Talk:Burning of books and burying of scholars
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Chancellor vs Prime Minister
(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.
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)
- Killed? Sounds a bit Jung Chang to me. --Sumple (Talk) 23:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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:
- 在八大二次会议上的讲话 １９５８、５、８--Skyfiler 00:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
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)
Re Evaluation section
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.
Recent improvements and further suggestions
- 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.