Talk:Shang dynasty/Archive 1

Gallery

Just want to know why the biggest bronze ding is not placed in the Gallery. Is there any standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.76.158.170 (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why does it start off with a sentence that sounds like it should be in the middle of a paragraph in the middle of an article, not the 1st paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.249.78 (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Format

All, I changed the format of this page to add the possible reign length, as well as a little clarity. I am trying to use a theme consistant with the Xia dynasty page. Please see the Talk:Xia page to review the progression of these changes. User:MLG —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 20 February 2004 (UTC).

I don't quite like the format of the rest of the text. Perhaps we should make it a bit more structure and include some more information? http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ANCCHINA/SHANG.HTM seems to be nice. raylu 17:08, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a new editor, but I noticed some things with this article while reading it. They're essentially all formatting issues. Mostly they're little things like noun-verb agreement or sentences that could be made clearer. For example, the section under the Economy section that describes the military uses of bronze could possibly be worded more directly. Another edit I would consider is reordering the sentences in the military section and then splitting it into multiple paragraphs, each pertaining to a different military aspect (weaponry, tactics, organization, etc.) Finally, should the Mythology sections, which all seem to reference Mozi, be taken out of the "rise and fall" sections and merged into their own separate section? I just wanted to run things by everyone before making the edits. Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zar2gar1 and welcome to Wikipedia! The changes you propose sound reasonable and I suggest you go ahead and implement. One of Wikipedia's mottos is BE BOLD. If somebody has an issue with what you've changed they can either re-edit the article afterwards or raise the issue on the talk page. Best, Philg88 ^contact 23:27, 20 May 2024 UTC [refresh]

Date of Establishment

An overwhelming number of sources seem to state 1766 BCE as the date of establishment, not our 1600 BCE? OldakQuill 19:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The exactly year is disputed and unknown, 1600 BCE here is from Xia Shang Zhou Chronology Project. — Yaohua2000 09:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Xia Shang Zhou Chronology Project is also disputed and we should mention that. Elijahmeeks 20:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the project is disputed. But it is one of the most reliable sources we have so far. These dynasties are very ancient, so perhaps the exactly year of establishment would be never known. — Yaohua2000 10:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely, I just think we should mention it in the article (That's why I started the XSZ Chronology page, which I hope is non-biased). I consider the XSZ project to be extremely valuable and important and would love it if you would take a look at the page and make sure I'm being nonbiased. Elijahmeeks 18:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that traditional dates disputed and the matter simply has not been settled yet. But giving a precise date of, say, "1700" is therefore misleading as to the level of precision known. Using either centuries (not dates) or adding 'circa', or adding "the dates are disputed" or "the chronology is currently a matter of scholarly debate" would be better. I've added "ca." for now. Dragonbones 08:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

this is all by Natalia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.119.102 (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2007

Calendar

June had 30 days - how is that different from the Gregorian calendar? Beetle B. 07:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll put together an article on the Shang Calendar, which is very interesting and which I'm researching right now. Hopefully we can make this a little more accurate. Elijahmeeks 18:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Shang calendar is based on the count of days as far as my research has found out, and nowhere have I found any mention to it being similar or equal to the Gregorian calendar. For starters, their inscriptions on oracle bones give days in the gan and zhi (sexagenary cycle) format. When alluding to months they write (in the literal character by character sense) 1 month, 2 month, 3 month, 4 month... and so forth. If like modern Chinese lunar calendar they employed alternate or nearly alternate cycles of 29 and 30 days, then I would not disagree with this, since the average lunar cycle is 29.530588 days long, and so two months is approximately 59 days or so. If this was the gist of the comment made in the article, then I suggest it needs to be reworded for clarification, otherwise, we'd be left thinking the first month has 31 days as will do the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, 10th and 12th months of this supposedly near Gregorian like Shang calendar... Dylanwhs 19:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Primarily it's a lunar calendar, with provisions like all lunar calendars to match up with the solar year. However, there is particular to the Shang calendar features such as the beginning of the Ganzhi system seen in Zhou and, as Shang progresses, a full 360-day ritual calendar, wherein each day was a different set of 'acceptable rituals'. The evolution of this calendar and its importance to later cultures, I think, is important enough to justify a seperate article. It'll be a little while before I get to work on this, though, and I would be in favor of removing the current reference to the Gregorian calendar as of now. Elijahmeeks 20:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Like Dylanwhs, I'm very uncomfortable with the Gregorian reference; despite the presence of records counting moons, the primary date system is sexagenary. In line with Elijahmeeks's comment as well, I have removed the reference here: "The Shang dynasty population used their calenders to determine rituals, using a calendar very similar to the contemporary Gregorian Calendar, the only differences being that February had 29 days and June had 30." I look forward to seeing what you work out on the Shang calendar, but I'd caution against overly liberal comparisons to the Gregorian system. Dragonbones 09:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Various changes

1. The OB didn't "typically" have a prognostication and verification. Based on reading Keightley I've reworded the description here to be more cautious; have done or will soon do same on other OB-relevant pages.
2. I cut " The bones are often from cattle, oxen or monkeys, but never from cats or dogs. Shang dynasty art was normally curved." Extensive detail on the source of bones belongs on the oracle bones page, and the content of the deleted bit is not well worded anyway. Dragonbones 09:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've finished working my way through the article and looking for potential changes. Hopefully, my changes have been good. Thanks for undoing my capitalizing the section headings, Balthazarduju. I didn't realize that Wikipedia prefers not to use "title-style" capitalization for sections and articles. Anyways, there are a few more things I wanted to discuss.

• Would the paragraph mentioning the Erlitou culture in the Archaeology section fit better in the Early cultures section?
• Should the Economy section be renamed something like Economy and society to account for the second paragraph? If so, would the paragraph about court life in the Rise of Shang section fit better here too?
• I marked the sentence in the Rise of Shang section describing bronze use as inconsistent. Other parts of the article seem to imply the widespread use of bronze for both weapons and crafts. Did the original contributor maybe just mean something like "even more" instead of "rather"?
• Finally, it seems like some hanzi would be good after a few words. I'm thinking of the three social groups (tu, fang, & tufang) mentioned in the Rise of Shang section and also the weapons (mao, yue, and ge) mentioned in the Military section, though ge does have a working link to an article with the character. I'm hesitant to add any characters myself because I'm more familiar with the Japanese variations and readings. Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I just moved an old thread to the archives, and it was mainly concerned with a run-on sentence. However, it mentioned where the date of 286 BC in the Fall of Shang section comes from. The post claims that 286 BC is when Sima Qian says the State of Song was destroyed, explaining why the ancestral rituals that honored the Shang kings ended. I don't have access to the Shiji, so I can't confirm that is actually the case, but I thought it might be good to note. Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Map Of Shang

The map does not make any sence to me. These are indication of archeology sites, is it possible that all the Shang cities are found? So this map is very inaccurate, I suggest to delete it. 12.47.110.46 15:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

see response to same comment made at Talk:History of China Jiang 19:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Early Shang

"no evidence has been unearthed proving the existence of the Shang dynasty before its move to its last capital." THis is not true. The oracle bones did have writings of worship the early Shang Kings. For example, there are worship to Yiyin(伊尹) record on the bones. Please, do more research before you drew a conclusion. Dongwenliang 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No one is claiming the kings that did not rule in Anyang did not exist. There is no evidence for them. They could have existed, or they could have not. Is modern Chinese officials paying tribute to the Yellow Emperor evidence of the Yellow Emperor's existence? It is a recurrent theme for rulers to use legitimacy myths to cement their power. Jiang 08:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"It is a recurrent theme for rulers to use legitimacy myths to cement their power". True but starting when? Also it is also a recurrent theme that every dynasty is legendary to modern scholars even though the dynasty is mentioned in later histories and even some (or many or most) eventually are shown to have existed. How many western scholars did not believe in the Shang? How many western scholars now don't believe in the Xia? Heck even some don't believe in an early Shang; probably don't believe the capital was moved several times. So many times "modern western scholars" discount all ancient writings or oral traditions when perhaps they have some truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.171.76.248 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

I added the events of kings of Shang after Pan Geng. Dongwenliang 03:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Shang or Anyang?"

I put a citation needed tag at the "Shang or Anyang?" section, specifically at the statement that "western scholars" have doubts about the supposed archaeological evidence. It's a little contentious when we start making these "western scholars vs. Chinese scholars" kinds of statements, so a reference would be good. The same thing goes for the Xia dynasty article and any articles about ancient China, really. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

how did the name become yin shang and anyang???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.214.46 (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No reason to note Shang historicity???

