Talk:Yuanshi society

Deletion

Main tribe ancestors were recently deleted. I have restored those. The way these are presented in english is usually "myth". But once these links go under Yuanshi, it should be presented more from an "archaelogy" view. Benjwong (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did any reference or source actually specify that this "Yuanshi society" is archaeological? This article's notability is quite difficult to understand; it needs to illustrate why is this topic "important" or "relevant" in the English language? Is this term Yuanshi society "common" or "well-known"? You can't just hastily create a random article in English Wikipedia based on some terminology found in the Chinese vocabulary.--TheLeopard (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok some of these other terms like "Yue people" came much later. It does not belong here. Yuanshi is a society before zhou, before everything else. Based on that alone is relevant. Also the term yuanshi was there long ago, it did not appear today randomly. I'll admit most people like to stick to the mythology term, since it is easy. Benjwong (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments above are quite confusing ("Based on that alone is relevant", still, why is that relevant?). You need to provide reputable references in English about this term "Yuanshi Society", and demonstrate its relevance.--TheLeopard (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no english references on this view. I would prefer it for en.wiki if it exist. In theory nothing is myth if you can trace the real genealogy. Of course nobody has been able to do it. Think of this as the starting point for everything. Therefore it is going to have a mix of whatever clan, myth figures etc. I am putting Baipu, Shaohao and Shang back as they exist and are traceable. Granted those article need improvement. Benjwong (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no english references on this view. This is English Wikipedia, if there is no English reference for this topic anywhere, then this "isn't" notable at all.--TheLeopard (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to help find some english sources on it. Maybe I just missed it. Benjwong (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, this whole article should be deleted. First, "yuanshi shehui" 原始社會 is not some obscure concept that can only be expressed in Chinese: it is the translation of "primitive society," one of the five stages of social evolution according to a branch of Marxism that Chinese social scientists used to accept as dogma. In this rigid Marxist conception, "primitive society" (also called "primitive communism") refers to any society that has not yet reached the stage of "slave society": anything from the pre-Columbian Iroquois to tribes from highland New Guinea. First reason for deleation: this label is not unique to China. Second reason: as a social-scientific category, "primitive society" refers to a type of organization of the forces of production, not just to a time period, and certainly not simply to "mythology." Right now, the article does not even mention the (alleged) characteristics of "primitive society" in China. It just lists a number of "mythological figures" appended to "tribes" that either never existed (Yan-Huang 炎黃) or were only mentioned in much later sources (all the other ones). Currently, the only reference is a Plato-to-NATO survey of Chinese history that discusses the Yellow Emperor as if he were really the ancestor of the Chinese, as opposed to a mythical sovereign whose status as a cultural hero was only solified during the Han dynasty. It might be possible to write something on "primitive society in China," but it would have to make clear that "primitive society" is a concept from the social sciences, not a neutral label to describe pre-Shang China. And no matter what happens, the Chinese translation of a Western social-scientific concept should not appear in the title of a wiki on English Wikipedia; speaking of "Yuanshi society" would be like having a wiki called "Daoist 宗教" on Chinese Wikipedia. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with moving this article to Pre-China primitive society (原始社會) or something similar. But do understand this page is not a replacement for evolution study like List of Neolithic cultures of China articles. It was never intended to be. It is best to split the page into two sections. One is to focus on the more social evolution aspects of it, like what you describe. The other is to maintain the ancestor aspect like the current content. Benjwong (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benjwong, and thanks for your reply. I don't think we can mix archeological/historical discussions of pre-Shang "China" with later mythical accounts about that period. These are two different topics. If you would like to discuss mythology, though, that's fine! There is certainly room for a discussion of Chinese culture heroes like the Yellow Emperor and Shennong on Wikipedia. One obvious possible title: Chinese culture heroes. Also fine: Chinese sage kings.

A wiki on this topic could not simply be a translation of what Chinese high-school textbooks say about "primitive society." These textbooks are notably inaccurate. They're not based on primary sources, they're about 25 years behind the latest historical research, they tend to present the mythical past as history, and they're designed to instill a certain sense of history to their readers regardless of historical accuracy. Basic historical textbooks from all countries do that. My point is that these textbooks are not reliable sources.

There are plenty of good sources on the Chinese mythical past. You can start with this little intro from a site at the University of Massachusetts: http://www.umass.edu/wsp/results/developments/myths/index.html. This other page cites relevant scholarship that could be used on Wikipedia: http://www.east-asian-history.net/textbooks/PM-China/ch12.htm. (Note: this site itself is not a "reliable source": you would have to trace the scholarship it cites.)

There are even better "paper" sources, some of which can be found on Google Books:

Allan, Sarah. 1991. The Shape of the Turtle: Myth, Art, and Cosmos in Early China. Albany: State University of New York. (Lots of relevant passages. Try a keyword search for "Yellow Emperor," for example.)
Birrell, Ann. 1993. Chinese Mythology: An Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (Perhaps less reliable, but still helpful. Check out the chapter on the Yellow Emperor.)
LeBlanc, Charles. 1985-86. "A Re-Examination of the Myth of Huang-ti." Journal of Chinese Religions, No. 13-14: 45-63. (Right on topic.)
Lewis, Mark Edward. 1990. Sanctioned Violence in Ancient China. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. (Lots of material throughout. Try keyword search.)
Yates, Robin D.S. 1997. "The Myth of the Yellow Emperor and the Origins of HuangLao Daoism." In his Five Lost Classics: Tao-Huang-Lao, and Yin-Yang in Han China (New York: Ballantine Books), pp. 17-19. (Brief but very useful. Unfortunately there is no sample available on Google Books.)

