User talk:Keahapana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Thanks for your excellent new articles in the area of classical Chinese literature, such as Shiben, Huanglan, Jijiupian, and Yiqiejing yinyi. Your contributions are greatly appreciated! Zanhe (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, writing those articles was my pleasure. Keahapana (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If you disagree with the source, just edit the ref[edit]

While the reference is debatable, you could have just remove the reference instead of a blanket revert. George Leung (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow replying. Please see Talk:Shangdi#Attempts to Christianise the article and the use of Shangdi for your answers. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Historiographia Linguistica pdf[edit]

Hi, I can send you a pdf of:

  • Yang, Huiling (2014). "The Making of the First Chinese-English Dictionary: Robert Morrison's Dictionary of the Chinese Language in Three Parts (1815–1823)". Historiographia Linguistica. 41 (2-3): 299–322. 

if you still need it to complete your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Historiographia Linguistica. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you very much. Keahapana (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Encyclopedias and/or Reference Works[edit]

Would you like to support the creation of and/join the proposed Wikiproject for Encyclopedias and/or Reference Works?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Asian reference works[edit]

Glad you have decided to join the project! I've had some questions regarding your area of expertise for awhile and could use your input. For one thing - Category:Encyclopedias by date lists encyclopedias from the 16th-century onwards by century, but I have only two before that - Category:Encyclopedias in Classical Antiquity and Category:Medieval European encyclopedias. I did this for two reasons - 1, there were not enough examples of encyclopedias by century before 1500 to warrant century based cats, in my opinion - 2, Classical antiquity and the Middle Ages are convenient and identifiable periods for Europe. This begs the obvious question - what to do with non-Western encyclopedias before 1500? Sometimes we hear phrases like "Medieval Islam" or "Medieval China", but I've never felt comfortable with those terms because it transposes a uniquely Western periodization onto other cultures.

Then there is the problem of correctly identifying an "encyclopedia". The words encyclopedia and cyclopedia, as you'll notice if you read the articles in 16th and 17th century encyclopedias cats, were coined in the 16th century Europe and gradually gained currency there until the modern concept of an encyclopedia - an abecedarian collection of articles on general or specialized knowledge - was codified with Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, the Encyclopédie and the Encyclopædia Britannica.

Chinese encyclopedias, as I am sure you are aware, did not begin that way. Leishu appear to be more like a large collection of texts covering an "encyclopedic" range of knowledge than modern, Western encyclopedias. They also appear to have stopped being made after the 18th-century, when Western influence began to infiltrate China. My solution to the problem would be to create Category:Leishu. This could be listed under both Category:Encyclopedias by date, solving part of the above problem, as well as Category:Chinese encyclopedias, though I don't know how Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese works based on the Chinese model would fit into the picture. What do you think?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Bellerophon5685, and thanks for all the good work you've done starting WikiProject Reference works. Yes, there are some thorny terminological problems with English encyclopedia and Chinese leishu "encyclopedia", and whether a comprehensive "encyclopedic" reference work is necessarily an "encyclopedia". Have you read this?
  • Fowler, Robert L. (1997), "Encyclopaedias: Definitions and Theoretical Problems", in Peter Binkley, Pre-Modern Encyclopaedic Texts, Brill, 3-29.
I've started working on improving the Chinese encyclopedia article and still haven't decided how to treat leishu, but translating with "Chinese leishu encyclopedia" seems preferable to "Chinese encyclopedia". While some sinologists use "Medieval China" to mean the period between Han and Tang dynasties, most don't use it owing to the Eurocentric connotations. Shouldn't your abecedarian be a-b-c-darian? The 16th-century cat has Compendium of Materia Medica, which is a pharmacopeia, and the 18th-century cat has Siku Quanshu, which is a huge collection of classical texts, but neither is an encyclopedia. A leishu cat sounds like a good idea, but while both these Chinese reference works are collated by categories, they're not usually considered leishu. Come to think of it, maybe we should move this discussion to the new WikiProject talk page, where we might get more input. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk)


You're welcome! — LlywelynII 04:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 04 August 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 18 August 2016[edit]