One of the notable aspects of the Shang is that it is historical. This is a point that should be stressed, not played down. Elijahmeeks 15:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not to play down its "historicity". Ancient Chinese texts claimed that Xia came before it, but the existence of Xia is not as widely accepted as the existence of Shang. Thus, Shang is the first "confirmed" historic dynasty. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and I'm not going to get into a revert war (I should have made this statement before I reverted anything, but I just got so worked up when I saw it) but that's what "historic" means. To say that it's not confirmed is tautological and takes away from one of the major points of interest regarding the Shang. Between this page and the Xia Dynasty page, we've got too much of an emphasis on what is a minority view among scholars. Elijahmeeks 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

But... It doesn't say it's not confirmed. It says it is confirmed... The point is, Xia dynasty is really the first historic dynasty, not Shang. Except that Shang is more widely accepted to have actually existed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by HongQiGong (talk • contribs)

No, the point is that the Shang is the first historic dynasty. The Shang have writtern records, making them historic, and they have a notable spatial, geographic and temporal extant, making them a dynasty. The Xia are legendary, meaning that they have been mentioned in texts, but have no historic record themselves, and they may be an archaeological culture, with some material record, but to imply that they are a real historic entity, especially calling them a dynasty (With all that comes with that) is a disservice to anyone reading this article. Elijahmeeks 16:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, please be advised that there are 2 differences between "No historic record" and "No Writing has been discovered". First, it is possible that there were writings but not been found yet, similar before findings of Oracle bones at Anyang. Secondly, the Xia Dynasty and even the Five Emperor Period, were mentioned independently by various sources from Early Zhou(1046- 900BC)and prior Qin period texts, these texts also could be called “historic records”. For example, calculation indicated that there is a star somewhere in space, but it is possible that this star is not discovered by telescope yet. I wish you can understand the difference. 12.47.110.46 21:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This has all been addressed. Now, I would be happier than anyone to find written records from a Xia Dynasty (And, as a point of fact, I am pursuing this right now in my PhD studies). But until there is corroboration of the Zhou references to Xia (From which all later texts draw their own inference as to the existence of the Xia), then it is merely supposition. To present it otherwise to the lay observer (Who is the primary audience for these articles) would be wholly unethical. Elijahmeeks 04:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted to "historic" - as long as we don't have any written records from the Xia dynasty, everything before Shang is part of China's prehistory. Niohe 16:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

By the same token, Europe is legendary and not historic until 600 BCE. Great Britain is non-existent. This is absolutely nonsense. The list of Xia rules were listed not only in Shiji, but in Shang Shu, Chun Qiu, etc, and states granted to descendants of Xia royal house existed until the Warring States period. Please read the original historical tests and researches results before claiming Xia is legendary, etc. This is used by European Imperialists in the 18th and 19th century to claim Chinese history began as the lost 10 tribes of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.190.32.7 (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2007

I wonder when and who writing was developed by in the Shang dynasty, a lot of people would like to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.99.15 (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably lost to the sands of time... Thanatosimii 05:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To make the old, that's something we can answer with accuracy but not precision. Elijahmeeks 17:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mythology

I recently took the two mythology paragraphs out of other sections and merged them into their own section. I also tried to make many of the sentences more readable, and hopefully I preserved the meaning of the original sentences. Even then, I couldn't tell exactly what some of the sentences are supposed to mean. I also noticed that while Mozi is regularly mentioned in the text, there was only one webpage used as a citation in the second paragraph. I don't have a copy of the original Mozi text for confirming and citing the content, and if so, how exactly should the information be credited? I referenced Mozi in the text, but should he be if his book was actually compiled by his students? Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You can find the original text (in Chinese) of Mozi's work here: 墨子 Philg88 ^contact 23:27, 20 May 2024 UTC [refresh]

I know there was a Chinese copy on Project Gutenberg, and English translations are in print. Unfortunately, I'm not a Chinese speaker, at least not yet. I suppose I could cite the Chinese source and use an online translation tool to check the content's accuracy. I'm not sure if an automated translation would be high-quality enough for everything, particularly the direct quote, but regardless, thanks for pointing out the source. Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Be extremely wary of machine translations though. WP guidance is that no translation is better than a machine one. In the case of something like Mozi the results will be garbage based on the archaic grammar and words used. Philg88 ^contact 23:27, 20 May 2024 UTC [refresh]

Dress

Does anyone know of any sources indicating how people dressed in this period? Someone asked me and, despite this being my field of research, I realized I had no idea. Elijahmeeks 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shang people ride horses. The clothes are divided into upper and lower two parts. The upper part was called Yi(衣), the lower part was called Shang4(裳). The Yi is closed under the right arm and extended below the waist. The Shang4 looks like the skirt nowadays, but made by two pieces, one is at front, one is on the back, and easy to open and close (same as the split of skirt). So that when people pee and poo, they don't need to take off the clothes or realease the belt. When people dress like this, they can not sit while putting legs in front, the legs should be always on the rear while seated(knee down). Other wise, the root part of legs or even hips would be shown and it is not decent.

The advantage of this dress is that it is easy to ride horses. Dongwenliang 01:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And when they ride horses, their genitals will rub on the saddle/back of the horse. Surely they also wear undergarments to prevent the friction. Dylanwhs 06:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

i thought they rode in chariots not horses but then again i dont know much about shang —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.214.46 (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Weapons

The section on Shang military is very skimpy. I've changed the description of ge1 from hand-axe, as it is actually a pole weapon, and I've added a couple more weapons based on the oracle bone characters thereof, and supported by archaeological finds, but I've only done a quick reference to a non-scholarly source, Wang, Hongyuan 王宏源 (1993). The Origins of Chinese Characters 漢字字源入門. Sinolingua, Beijing, ISBN 7-80052-243-1, ppbk. Hopefully someone can add to or replace this with a better description and more authoritative sources. Dragonbones 07:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Military

I just greatly expanded the military section. PericlesofAthens 01:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I'm not familiar with your source, though, is it a popular history? Keep up the good work! Elijahmeeks 02:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

By "popular" do you mean "non-scholarly", or simply well-known? It's a decent source, trust me, I acquired it from my university library. Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Shang/Yin

In the intro we are currently translating both 朝 and 代 as "dynasty"; the latter is often given as "period". Is "Yin Dynasty" the actual term used in English-language texts, or is this a new translation? If the latter, we should probably not translate the two words identically, as they do not have identical meanings. siafu 15:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a difference limited to Wikipedia, as scholars (Such as KC Chang) refer to the Sandai period and mean "Three Dynasties". I think, in the case of Xia, Shang and Zhou, that dai can be translated as "dynasty" without doing damage to a reader's understanding and without unnecessarily cluttering the articles. Elijahmeeks 18:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I added the name 成唐, the name of the founder as found on the oracle bone inscriptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.16 (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2008

Fair use rationale for Image:Shang-ding1.jpg

Image:Shang-ding1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

the map

the map is seriously screwed up, why are all the dots not connected? i read in a book somewhere that the shnag dynasy divided their lands and gave it to nobility, like REAL feudilism, not the fake one with the landlords. ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The information on that image's page also says this:

Created and copyright (2004) by Yu Ninjie. Released under the GNU FDL. Source: English Wikipedia, original upload 7 November 2004 by Yu Ninjie

"English Wikipedia" is not a valid source to begin with. I don't have a clue in hell why there would be disconnected areas far away from the main center of Shang civilization; perhaps these are confirmed by archaeology and the spaces in between are not? In any case, the map is questionable. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

some historians assert that they were infact other kingdoms only under shang dominian, and that shang did not govern then, but the fact that the region of "china proper" has disconnected dots is questionable, though i dont question the dots in the south. ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

lucy and miriam rock!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.164.18.114 (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Weird sentence

I cut the following sentence that was added today:

The ruling families of the Zhou, shang, Qin, and (possibly)Xia dynasties did in fact coexist together as rulers of independent kingdoms until 286 BC, because that was up to when the Sung principality was conquered, which the shang ruling family ruled while the Zhou king ruled at his independent kingdom and the Kings of the state of Yue also claimed to be descended from Yu the Great of the Xia Dynasty, while the Kings of qin ruled over the State of Qin.

I really have no idea what the sentence is saying. It really should be broken up into 3-5 different sentences. I mean, I've read it 10 times and still can't figure out what half of it was trying to convey. I'd be glad to try to help rework it, but I need more than just this sentence to figure out the intended meaning. Andrew c ^[talk] 00:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

According to Sima Qian's account) the Shang royal family, the Zhou royal family, as well as the Xia and Qin had ancestors which coexisted side by side. There are royal lineages from Xia, Shang, Zhou and Qin in Sima Qian's writings. AFAIK, a common bird or egg theme runs through the first three dynasties. Shang's ancestor came about through being born of a mystical egg, Zhou's as the result of a bird's footprint, I forget the Xia one. For Qin, Sima Qian tries to elevate that line in a similar way by creating a lineage back to the mythical ancestors. Whether there is any basis in truth or not, many of the names in the Shang lineage were thought to be made up, until the discovery of the oracle bones in 1899. It wasn't until then, that Shang ancestors honored by the Shang Royal house were taken seriously from Sima Qian's work. When Zhou enfoeffed Shang's royals to the newly created Sung/Song principality/state after the fall of Shang, Shang traditions were kept in the state of Song. The latter part of the Zhou period decended into internecine warfare as states fought and conquered each other. Eventually in 256BC 286 BC, Song was conquered and her royal house killed. The history of that royal house were incorporated into Sima Qian's work. Maybe Qin's illustrious pedigree back to the mythical times is Sima Qian's suck up to the Qin. AFAIK, he was given the choice of death or castration, he chose the latter so he could finish his work. But, don't quote me on that... Dylanwhs (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence was re-added, yet it is still one of the worst run-ons I have ever seen, and still makes very little sense. Someone, please deploy some periods to that sentence! I'm going to request help from the language reference desk. Andrew c ^[talk] 18:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I know this is silly (I guess I was AGF), but I just checked out the supplied reference, and it doesn't support anything in the sentence except the part about Yue. We cannot add this sentence without a citation. Where did the numbers 286 come from? How can I verify that these 3 (or 4) dynasties co-existed? Andrew c ^[talk] 18:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong above, it should have been 286 B.C. when the state of Song (in the Zhou era) was finally destroyed by Qi state. (Note I have used strike out above and appended the correct date to my own comments above.) I will leave the editing of the article to someone else. Dylanwhs (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't Delete the captials list without a good reason

