Talk:Lu (state)

chinaknowledge.de

I've removed the chinaknowledge.de reference from the article as it contains too many errors (calling Duke Kao Xiaogong, for example). But it's still somewhat useful. So I'm copying the link here on the talk page: http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Zhou/rulers-lu.html --Zanhe (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at 陈恩林《先秦两汉文献中所见诸侯五等爵》《历史研究》1994年06期 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-LSYJ199406005.htm , you can find it easyly by Baidu,the noble rank before Qin is very very dificult ,except King of Zhou,all monarch even viscount can be called Gong.——星光下的人 (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I must tell user Philg88 ,who tell you the source must be English source?You can't overtop Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources,不懂中文可以不做中文的相关编辑，知之为知之不知为不知是知也。——星光下的人 (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that the source needs to be in English - what I said was that you need to provide an English rationale for any changes that you wish to make ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 08:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gongzi and prince

To User:星光下的人: please note that although in Chinese there is distinction between Gongzi (duke's son) and Wangzi (king's son), there's no such distinction in English, and both are commonly called prince. For example, see this book's translation of Gongzi Chong'er and Gongzi Shensheng. For a modern example, see Prince Félix of Luxembourg, son of Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Please do not change prince to Gongzi or Zi again, which are meaningless to English readers, on this page or on the Duke Wen of Jin article. --Zanhe (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't compare Chinese and Belgium rank,they are completely different.Your google link is only one example,please provide more to prove 公子 is commonly called prince in English..Otherwise,Ziban and Ziye 's Zi don't mean they are Gongzi,it means the monarch is dead but not buried,in this time the next monarch are called Zi 孔颖达《春秋左传正义·僖公三十一年》：但《左氏》称“宋桓公卒，未葬，而襄公会诸侯，故曰子”，即发例曰：“凡在丧，公侯曰子。”是未葬称子，传之明文，不得如《公羊》说也。——星光下的人 (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A google book search for the term "Prince Chong'er" shows more than 3,000 books containing that phrase, and that's only for the name of a single Gongzi. The Luxembourg example (Luxembourg is not part of Belgium, by the way) is relevant, since we're trying to convert Chinese terms to their Western counterparts. But in the cases of Ban and Ye I think you're right that they should no longer be called princes after they ascended the throne, even though Shiji still refers to Ye as the Crown Prince (Taizi) when he died. However, the sons of Duke Wen of Jin, Prince Yong and Prince Le, should stay that way as they had never ascended the throne. --Zanhe (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Luxembourg example doesn't fit. Europe's and China's titles are a whole world apart. You can't westernized everything for the sake of people understanding it. But if sources use it, then I guess it is usable. Though in my opinion, I am really uncomfortable with the translation as I think most people are. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, European and Chinese titles were a whole world apart, but the reality is that virtually everybody translates Chinese titles into comparable European ones. If we were to stop translating gongzi as prince, we might as well stop translating huangdi as emperor, gong as duke, hou as marquis, and so on. None of them are perfectly equivalent but they're all widely-accepted and customary translations. -Zanhe (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Annexation

There are multiple references in the article to Lu being annexed in 249BC, but also one to it being annexed in 256BC (which is a date I had previously come across offline, and is the one given on the Chu page for its conquest of Lu). This doesn't appear to be the result of a claimant surviving the fall of the last recognised ruler (as occurred with the Zhou monarchy at the same time, which I've seen give rise to variations in the precise dating of the end of that dynasty). Is there any explanation for the 7-year discrepancy here? Did Duke Qing survive 7 years after the loss of his domain, or is the date of 256 simply wrong? WikiExile (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Han Zhaoqi's annotations to the Shiji (ref #2 in the article), Lu was annexed in 249 BC. I've edited the article accordingly. --Zanhe (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity - do you know why it was previously thought to have occurred in 256? WikiExile (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The historical records of the Warring States Period are quite chaotic and many dates are in dispute. The Chinese wiki article says Lu was annexed in 256 and 249 was the year that Duke Qing died. It didn't cite any source, but it doesn't look like it was pulled out of the thin air. If we find a reliable source to support the alternative date, we can add it back to the article. --Zanhe (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regnal dates do not match

The dates for the rulers of Lu differ between the table and the family tree. Currently we only source the Shiji for the dates, which gives reign lengths but not absolute dates.

I've got more recent published material at hand (Cambridge History of Ancient China, and Schaberg, A Patterned Past, 2001, but each of these only list a subset of the rulers.

Does anyone have an RS-compliant full list of regnal dates for the rulers of Lu? I can try to track down some more recent scholarship but if anyone has something at hand I'd be grateful for a citation or an update. Folly Mox (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]