Talk:Burning of books and burying of scholars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chancellor vs Prime Minister[edit]

(Referring to edits by User:Eiorgiomugini)

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are both names for the head of a government. However, the Chinese word Chengxiang (丞相) and Zaixiang (宰相) are conventionally translated as Chancellor - see Chancellor of China vs List of premiers of China.

There are several reasons for this, as I understand it. First, the role of the Chancellor in China is more similar to that of the Chancellor in European traditions, than the more modern Prime Minister. Thus, Otto von Bismarck's position, Chancellor, is translated into Chinese as 宰相. By contrast, Tony Blair's position, Prime Minister, is translated as 首相.

Secondly, the Chinese Chancellor's role can be filled by one or several persons at once. Thus, you may have 左丞相 and 右丞相 at the same time. Clearly, a "Prime Minister" can only be one person at a time. This is another reason why the term is translated as Chancellor.

In any case, the convention is to translate it as Chancellor - as can be seen from Wiki's treatment of this subject. --Sumple (Talk) 10:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman Mao[edit]

I undid the revisions to the Mao section. The criticism of Mao was indeed about his dictatorial style, but it was also fury over the number of scholars and intellectuals he had killed. Mao never said that he was Qin Shi Huang; he said he had surpassed Qin Shi Huang: he was boasting about how many more he had murdered. The article section may be revised, but the quote itself is from Mao, and should not undergo any revision. Korossyl 17:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC) I did, however, change "premier" to "chairman." Don't know what I was thinking... Korossyl 17:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killed? Sounds a bit Jung Chang to me. --Sumple (Talk) 23:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not quoted in full and the quote is not translated correctly, even off topic. The full speech was about the death of intellectuals in antirevolutionary movements, not in a single execution.
Original text:
秦始皇算什么？他只坑了四百六十个儒，我们坑了四万六千个儒。我们镇反，还没有杀掉一些反革命的知识分子吗？我与民主人士辨论过，你骂我们秦始皇，不对，我们超过秦始皇一百倍。骂我们是秦始皇，是独裁者，我们一贯承认；可惜的是，你们说得不够，往往要我们加以补充（大笑）。
在八大二次会议上的讲话　１９５８、５、８--Skyfiler 00:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tags[edit]

I removed the duplicate cleanup tag. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

It seems these two articles Great Confucian purge and Burning of books and burying of scholars have quite a bit of overlap. Should they be merged? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are about exactly the same subject/event and should be merged. I don't know how to do it, I'm sorry.
The correct title in English could be either "burning of books and burying of scholars" or Great Confucian Purge, because the former is the translation of the well-known Chinese phrase referring to this event, and the latter seems to be one English-language reference. Personally I prefer the former as more vivid, translating an important concept even if the story turns out not to be completely true.
There is some revisionism on this subject, but I haven't read the revisionist scholarly articles yet.
I think personally that a reference to Mao Zedong should be kept, as the analogy between him and Qin Shihuang (the first emperor of China) especially on this issue was in Mao's time and still is a commonplace one.
Evangeline (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Books?[edit]

Is the term "book" accurate? The article on history of books does not talk about when books appeared. Bamboo strips tied together as shown at History of Books - East Asia would seem to qualify as a book; is that what was burned? ChangMei (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Evaluation section[edit]

Few scholars today believe that Sima Qian's account of the book-burning in the Records of the Grand Historian—the source of our knowledge about this event—reflects what actually happened, although no competing theories have appeared.

Really? Considering the historical symmetries between the Qin period and the 20th Century's Cultural Revolution, an historian would have to be an idiot not to come to an obvious theoretical conclusion.

Nuttyskin (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent improvements and further suggestions[edit]

I have made some edits to bring "recent" (that is, post-1800!) scholarship to bear, and will make a few more, unless other more knowledgeable editors such as Zanhe or Kanguole are willing.

  • a few comments from Pedersen's article, which is cited but not used.
  • As to Note a), apologies if I misunderstood how this template works, but shouldn't the '|" be removed to allow the rest of the text? Then shouldn't the text be moved to the main text of the article? Giving the Shiji passage in this case would not be Original Research, which it otherwise would be, since it is the "traditional view."
  • Better source to replace the 1972 article by Chan.
  • Reinsert an improved and better referenced version of Chairman Mao's use of the precedent.

ch (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two copies of each schools?[edit]

I'm not sure what this wording in the lede means. I changed to "school" for grammatical reasons... does this mean two copies of each text? Does "schools" have a different meaning in this context? Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Burning of books and burying of scholars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism Review - Sock Puppet Account[edit]

I notice that much of the “skepticism” section was added by an account which has since been banned as a sock puppet. However, their edits still remain, and make the skepticism seem far more extensive than it originally was. Is it possible to request that either: a) the modified content be checked carefully by an impartial editor, or b) be removed as suspect? 193.119.87.150 (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am an impartial editor. If it can be source stacked with high quality sources, I will do it.FourLights (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burning_of_books_and_burying_of_scholars&oldid=1206485377"