I don't know or care who deleted the list of capitals I added a few months ago, but don't do it again without providing a reason in this post. I spent a long time to find and verify this information. This information is important please do not delete it. Gurdjieff (talk) 06:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

i totally agree with you-why would someone do that???? -Chloe :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.31.1.46 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Chinese WP just says that Pangu moved the capital to 殷 and that its other locations are not known. Philg88 (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

lets talk about the map

here is the old raster map. I replaced it with a vector map, using the map drawing standards of wikiproject illustration. if there are some issues lets disscuss. Gurdjieff (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

you should mention the social classes the shang dynasty that they made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.144.238 (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is fake and has false truth's. don't get information from this website! : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.74.96 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Neolithic site in Taiwan

Why is there reference to a Neolithic site in Taiwan in this article? It implies that it is connected to the Shang, however, this is highly unlikely. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ludahai, when I was going over the Archaeology section, I noticed the same thing. I put in a clarify request asking if the sites are believed to be Chinese or not. I thought Taiwan was inhabited almost entirely by Formosan cultures, not Chinese, until more recently in history. I guess someone would have to check the original source (Fairbank 35) to see if there are actual connections to the Shang. We could also possibly remove the line unless someone finds a good source stating that the sites were indeed Chinese. Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fairbank says "Neolithic East Asians were sea-farers when opportunity arose", and uses Taiwan as an example. He makes no direct connection with the Shang, and does mention that they were land-locked. Kanguole 17:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Early & Late Shang Section

I just changed the Capitals section from a list to a table. I added a "reference improvement" template because the Schinz source lists the ancient names, but I'm not sure where the original editor of the section found the dates. Possibly the Shiji? Also, I tried to include hanzi for the capital names, but someone may want to check that they're the proper characters. It also seems that some changes to the whole Early and Late section might be good:

• Could the Capitals section be moved to a different section of the article?
• Should the rest of the Early and Late Shang section be merged with the Archaeological Discovery section to form one "archaeology" section?
• If not, should the section name be changed to better reflect that it is mainly about how the Shang possibly related to the Xia, Zhou, and other cultures of the period?
• Finally, I'm not sure what the paragraph about the walls at Ao is trying to say. I guess it implies that the Shang somehow influenced the Zhao, but is it implying that a Shang remnant were still around at the same time of Zhao? Is it only implying that the Zhao learned from the earlier Shang? It's an interesting fact, but is it sufficient to imply a tie between Shang and Zhao, and if sources do back up that implication, should it be reworded? Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your excellent work on this article Zar2gar1. As for the capitals, Chinese WP just says that Pangu moved the capital to 殷 and that its other locations are not known. I wonder what the original source of the data here was?.
A reflection of the relationship between Xia, Shang and Zhou would be useful as this is a commonly referenced in Chinese with 夏商周 so maybe change the section heading. Best Philg88 (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Capitals table as of now. This article already contains many unreferenced statements and paragraphs, there is no need for an incomplete table that is badly formatted and full of citation tags, especially if many of its content are questioned. If you need to present such information, please summarize the information in a few statements, as this is a "summary article", and add appropriate citations from reputable sources. Balthazarduju (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Balthazarduju, I agree that the capitals table could have used better sourcing. Before I changed the section to a table, the entire listing of Shang capitals only cited the Alfred Schinz source. If everyone decides to keep the Capitals section removed, we should also remove the Schinz listing from the References section. Anyways, Page 34 of the source includes the captions for the map on page 35, and I think that's where the original contributor found the names of the capitals. The labeling on the map is a little confusing, but the captions give locations in parentheses for several Shang sites. The cited portion of the book can be viewed on Google Books here .

I've looked around some, and it sounds like the definitive source for the location of Shang sites and capitals may be the Historical Atlas of China, edited by Tan Qixiang. There are apparently projects at a few colleges that list the information in the atlas online, but they all seem to use GIS systems that require registration. As for the dates, I'm guessing that the original contributor found them from either the Bamboo Annals or the Shiji, specifically Book 13 of the latter. The entire Shiji can be found online in the original Chinese, but English translations seem to either be of the first few books or sections about later dynasties like the Han. I tried using Google to do a machine translation of an online Chinese version, but it didn't end well. Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk page layout

My comments on the talk page have tended to be long and I'm starting a new section so maybe this is a little ironic. I was wondering if anyone would want to discuss restructuring this talk page. I know the Talk page guidelines suggest "refactoring" a talk page after it goes above 15 or so sections. I've noticed there are a lot of random comments that could be probably be consolidated into a miscellaneous section, and some of the sections seem to overlap. Many of the topics seem to have settled down a long time ago, but some still relate to issues in the article. I would particularly want to have a discussion before archiving anything. Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This talk article could certainly do with some reorganization. Rather than a straight archive my recommendation for "dead" topics would be to create an FAQ template with appropriate sub-pages. Philg88 (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I just finished reorganizing the sections on the talk page. I hope everyone likes the changes. I've tried to keep the original context of everyone's comments as much as possible, and I've included a link to an earlier revision at the top of the page. I haven't removed any of the old threads or moved them to another page yet so the page is still a little bloated. The FAQ template sounds like a good idea, but it sounds like it is only used to summarize resolved discussions. How do we want to handle the original threads that the FAQ will be based on? Also, what should be done about the off-topic comments? Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I just finished setting up the FAQ subpage for this talk page, and I decided to go ahead and move the older threads to an archive. I moved almost everything over a year old to the archive page, but I decided to keep some of the older threads in the Topics section on the main talk page. I felt that those threads discuss topics that many people might want to see added to the article if possible. Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Date of oracle bone inscriptions

I have doubts about the claim "Oracle bone inscriptions are thought to date at least to Pán Gēng's era." Every source I've seen dates them from the reign of Wu Ding. Kanguole 17:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Confucius descended from Shang kings

I'm referring to this edit [1]. Legend should be clearly distinguised from fact (Info from Confucius life having undergone significant revision over time). Info that is not established should state from where it is derived from; "according to whom?". Many of the authors doesn't even state it as fact, but write that "it is said that...". Some even say that it is fabricated/constructed. This excessive quoting is also major wp:copyvio. I also don't see how this piece of info is relevant to this topic [Shang Dynasty] and--if anything--should be properly worked into the Confucius article at best (also brought up at the talkpage at that article). This should plainly be removed. --Cold Season (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I have kept quoting from copyrighted sources to a minimum. Most are one or a few sentences. If that is considered copyvio then remove it. But the page long quotes are from copyright free sources whose copyrights expired 100 years ago. That is not copyvio.

Second, it is a fact that Confucius is descended from Shang kings, look at the sources here Family_tree_of_Confucius_in_the_main_line_of_descent#References.

then look at the family tree. Family tree of Confucius in the main line of descent. Are those kings I see on the tree part of my imagination?Greengrenous (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Also look at chinese wikipedia -

孔子世家大宗世系 (Ancestors and descendants of Confucius. Shang dynasty kings are included. As is their ancestry up to Huangdi himself. If anything is legendary it is the descent from Huangdi and not from shang dynasty kings)

弗父何

宋国君主世系图 Confucius is on this family tree of Song dukes who were descended from the Shang Kings.Greengrenous (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at [2] --Cold Season (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It is completely out of proportion to add tens of thousands of bytes of references to support just two sentences of article text, and makes the article unmanagable. Please don't do that. You need to select the few best references (i.e. recent academic works), and you don't need to quote them. Kanguole 22:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw other people add tens of thousands of bytes but whatever. some of the non academic text were translations of chinese text (book of odes) so they are of some value. I will stop using them here.Greengrenous (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

SVO word order

How is SVO word order relevant to the archaeology of the Shang? Tai and Miao–Yao are SVO, but so is Chinese at all periods with minor exceptions. What's the point? Kanguole 13:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I would add another section but I don't know how to do that. The linguistics of Shang is a very high profile subject and I was interested in sharing it within the part that stated "inscriptions". If you read the source I gave, The Origins of Sinitic, it shows the transition of SVO even after Tibeto-Burman SOV (subject-object-verb) overtook the speech of the elites. And yet Chinese reverted to SVO. That is the significance. The reversion to the state in which it had been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmohhaach (talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, this is just Delancey's view, not something we can state as fact. There is little evidence that Chinese was SOV at any point in the historical period. Delancey cites not verbs after objects but relative clauses before nouns, a feature that often correlates with SOV but is still present in the modern Chinese languages, all solidly SVO. His suggestion, following Benedict and Nishida, that the Shang spoke a non-Sino-Tibetan language is very much a minority opinion, even fringe. Besides, he doesn't mention Shang bronzes at all. Kanguole 14:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Kanguole. Delancey's view is just hypothesis not really a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomcaws (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Move request to decapitalize all Chinese dynasty articles

