of iron began in China during the Chou dynasty, and according to many, Chinese bronze ware making reached its peak during this period. AzərbaycanTürküAze ( talk) 07:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I know it's confusing af in translation but, for the main introductory article to this period, the current treatment of the names is completely unacceptable.
None of these people were at any time named "Tai", "Wen", or "Wu". Those are posthumous adjectives that need to go along with the noun king (sometimes implicit in Chinese but never so in English) and are not in any sense personal names. The "Great King of Zhou"—mistranslated since Legge if not before as " King Tai of Zhou"—is an honorific for a guy actually named Dan who was never king for any purpose except ancestral veneration. Ditto the "Literary" or "Civilized King of Zhou" (" King Wen of Zhou") who was actually named Chang. Ditto the "Warrior" or "Martial King of Zhou" (" King Wu of Zhou"), who was actually named Fa [a] before becoming the first actual king of the Zhou dynasty.
You don't have to explain all of that here, of course, [b] but the founder of this dynasty was "Fa", "Ji Fa", or (at minimum) "King Wu" (where "the Wu King" is less common but much more correct) and not "Wu". Same applies across the board to almost any reference to these people. — LlywelynII 02:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Loads more on early history here, although probably most of it is a better fit for Predynastic Zhou. — LlywelynII
has more on the Shang and Zhou's relationships with the south in the area that later became Chu, Wu, and Yue. — LlywelynII 03:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)