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 [3]. --Cold Season (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Source on Shang religion

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=Idhyr1hqS0kC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Language

I have reverted the Language sections, based on DeLancey, from this article and Zhou dynasty, because this is very much a minority view, and not held by anyone who works with oracle bone inscriptions. Kanguole 20:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an absence of any Linguistic data on the Shang or Zhou on Wikipedia. If it is a minority view we should just add the majority view instead of sweeping it under the rug. --Easy772 (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It isn't fair to call a new development in a field a "minority view" when the book was only published in December of 2013. Also it is written by respected academics not fringe theorists. Why should it be censored? --Easy772 (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

DeLancey specializes in Tibeto-Burman languages, not Sinitic languages, and not Sino-Tibetan languages in general. From his theory I see he appears to making up his own opinion about Tibeto Burman origins of the Zhou language and claiming it got mixed with some non-Sinitic Shang language. He has not worked with or studied the Shang dynasty Oracle bones themselves. Other linguists who actually specialize in Sinitic languages have looked at the Oracle Bones and concluded they were Sinitic. Would you consult a linguist who specializes only in Germanic languages about Iranian languages?Rajmaan (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

His hypothesis should still be considered valid, and he apparently wasn't alone. If that is the case, why not add those sources rather than opposing research? Admittedly I've only just begun filling in holes in East and Southeast Asian pre-history and history here on Wikipedia, but I've already noticed that some horrendous sources (Like blogs) are considered "OK" if people agree with it, but when I post scholarly works, that people seem to dislike the findings of, they get censored.--Easy772 (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A few loanwords from other languages found in the oracle bones are not notable. You going to add the origin of every single loanword in English on the English language article?Rajmaan (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Some of the most commonly used graphemes on the bones, in addition to the Chinese time-cyle "Twelve earthly branches and ten heavenly stems." Apparently used since the beginning of Chinese history. I don't get what the big deal is. English, since you brought it up, is largely made up of loanwords from Latin, German languages for example. This shows in it's history (France) and prehistory (Germanic tribes) undoubtedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy772 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We should not be trying to interpret original research on contentious issues. We should be relying on secondary sources that review and evaluate that research. Any survey of the secondary literature will confirm that the consensus view is that the language of the oracle bones is Old Chinese. The suggestion of Benedict and Nishida is not supported by anyone in the field.

Your latest addition exemplifies the issue by misrepresenting Norman. He argued that six words that date from the oracle bones, but are still in modern Chinese, were borrowed from an Austroasiatic language. Neither Norman for the author of the article citing him are arguing that the language of the oracle bones was Austroasiatic – they are arguing that these loans show that Austroasiatic speakers were formerly so far north that they were in contact with the Chinese. Norman's own view is clear in his Chinese in the Cambridge Language Surveys series – like everyone else in the field he says that the oracle bone script records Old Chinese. Kanguole 22:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I quoted directly because it seems like people are more unhappy with what the latest discoveries and archaeology are saying about the Shang Dynasty rather than the actual content. It says in the source that there was definitely an Austro-Asiatic element to the Shang, which I was getting around to directly quoting. These are not "quack or fringe theories" I am posting, these are respected Linguists on the cutting edge. I am going to ask for moderator arbitration because I think these new discoveries are being censored. --Easy772 (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'moderator arbitration' on Wikipedia. There are no 'moderators', and admins don't rule on content disputes. I suggest that between you, you seek outside input using one of the methods described in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I would also advise you to stop edit-warring over content, before one or more of you gets blocked under WP:3RR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect academic consensus, not "cutting edge", unproven hypotheses. And academic consensus is unequivocal: "it is clear that the language in which they [the oracle bone inscriptions] are written is directly ancestral to what we know as 'Chinese' in both a classical and a modern context." (Chapter 2: Language and Writing, in The Cambridge History of Ancient China, p. 75). -Zanhe (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. I will follow the steps up until "Formal Mediation".--Easy772 (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So let's start with compromise. If the consensus in the field is that it is Old Chinese then we should post that, but we should realize that there are new discoveries all of the time. We should post both sides, I often see Wikipedia articles which break down the different positions of both for readers not keep them in the dark or just omit the information all together. I did not mean to misrepresent Norman to mean that he said Shang language was Austro-Asiatic but he did state it likely had an Austro-Asiatic substrate. All of the new evidence is pointing to a complex process with multiple origins in the formation of early China. Are you willing to post both sides? Are there any disagreements to these new research papers or books that I've missed?

I would also like to add that under the Wikipedia "Identifying reliable sources" policy, significant majority and minority views should both be covered. It is definitely a position that has a significant amount of supporters even if it is a minority position. Also " Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." So let's make this language section happen. --Easy772 (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC) --Easy772 (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see some sources here for the "cutting-edge" linguists, please. DeLancey's "creole" is not being represented correctly. His recent work suggests grammatical convergence during the Zhou, not the Shang. Benedict stated the Shang might be non-Sinitic-speaking in 1972 and NIshida in 1976 but that's a million years ago in linguistic studies and both have been very strongly criticised for scholarly failings by Scott Delancey in his 2013 paper... in other words, while Delancey might suggest the Shang might not have spoken Sinitic, he didn't do so for the same reasons Nishida or Benedict did. The argument seems to be: Sinitic is different than Tibeto-Burman; Sinitic has areal grammatical structure, therefore Sinitic is a creole. Then they each look for a way to explain how this creole appeared. Delancey is the only one to actually explore the issues and problems with this situation in any depth. So what other work is present? This is an encyclopedia, not a linguistics conference: we need to present readers with some level of vetted material, and if this work is truly so new that no one has responded, then frankly it doesn't belong in the article. Ogress _smash! 07:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a methodological error here. This page deals with the Shang Dynasty. The page from which material is being removed, based on a veryt primitive exchange of opinions here, concerns the Zhou Dynasty. I assume the removalist premise is in propositional terms:'Shang and Zhou are Chinese dynasties therefore what applies to the former, also applies to the latter. The assumption is, continuity, ethnic and linguistic.'

Questionable objections.

• User:Rajmaan 'DeLancey specializes in Tibeto-Burman languages, not Sinitic languages, and not Sino-Tibetan languages in general.'

This means you are unfamiliar with the topic, since the Tibetan-Burman, Tibetan-Sinitic categories themselves are contested as accurate taxonomic divisions.

• User:Kanguole’ Any survey of the secondary literature will confirm that the consensus view is that the language of the oracle bones is Old Chinese. The suggestion of Benedict and Nishida is not supported by anyone in the field.'

That the language of the oracle bones is 'Old Chinese' is not the point. The point is, what was that 'Old Chinese'. De Lancey favours a Mischsprache approach, which is not rare. Christopher Beckwith even argued Prot I.E+Non IE. it was a composite with Proto Indo-European elements.

• User:Zanhe 'Wikipedia should reflect academic consensus, not "cutting edge", unproven hypotheses. And academic consensus is unequivocal: "it is clear that the language in which they [the oracle bone inscriptions] are written is directly ancestral to what we know as 'Chinese' in both a classical and a modern context."

Wikipedia nowhere 'reflects academic consensus' as a guiding rule. It emphasizes, where views differ WP:Due that we factor in all relevant (specialist) views per relative weight, unless we are dealing with WP:Fringe, which is not the case here. It asks that, optimally, we use academic resources. Most articles could not be written if 'academic consensus' were the guideline, since academics in historical areas are not concerned with 'consensus' but with developing hypotheses based on ascertaining facts, which, in antiquity, and prehistory, are few and far between. Again, it is stating the obvious that Oracle Bones are ancestral to modern Chinese. That is not the issue on the Zhou page.

• user:Kanguole.'We should not be trying to interpret original research on contentious issues. We should be relying on secondary sources that review and evaluate that research. What a ranking linguist argues is not 'original search' in the wikisense.

Editors may not do, 'original research': academics if they are worth their salt do nothing but original research. Prehistory is intrinsically contentious. It is all hypothesis. DeLancey's work is frerquently mentioned in the secondary literature (i.e. Zhuo Jing-Schmidt ‘Introduction’ in Zhuo Jing-Schmidt (ed)Increased Empiricism: Recent advances in Chinese Linguistics, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2013 pp.1-21 p.ix., more or less sums up what I said in my edit, for example)

• User:Ogress (a) Delancey might suggest the Shang might not have spoken Sinitic, he didn't do so for the same reasons Nishida or Benedict did.(b) This is an encyclopedia, not a linguistics conference: we need to present readers with some level of vetted material, and if this work is truly so new that no one has responded, then frankly it doesn't belong in the article

No one has cited any academic source saying DeLancey's views are fringe/ DeLancey's views are incompetent forays outside his field/that DeLancey's views are 'truly new'. All I can see here is a certain nervousness with one editor, on this Shang Dynasty page, which has struck by contagion at the Zhou page, and comments that are not focused on policy and practice. It's hard to me to include User:Kanguole here in this, because I have always found him accurate, amenable, and I hope he doesn't take my slight exasperation here the wrong way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 07:45, 9 June 2015‎ (UTC)Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise on my "tone" if you think I am not presenting the information correctly. Regardless, they both seem to think it to be a non-Sinitic language and there are a few more that think it's "likely" at least: Link

Or can see that the that the formation of Chinese is a complicated blending process, rather than a uniform, straight-line development. Link (I would love to access these source material as well once I have time)

Regarding that sort of single-line continuity, it's seeming like it's not quite that simple. I'd actually say the majority of scholars nowadays think that the formation was a more complex process: Link You can see in this work that the author is skeptical of that type of Shang to Zhou continuity. (page 231)

Link And this article does a good job of explaining why a single-line is unlikely.

I am simply trying to convey these messages in an objective, neutral manner and I'd welcome help doing so. I apologize if I came off biased, but even minority opinions should be shown under the neutral tone policy.--Easy772 (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither Bagley (in CHOAC) nor Rawson (in THES) say anything to suggest that the language of the oracle bone script was not Chinese. You need to stop tying to cobble together primary sources and oblique references in support of a thesis, and instead use secondary sources that address the matter directly, such as Boltz's language chapter in the Cambridge History of Ancient China, Norman's Chinese, Qiu Xigui's Chinese Writing, Baxter and Sagart's Old Chinese and Keightley's Sources of Shang History. The consensus view is very clear. As Ogress says, it is not Wikipedia's role to promote new hypotheses (or new variants of old hypotheses) that have not achieved any traction in the field. Kanguole 10:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in Easy772's edits or position, whatever it is. I saw carelessness in one of his edits, which reduplicated the same material, consisted of a quote, and showed no familiarity with the topic. I rewrote it. My edit was removed because, apparently, it was seen to support Easy's position, which is untenable. This discussion is about linguistic evidence relative to Shang. My edit regarded linguistic evidence or hypothesis regarding the Zhou. It is quite improper to confuse the two.Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Easy772 added identical text to both articles. You cleaned up the version in Zhou dynasty and then got caught in the crossfire, so your annoyance is understandable. But I don't think the text was fixable. Even with your corrections it still gave undue weight to very marginal claims about both the Shang and Zhou languages.

I don't think it's fair to require a source refuting DeLancey's hypothesis. Lots of ideas get published, and most of the less useful/wrong ones don't get debunked, they just sink without trace. (However I can find sources saying the Benedict/Nishida idea is untenable because of the continuity between the oracle bone and Zhou languages, e.g. Bodman and Jacques.) What we're looking for is other authors accepting and/or developing the hypothesis. The mention by Zhuo Jing-Schmidt doesn't really count, because that is the introduction to the book in which DeLancey's article appears, and it introduces all the chapters. Kanguole 14:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (also for the Jacques link). For the moment, I made my edit after reading the Zhou Dynasty page. Note that above it has a 1980 quote from Bodman, which is nuanced seems, but transformed into a statement of known facts, whereas it is a majority position, not a fact:

The Zhou is known to have spoken more or less the same language as the Shang[c] and were their cultural successors.[7] At the same time, the Zhou may also have been connected to the Xirong, a broadly defined cultural group to the west of the Shang, which the Shang regarded as tributaries.[8] According to the historian Li Feng, the term "Rong" during the Western Zhou period was likely used to designate political and military adversaries rather than cultural and ethnic 'others

Bodman (1980), p. 41: "Moreover, Shang dynasty Chinese at least in its syntax and lexicon seems not to differ basically from that of the Zhou dynasty whose language is amply attested in inscriptions on bronze vessels and which was transmitted in the early classical literature."

Li Feng (2006), p.288. 'At the same time, the Zhou may also have been connected to the Xirong, a broadly defined cultural group to the west of the Shang, which the Shang regarded as tributaries.[8] According to the historian Li Feng, the term "Rong" during the Western Zhou period was likely used to designate political and military adversaries rather than cultural and ethnic 'others.'

The Li Feng paraphrase fails verification (p.288), but elsewhere (p.343)he says that Xirong and Quanrong are used interchangeably but that "Rong" was not restricted to the Xianyun or Quanrong and could be used for other hostile societies beyond the frontiers of the Western state'. In any case, it's just one scholar's view. Laurent Sagart in his book hazards that "Rong" were probably Tibetan-Burman speaking (p.8).

So, put a dated Bodman quote, changing its hypothetical "seems not to differ basically" into "is known to have spoken more or less the same language as the Shang', with a selective quote from one (very good) source, which fails verification, but has a much more complex picture, and the drift of the paragraph is that it is a fact that considerations ethnic or linguistic diversity are to be apriori excluded. Possible, but many scholars would disagree (Shu-hui Wu, The Great Migration:Inception of the Zhou identity for instance)

The POV problem I detected here is well-explained by Enfield, an entrenched belief (it may be right) or approach that 'Sinitic' is self-contained, exclusive of germinal difference. My addition to DeLancey aimed first to correct Easy's mess, by getting DeLancey's views correctly paraphrased, and to correct the assertions earlier on, that wrongly affirm there is no dissonance in the one internal linguistic line of descent in the Chinese language. Had editors (a) raised WP:Undue, I think a compromise would have been rapid, by being more concise, or (b) by altering the Bodman/Li Feng patchwork, with a few words nodding towards scholars who disagree, like DeLancey. But certainly, when editors do some homework, read, paraphrase and add matter, and you disagree with it, rather than cancel it from the face of the wikiearth, a moment's thought and courtesy would suggest that one simply lift it out, and find a proper home for it, in this case, on the Scott DeLancey page.

Personally I have no views on the subject. Like Greek, Palestinian/Biblical, Japanese, Roman etc., prehistory I am interested in this instance also in studying the force of national POVs historically in how theories emerge, and what they do not say, and how new paradigms emerge. Greece, to illustrate, was a self-contained IE unit until in the 1960s, scholars like Walter Burkert and Martin West broke with the paradigm and showed how ethnically and linguistically intertwined its originative core myths, rituals and even language were with those of the Asia Minor/Mediterranean world. I don't think the 'truth' can be known. I do think all relevant theories, per due weight, should be mentioned, so that readers get an understanding that the past is a hypothetical construction, not an established narrative. Best Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, Kanguole, if that is the mainstream view that is fine. I am fine adding that there and am glad to include that it is the mainstream view in the language article. However, Wikipedia's 'Neutral point of view' clearly states that all significant minority views should be considered. The possibility of Shang being non-Sinitic is clearly a significant minority view. Also, the link to the published journal is also not a primary source. It is a commentary on other research papers. The Zhou having affecting a strong altering effect on the Shang is also probably now the majority view and the direct continuity of language seems to be the fading minority. Regarding those two sources, they were not meant to claim Shang was AA, if you re-read I was addressing the single-line continuity assumption ethnic, linguistic, cultural.

"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."--Easy772 (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"the direct continuity of language seems to be the fading minority" is completely wrong, and suggests a total misreading of the literature. Kanguole 17:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well the picture is a lot more complex than it was before and less straight-line at the very least. I would examine the primary sources for the commentary on research papers, but apparently that's no good.

Also. While she may not be saying it directly, There is apparently a lot of support by referenced linguists for a non-Sinitic element to Shang language in the text in Zhuo Jing-Schmidt's book. Sagart for example says: "From a typological view, Old Chinese was closer to Gyarong, Khmer or Atyal than to it's daughter language Middle Chinese". (p. 82). If you read starting on page 73 you can see it's clearly contested currently in the field and not some "fringe" theory it's being made out to be.--Easy772 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No. Sagart is contrasting the Chinese of the Western Zhou with that of the Qieyun over a millennium later, not the Shang-Zhou transition. Kanguole 17:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your knowledge of linguistics is impressive, but it still doesn't refute the fact that none of my sources are "fringe" or unworthy and should be allowed to be posted, regardless if you agree with my "tone". I am willing to compromise on the "tone" and come to a middle-ground on how to properly state the information from these sources. "Some scholars claim that the language of the Shang was non-Sinitic" seems fair to me for Delancey and Benedict. "Archaeological research has found that the Zhou dynasty and Shang Dynasty have originated differently and their respective languages were different too." is fair for the secondary research here: Analysis of the Origin of Han Culture in Archaeological and Historical Linguistic Perspective

Is this okay with you?--Easy772 (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Archaeology cannot prove what languages were spoken. Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that was probably a bad translation. It's clear that the analysis in the sourced material is also discussing Linguistics seeing as Linguistic papers are included in citations. "Research has found that the Zhou dynasty and Shang Dynasty have originated differently and their respective languages were different too." This is fair now?--Easy772 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope again, unfortunately. 'Research' posits theories almost 99% of the time (I'm thinking of an emendation by Nietzsche, who invented a word to emend a Greek tragedy, -the word did not exist in Greek- it was just an hypothesis. Just as his brainb fizzled out, they dug up Oxyrhynchus, and the hypothetical word was found to exist on a papyrus in an ancient Egyptian paper dump). What the respective languages were, given the nature of the script, will be almost impossible to determine with scientific assurance. In any case, 'originated differently' is meaningless historically.Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Kanguole.

What we're looking for is other authors accepting and/or developing the hypothesis.

Jacques writes:

A better integration of conservative Sino-Tibetan languages such as Rgyalrong,Tibetan, Dulong/Rawang and Kiranti in the Sino-Tibetan reconstruction model is likely to solve long-standing problems regarding the word-families and irregular correspondences. Rgyalrong and Kiranti present an important quantity of commoninflexional and derivational morphology (Jacques to appear.b), and since these two groups are considerably divergent lexically and located far away from each other, it is probable that this morphology represents proto-Sino-Tibetan inheritance. In this view, Chinese (and many other ST languages) would have lost its formerly complex verbalsystem; DeLancey (2010) presents an account of how such a drastic change could have taken place.

The appreciative reference is to Scott DeLancey's Language replacement and the spread of Tibeto-Burman. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (2010)3.1:40-55, where DeLancey states precisely the thesis I synthesized. I.e. Creolization in Sinitic

It is hardly a novel observation to point out that prehistoric and historic language contact have played a large role in the formation of the Chinese languages (see Terrien de la Couperie 1887, Hashimoto 1976a, b, Ballard 1984, La Polla 2001, Ansaldo and Matthews 2001, Blench 2008, inter alia):

The movement of the Chinese has almost never been to an area where there were no people. Splitting of the language by migration almost always involved language contact, either with non-Chinese languages or other Chinese dialects, and very often in government-sponsored migrations there was purposeful mixing of peoples. What we now think of as the Han Chinese have from very early on continually absorbed other peoples into the race. (LaPolla 2001)

Sinitic is typologically a Mainland Southeast Asian family. The dramatic typological divergence, most conspicuously the word order realignment, between Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman reflects a massive reorganization of an originally Tibeto-Burman grammar. This must have been a result of intense contact with Tai and other languages which Sinitic encountered when it migrated eastward into China. The original formation of Chinese resulted through contact between invaders, identified with the Chou dynasty, speaking a SOV Tibeto-Burman-type language, and the indigenous SVO language of the Shang (Benedict 1972, Nishida 1976, see also van Driem 1997, 2008). The substantial vocabulary shared by Sinitic, Tai, and Vietnamese, as well as the astonishing degree of phonological and syntactic convergence among these languages, points to a period of intense contact along and south of the Yangzi (Ballard 1984), involving Blench’s (2009ms) “Southern Yunnan Interaction Sphere”. The morphosyntactic profile which Sinitic shares with Kadai, Hmong-Mien, and the Mon-Khmer languages of Vietnam and Cambodia is strikingly similar to the so-called creole prototype,pp.43-44.

I.e. Jacques takes DeLancey's work as a very serious hypothesis.Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Jacques does give it a brief mention, but he has already (bottom of p5) described the non-ST-Shang aspect, which is the point of contention here, as "highly unlikely in view of the continuity between Shang and Zhou Chinese". I take that as a polite way of saying it's completely batty in view of the immense success obtained over the last century by using knowledge of Zhou Chinese to read the oracle bone inscriptions. Kanguole 15:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Jacques is one voice on one linguistic theory, one leg in the necessary quadripodic evidence (genetic, archaeological, linguistic and historical) required to determine the most likely hypotheses. 'The continuity between Shang and Zhou Chinese' is, technically, as often, an unfortunate inept lapsus by a great scholar slipping into neutral because it assumes what is to be proven. 'The ideographic continuity between Shang and Zhou writings' would have avoided the problem. Sumerian cuneiform was adopted to write languages as genetically different as Hittite and Akkadian; Minoan gave Mycenaean Linear B its script; Chinese in turn was, very early on, employed from Korea to Japan to write radically different languages. It is logical to think that the adoption of the Shang script by the Zhou indicates linguistic continuity. It is also logical to consider that since the Zhou were, in later tradition, ethnically heterogeneous, and indeed that their elite regularly procured their wives from the Jiang (姜), that the Zhou might well have spoken a language, (or been bilingual (the maternal language)) that differed from that used by the Shang Court. The word 民 (mín) which so deeply inflected Zhou ideology denominated members of the Zhou clan, whose lineage stems appear to contain rong and jiang tribal members, in the early period, not ‘people’, Chinese or others, generically. As you know, Mencius says the Zhou founder was a Western barbarian (IV B,128: 文王 . -.西夷之人也). That itself can, and has been, interpreted as factual, or as rhetorical. The Mencius’s point of course was that ‘Chineseness’ is not ethnic, but cultural. The identity of Shang/Zhou linguistic identity is a premise, assumption, and can't be proved.

in any case, I don't think, as I outlined, that the text of the Zhou Dynasty article in pushing as facts what are attributable opinions (by distinguished scholars), can be left as it is without the adjustment I suggested, which means DeLancey and other views should also be noted en passant, if the 'majority' view is to be retained. Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't need the other three legs, because we are concerned here with language, as witnessed by recovered inscriptions. Different ethnicity, etc need not imply much difference in language. I cited Bodman and Jacques because they explicitly discussed the Benedict/Nishida hypothesis, but they are far from unusual in holding that the language of the oracle bones is much the same as that of the Zhou bronzes and received texts. I listed several secondary sources for this point above (Boltz, Norman, Qiu, Baxter and Sagart, Keightley). All the standard works treat the oracle bone language as a form of Old Chinese. There is simply no-one who works with the oracle bone inscriptions, from Beijing to Berkeley, who argues against it. They just take it as the framework within which they work. You might call that intellectual laziness, but I'd call it a working hypothesis that has been immensely successful, enabling the inscriptions to be read as coherent texts and yielding an enormous wealth of information about the Shang state. The hypothesis has needed minor adjustment, as people have studied the lexicon and syntax of the language and charted its changes over the centuries, but broadly it has held up well.

It is true that a script can be adapted to a different language, but that leaves massive traces. The Manyoshu is written with Chinese characters, but one needs to know it is in Japanese to read it. But there is nothing like that here: the script has the same syntax, same function words and the phonetic loan characters make sense only for Chinese words.

Regarding your objections to the text in Zhou dynasty#Cultural origins, I will defend only the claim that the language of the dynastic Zhou is generally accepted to be much the same as the language of the Shang oracle bones. Kanguole 00:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll drop this because I get the impression from remarks like 'All the standard works treat the oracle bone language as a form of Old Chinese. There is simply no-one who works with the oracle bone inscriptions, from Beijing to Berkeley, who argues against it,' that we're talking past each other, since I have nowhere stated that oracle bone language is not a form of Old Chinese, but repeatedly stated the problem is, what language lies behind Old Chinese. I see no consensus among the formidable scholars who, from different angles, argue over these complex topics. I see the word consensus constantly being raised about, not Scott Lancey, but some of the scholars he cites. It's not Delancey but Sagart who wrote:'From a typological point of view, Old Chinese was more similar to modern East Asian languages like Gyarong, Khmer or Atayal than to its daughter language Middle Chinese,'(Laurent Sagart, The Roots of Old Chinese, John Benjamins Publishing, 1999 p.13) while Zev Handel is dismissive of a Chinese mainland consensus when he writes: 'Broad Sino-Tibetan theory states that Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman are also related to Tai-Kadai and Hmong Mien, which all form a large Sino-Tibetan family descended from a single ancestor, Most specialists in China subscribe to this form of the thesis. (based on common monosyllabic, tonal, isolating features). However these similarities are more likely due to early contact and borrowing. Vietnamese was once an atonal, non-monosyllabic language, like other members of Mon-Khmer family but became tonal and monosyllabic under the influence of Chinese. p.38. (Zev Handel, 'The Classification of Chinese (Sinitic (The Chinese Language Family),‘ in William S.Y. Wang, Chaofen Sun The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, Oxford University Press 2015 pp.35-44.p.38) I'll get back to some concrete editing. CheersNishidani (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Old Chinese means Zhou Chinese; that is the period of the documentary evidence from which it is reconstructed. From the start of this discussion, the point of contention has been whether that language and the language of the oracle bones are much the same. Sagart's views on the typology of Old Chinese are orthogonal to that question, because he's talking about the language reconstructed for the Zhou (specifically Western Zhou) period. Kanguole 22:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: The problem with asking "what language is behind Old Chinese" is that such a question brings up an entire host of methodological principles that you have to refer to before asking it. For example, among comparative historical linguists today it is widely believed that there are no "mixed languages". Hence, by stating that "Old Chinese" is the ancestor of "Middle Chinese," which you quoted Sagart for above, you are already acknowledging the Shang language as Sinitic because Sinitic is a genetic language grouping, in which case you're arguing about what substratums Sinitic ultimately displaced. Yet this is very, very different from what Benedict, Nishida, and DeLancey said. Benedict and Nishida made arguments regarding the Shang's language being outside of the Sino-Tibetan family - ie that it was Austro-Asiatic/Hmong-Mien. In that case, the Shang language is not "Old Chinese" in the sense that Sagart spoke about at all, but a separate language that is not genetically ancestral to Middle Chinese, because again, there are no "mixed languages." Not making the distinction between these two ideas causes all sorts of problems and is why linguistics is difficult for Wikipedia editors, ultimately, to navigate. Lathdrinor (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Thank you for the additional material. I will have to give those a read. I am drawing a blank on how to properly post the information on Analysis of the Origin of Han Culture in Archaeological and Historical Linguistic Perspective. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to convey the message objectively and in a balanced fashion? How about "Some scholars have found..." ?

"Some scholars posit that Xia Dynasty,Shang Dynasty and Zhou Dynasty originated differently and their respective languages were different as well."--Easy772 (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we're conflating two separate issues here. The Shang language, attested with a rich corpus of oracle bone inscriptions, is considered by most scholars as Sinitic. But Zhou is a very different story. It left few written records before its conquest of Shang and therefore open to interpretation. They came from the far western edge of the China proper and it's known that they intermarried extensively with the Jiang/Qiang people, who were possibly Tibeto-Burman speakers (and Beckwith even thinks they were Indo-European). See Pulleyblank's article. -Zanhe (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about Beckwith – see this review in the Journal of Indo-European Studies for example. The reviewer demolishes Beckwith's pronouncements on IE in general, and a claimed role in the origin of Chinese in particular (pp432–3). Kanguole 15:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of Beckwith's reputation. I wouldn't add his claims to articles, only mentioning them for discussion. -Zanhe (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zanhe: I would think from all the evidence so far, that the Zhou language was quite different from that of the Shang. I know that some older evidence seems to point to them speaking the same language or roughly the same language. But, I agree with your statement. Again, I have no problem with the article stating "most scholars consider Shang language to be Sinitic", but to be fair we should post some of the material above as a significant minority, non-fringe opinion.

Also, would you consider this fair regardign the Analysis of the Origin of Han Culture in Archaeological and Historical Linguistic Perspective paper: "Some scholars posit that Xia Dynasty, Shang Dynasty and Zhou Dynasty had different linguistic origins"--Easy772 (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

As a previous commentator on this subject, I've been tapped to comment on it again. My view remains unchanged. Scott DeLancey presented a new *hypothesis* of language change by which the Sinitic language could have come into existence as the result of the Zhou's "Tibeto-Burman tongue" - which is itself not a proven theory - being spoken by Tai-Kradai, Hmong-Mien, etc. native speakers. But he did not actually present any *evidence* that the Shang spoke a "Southeast Asian" language, besides the trivial observation that the Shang language was typologically "Southeast Asian" in its areal affinity - eg it is SVO in syntactic structure as opposed to SOV Tibeto-Burman languages. As Kanguole stated, DeLancey is not an oracle bone scholar and he certainly did not present any lexical, phonological, or morphological evidence from the excavated Shang language in his papers. He also did not explain why this language change had to have taken place during the Shang as opposed to earlier periods; he simply assumes tautologically that the Sinitic language did not form till the Zhou conquered the Shang, even though that is against the consensus.

As for other evidence - archaeologically speaking, there is *no* consensus within the PRC regarding the proto-Shang culture, and Easy772 is almost certainly cherry picking sources in saying that archaeology supports any Austro-Asiatic/Austronesian view. In fact, the leading *archaeological*, *anthropological*, and *genetic* theories of the Shang's origin within the PRC are that the proto-Shang people came from northern, northwestern, and/or northeastern China, and I am willing and capable of providing sources for this statement, in case it is needed. As a foreward, "The Archaeology of China: From the Late Paleolithic to the Early Bronze Age" by Li Liu et. al is widely cited as a secondary source detailing PRC archaeological work, and the book does not mention any theory for the Shang originating in Neolithic cultures connected to those languages. Instead, the book makes an explicit mention of the Xiaqiyuan culture in southern Hebei being the "proto-Shang." That is a long distance away from the currently accepted center of the various Hmong-Mien, Tai-Kradai, and Austro-Asiatic groups. The Shang Dynasty page also contains references to recent genetic studies conducted by the PRC, again showing that the population of the Shang's capital at Yinxu was not connected to them.

To this end, there is no reason to consider DeLancey's hypothesis a solid alternative to the existing consensus. The same is the case for Benedict who, as per my talk with Kanguole under Oracle Bone Script, did not provide evidence but mentions the idea only in passing - as an explanation - again - of the "Southeast Asian" substratum he detected in Old Chinese. In fact, only Nishida has provided any empirical evidence, however slim, but I am not aware of any further work in continuation of his 1970s offering, nor am I aware of up-to-date formal evaluations of his ideas. Were such information to be found, then perhaps it is prudent to reevaluate the presentation on this page. As it is, however, I'd support, at best, a statement in line with "The language captured by the oracle bone script is generally identified as an early form of Old Chinese, though this is occasionally disputed," which was on the Oracle Bone Script page before it was edited out. I'd also remove this on the ground of WP:NPOV - "However, we need research more thoroughly to draw a further conclusion." Lathdrinor (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lathdrinor: The paper I posted stated that Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties were basically more different in their Language than was previously thought, not that they spoke Austro-Asiatic. Regardless of your personal opinions on how valid this is, there are well respected scholars who do consider it a valid alternative, so I think it should at least be mentioned as a minority opinion. I would like to see the material you have from the PRC, just for my own catalog of information. Thanks --Easy772 (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Easy772: Is the author a historical linguist? Did he cite/present linguistic data? Without the actual paper at hand, there is no way to decide whether the author has an actual argument, or is simply trying to transform an archaeological argument into a linguistic one, which, as stated above, is not a valid methodology, yet looks to be what the author is doing from the abstract. Indeed, just by his mentioning of the Xia Dynasty, there is cause for concern, as the Xia Dynasty is not generally accepted internationally as a historical entity, much less a linguistic one. As for well respected scholars supporting this minority view, I think we've dealt with that already - outside of DeLancey, the only scholars who've talked about it were from the 70s, and hardly stand for 'recent research.' As for Chinese sources, you should start with the reference section in Li Liu (2012). It quotes a great variety of Chinese sources regarding current archaeological research on the Shang and Zhou. Lathdrinor (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lathdrinor: I could probably get a hold of the primary sources, and would be glad to seek your input on how to neutrally paraphrase the content. But I still say we're taking too much liberty as anonymous editors to call in to question what is valid. For example "I think it is a polite way of saying the theory is completely false" when the author is saying "it is likely the Shang spoke a Bai Yue language, though it is not what I adhere to" (this is just an example). What the author says should be taken "as is" without people trying to read between the lines. While the majority opinion may not adhere to it, they clearly hold the view in esteem. A part of the disagreement seems to be that Old Chinese seems to be similar in some ways to non-Sinitic languages e.g. Sagart said "From a typological point of view, Old Chinese was more similar to modern East Asian languages like Gyarong, Khmer or Atayal than to it’s daughter language Middle Chinese." Right, he's not referring specifically to the Shang language but if Shang spoke a form of Old Chinese, is there a reason why Shang is an exception to this statement? It seems like we're trying to make this into a more implausible theory than it is.

I think a lot seemed to be lost in translation regarding the paper I cited earlier. It seems to be the case when I read research from Academia Sinica as well. There seemed to be papers that deal with linguistics in his references, as I mentioned before. He could be using "archaeology" because he didn't know what else to say. I see your point though, we shouldn't use it if it's that poorly translated, we should dig deeper. Regarding the Xia, he's probably referring to Eriltou which some consider to be the reality of the Xia (according to the "Early Civilizations" book I've been reading). I will attempt to get a hold of the primary material, and we'll go from there.

Regarding the PRC material. I will read it, but it shouldn't be a source held in higher regard than any other recent material. Should certain scholars from India be the ultimate source on the reality of the Aryan Invasion theory? We should take all sides into account. I would like to compare the material you mentioned to the material cited in the research paper I posted, then quote it directly here where we should decide how to post both sides neutrally.--Easy772 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Easy772: DeLancey doesn't even propose that the Shang language was a "Bai Yue" language. He is citing Nishida and Benedict for it, to which end it's not even his theory, but a theory from fifty years ago that hasn't been accepted by subsequent linguists. I don't think 1970s theories are especially worth mentioning as 'recent research.' DeLancey's model does not actually require that the Shang spoke a Bai Yue language because he's ultimately talking about how Sinitic came to share Bai Yue typological features. That could've occurred at any stage during and before the Shang. Provided there must be a mention of the idea, Nishida is the primary citation, *not* DeLancey. Lathdrinor (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lathdrinor: I was giving an example of how some editors are putting to much emphasis on their own personal insight and restating my point that we should stick closely to what's actually being written. If Nishida and Benedict are the originators of the idea that's fine, DeLancey clearly still thinks it plausible. The Jing-Schmidt's opinion on it is that it is "likely" though she doesn't subscribe to it. It's clearly not fringe but not the majority opinion either. We can use Nishida as the primary citation, I can agree to that. --Easy772 (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Easy772: Jing-Schmidt is commenting on DeLancey's paper, not on Benedict/Nishida. My issue is you were trying to present Nishida's idea as "recent/new/groundbreaking" research when it isn't. DeLancey's hypothesis is new but it is about the origins of Sinitic, not the language of the Shang. It doesn't belong in this article. He presents no new evidence concerning the language of the Zhou/Shang/etc. That's not what his paper is about. He merely cites Nishida and Benedict for his own purposes. Just because an old idea is cited positively in a new paper does not warrant presenting it as new research. Lathdrinor (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lathdrinor: The new research I meant was the paper I cited, but I agree with you in the sense that we can't take that "as is" and need to go through the primary material. Jing-Schmidt did say that it was "likely that the Shang language was of Bai Yue stock" (page 88), but mentions later she doesn't particularly subscribe to it. Nothing cited invalidates the idea, they just consider other possibilities "more likely".

@Easy772: The quote you're talking about is from DeLancey's paper, not Jing-Schmidt. Jing-Schmidt's book is a collection of essays, of which DeLancey's article is one. That is what is found on page 88 of the book. Lathdrinor (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lathdrinor: My mistake, well then Delancey said that then. In any case, as much as we're attempting to make this theory into a fringe one, it clearly isn't. It's definitely held in some esteem. I think it's time to move on to how to phrase it properly --Easy772 (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Easy772: I disagree. I think it is quite fringe presently, as besides DeLancey, Benedict and Nishida's ideas have not met with acceptance by other scholars, and even DeLancey only evaluates it as 'likely'. At best, I'd be okay with adding a statement to the effect of 'the Shang language is widely believed to have been an ancestral form of Sinitic, though there have been occasional proposals for a Southeast Asian affinity.' Lathdrinor (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lathdrinor: That statement is fine with me.

Likely means it's probable, so he's clearly not saying it's fringe. But yeah, I won't waste your time because we clearly should just agree to disagree on this point.--Easy772 (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Before I add the statement, are there any objections?--Easy772 (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I've arrived late to the discussion, so I'll be butting in a little bit. For the above statement, we will need to be specific per WP:WEASEL. A better wording would be "though proposals made by (author), (author) and (author) have hypothesized a Southeast Asian affinity", or something along those lines. When listing out claims, it's better to link those with specific names. Reading through the discussion on this page and elsewhere, most of what I would probably say have already been brought up, so I won't cloud up the waters. That said, it's better to wait for more input, rather than assuming consensus with only two people weighing in. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

We have seen no sources that support the claim that the theory that the Shang spoke a non-ST language is "definitely held in some esteem". We've seen two sources that explicitly reject it (Bodman & Jacques). I've listed a few (Boltz, Norman, Qiu, Baxter & Sagart and Keightley) of the many secondary sources that state the opposite view, namely that the Shang and Zhou languages were much the same. The non-ST Shang theory isn't quite fringe, but it is held by a tiny minority of Sino-Tibetanists, and not by anyone who works on Chinese historical linguistics or oracle bone inscriptions. To include it would be to give it a weight it does not have in the literature on the Shang. Kanguole 15:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kanguole: The way it's cited and discussed, it's obvious they think it's plausible/likely or at least understandable why they would think that at the time. We do have DeLancey then saying it's likely. I am fine with saying something like "Nishida and Benedict once proposed the Shang spoke an Austro-Asiatic language, which has since fallen out of favor by the majority of linguists". Though a majority of linguists no longer subscribe to an Austro-Asiatic Shang Language, A significant amount of the linguistic papers/books I'm reading definitely conclude an Old Chinese connection/similarity/affinity to Austro-Asiatic languages, it definitely should be mentioned in some form. --Easy772 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

David McCraw, An “ABC” Exercise in Old Sinitic Lexical Statistics SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS, Number 202 May, 2010

This article explores a new resource. Recent research — the fruit of many long yearsAxel Schuessler has spent gathering words — reveals an astonishing number of very old Southeastern words in the Old Sinitic lexicon.1 Schuessler has, in his words, uncovered “the multiple origins of the Chinese lexicon”;2 as Schuessler remarks, amazedly, “When pursuing OC and TB/ST etyma down to their roots, one often seems to hit AA bedrock, that is, a root shared with AA.”

McCraw draws different conclusions, but the concept is by no means reducible to a few old papers by Benedict et al.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I just messaged Kanguole on the "Old Chinese" article, talk section about that same article. Yes, it's clear that AA and OC have a relationship and almost certainly (In my opinion) a common history. We're just getting caught up in technicalities on how to properly word this and add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy772 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 June 2015‎ (UTC)

McCraw specifically concludes, "But our data strongly suggest the Shang and early Zhou shared a common language. [...] But the profile match between Shang and Zhou inscriptions makes a random similarity a less than 1% chance; we can safely guess, based on current data, that the language Shang kings — or at least their scribes — transcribed into OBI largely matched that of early Western Zhou inscriptions." He is speaking specifically of Ancient Chinese as that common language. Ogress _smash! 23:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That is also Schuessler's view (ABC, p1). Indeed McGraw mentions Schuessler arguing for close similarity (McGraw, fn53). As McGraw notes (fn52), Sinologists are unanimous on this point. Kanguole 00:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Easy772: On the contrary: the way these authors discuss the non-ST Shang language theory indicates they do not find it plausible or likely. That leaves DeLancey saying his own theory is likely. This theory has not "fallen out of favor" – it was always marginal. By the way, Benedict and Nishida did not say AA, they said non-ST, though Nishida gave an example that suggests he was thinking of Hmong–Mien. As for your "Old Chinese connection/similarity/affinity to Austro-Asiatic languages", you are bundling together a number of different things to synthesize support for your "common history" theory. Kanguole 00:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kanguole: I think we are going to need formal mediation to resolve this dispute. I am confident that a neutral committee with no "dog in this fight" would read the quotes and realize that many Linguists see an obvious connection between AA and OC. Regarding "my common history theory", that's really just Ad Hominem. The theory that Shang spoke a non-Sinitic language was probably around before I was born, as was the theory of shared origins between OC and AA. I don't even necessarily subscribe to either, but they definitely deserve to be mentioned.

But, for some reason, which I won't guess at, it seems that any mention of this obvious connection/similarity/affinity warrants being erased from Wiki. We can post technical material and Jargon more suited for a textbook, but not the author's conclusions on the material? --Easy772 (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Minority viewpoints shouldn't merit inclusion in major articles. And why are people advocating for this to be inserted into the Shang dynasty article instead of Old Chinese or Oracle Bone script since this is supposedly a purely linguistic exercise. It seems suspicious. I hope nobody is trying to claim the Shang dynasty as AA to satisfy their own theories on the ethnic makeup of ancient China.Rajmaan (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rajmaan: "Tiny minority" viewpoints should not be included (Wikipedia gives the example of "Flat Earth", an obviously fringe theory). "Minority view points" should be given due weight. I had brought the "OC AA similarity, due weight discussion" to the Old Chinese section. I have learned a lot since the beginning of this discussion, since out of all of the fields that deal with pre-history Linguistics is the one I know least about, but when Verbatim quotes from linguists are being reverted at the mention of any Austro-Asiatic connection to Old Chinese in layman's terms it makes me suspicious as well. If it is a minority view so be it, but it isn't fringe in the least and I still think the way it is discussed the authors think it's plausible. A brief mention is fine with me. However, since this discussion has degenerated into ad hominem accusations of motives/bias on either side. I propose we call in a neutral formal committee to objectively analyze the source material and deem what weight each deserves in being added to Wikipedia. I would say this is necessary for both the proposed Language section here and for the Old Chinese Article. --Easy772 (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't have been suspicious, had I not noticed that certain internet trolls spammed this same theory on multiple internet forums about Shang language being AA and citing DeLancey's work as evidence. And claiming that this mean Shang people were Austroasiatic or Baiyue or whatever. A quick google search can confirm this. These trolls appeared to have been banned from multiple forums. Is wikipedia being used as WP:BATTLEGROUND for these forums and trolls?Rajmaan (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that, and I doubt the Shang were Austro-Asiatic in entirety. Longshan seems to be a mix of 'Shandong Longshan' and 'Yangshao' in terms of it's culture. Shang descends ultimately from Longshan it seems, though I am not sure of what kind of demographic shifts could have occurred as the Longshanoid period in China is quite long. --Easy772 (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Though one can continue to discuss this issue here, but this matter has been gone to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard [4] and further discussion regarding "content dispute" should be done there in civil manner. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 21:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Moderated Discussion

Moderated discussion is now in progress at the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). Please take the discussion of language, and of any other questions for which you want facilitated discussion, to DRN. You are not required to go to DRN, but any comments made here rather than at DRN may not be taken into account. Any editors here, whether or not they are currently parties to the DRN thread, are welcome to participate at DRN (and may request to be added to the list of parties, but are not required to be added to the list of parties). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)