If you prefer Chinese, check this one out:

Mori Yasutarō　森安太郎. 1988. Huangdi de chuanshuo: Zhongguo gudai shenhua yanjiu 黃帝的傳說: 中國古代神話研究 [The legend of the Yellow Emperor: Research on ancient Chinese mythology]. Translated by Wang Xiaolian 王孝廉. Taipei: Shibao wenhua chuban qiye youxian gongsi. (Serious research, but no preview on Google Books.)

And this is only on the Yellow Emperor. As you can see, the topic of Chinese culture heroes is notable and relevant, and there are plenty of reliable sources for it. But all these sources make it clear that these accounts are myths, not semi-historical accounts. Also, instead of claiming that these ancient kings are the ancestors of the Hua-Xia (or something of that sort), they explain how this myth itself developed. And they make no mention of "primitive society."

Anyway, have fun writing this! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are pushing a mythology-only concept. For a long time, people refer to whales as mythology too. Anyhow this discussion is not about yellow emperor or any one figure that may or may not exist. This is about that period of time when certain ancestrial figures and their 集團 was a part of society. Your approach to drop off reliable sources that suggest XYZ was just a myth is totally wrong IMHO. You should be expanding this article with sources that suggest how these people at the time co-existed with certain cultures (different 文化 as they call it). Also the sources I put up earlier are from year 2000 and beyond. Your listed sources are from 1980s and 1990s. Benjwong (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benjwong. I think you misunderstood my position. I am not pushing for any position in particular. I was just giving you sources that would allow you to develop this page into something better. But it's important to notice that without a single exception, Western scholars of ancient China (yes, I have read most of them) consider the Yellow Emperor as a legendary figure, and so do the overwhelming majority of Chinese scholars. The writings of these scholars are the reliable sources that Wikipedia editors must rely on when writing articles, regardless of personal opinions and preferences.

Another example: only in the 19th century did people start to claim that the Yellow Emperor was the ancestor of all Chinese (or of the "Han race," as Chinese revolutionaries of the late Qing and Republican periods used to say). Chinese scholars have written fascinating things on this. These three references could be interesting additions to various wikis, including Yellow Emperor and Descendants_of_Yan_&_Yellow_Emperors:

Shen Sung-ch'iao 沈松橋. (1997). "Wo yi wo xue jian Xuan Yuan: Huangdi shenhua yu wan-Qing de guozu jiangou" 我以我血薦軒轅: 黃帝神話與晚清的國族建構 [The myth of the Yellow Emperor and the construction of Chinese nationhood in the late Qing period]. Taiwan shehui yanjiu jikan 台灣社會研究季刊, vol. 28: 1-77.[1]
Wang Ming-k'e 王明珂. (2002). "Lun Panfu: Jindai Yan-Huang zisun guozu jiangou de gudai jichu" 論攀附：近代炎黃子孫國族建構的古代基礎 [On progression: the ancient basis for the nation-building claim that the Chinese are descendants of Yandi and Huangdi]. Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊, vol. 73.3: 583-624.[2]
Yi Hua 易华. (2010). "Yao-Shun yu Yan-Huang: Shiji "Wudi benji" yu minzu rentong" 尧舜与炎黄──《史记•五帝本记》与民族认同 [Yao-Shun and Yan-Huang: the Shiji's "Annals of the Five Emperors" and national identity]. China Folkore Network [retrieved on May 23, 2011].[3]

Also, sources are not reliable simply because they are more recent. I can find sources from 2011 claiming that the Yellow Emperor was the actual author of the Huangdi Neijing, but not a single scholar anywhere would agree with that. Already in the 11th century, Chinese scholars knew that the Yellow Emperor could not have written that book. Modern scholarship has confirmed their view.

My point: we have to present this topic (whatever it is: not sure yet) as it is presented in as many reliable sources as possible, not as we would like it to be, nor as it is presented in one (arguably unreliable) source like a beginner's textbook on Chinese history. Claims that the Yellow Emperor (or Shennong, or Chiyou) lived in a specific period and performed specific feats are not acceptable, because this is not how reliable sources discuss these figures. Unless of course our topic is "Primitive society" in Chinese history textbooks, in which case we would have to find reliable sources on that very topic (lest we infringe upon Wikipedia: original research).

Madalibi (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for the full reference of the Chinese history book cited in this wiki

Hi Benjwong. Could you give me the exact reference to the first volume of Dai Yi 戴逸 and Gong Shuduo's 龚书铎 Zhongguo tongshi 中国通史, please? I've looked up that book, but there are many editions (4 volumes, 12 volumes, illustrated edition, and illustrated youth edition) that probably have different page numbers. Could you just let me know which edition you're using so that I can check it out for myself? It might, after all, be a reliable source! Thank you. Madalibi (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the 10 volume edition printed 2002-2003 in traditional chinese. Page number is 32. Benjwong (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference! I'll try to look it up. Madalibi (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two things I forgot to ask: 1. Is this the "Shaonian caitu ban" 少年彩图版? 2. What is the Chinese for "Intelligence Press"? Thanks! Madalibi (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, found it! The full title is Zhongguo tongshi: xuesheng caitu ban 中國通史–學生彩圖版 ["General history of China: illustrated edition for students"], in 10 vols. It was compiled by the Chinese Historical Society (中國史學會), with Bai Shouyi 白壽彝 as advisor and Dai Yi 戴逸 and Gong Shuduo 龔書鐸 as editors-in-chief. The publisher is Hong Kong: Zhineng jiaoyu chubanshe 智能敎育出版社, 2003. This is the revised Hong Kong edition (香港修訂本) of the mainland book called Zhongguo tongshi: shaonian caitu ban 中國通史–學生彩圖版 ["General history of China: illustrated edition for youth"], which was compiled by the same editors and published in 2001 by Haiyan chubanshe 海燕出版社. Madalibi (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A solution?

Hello everyone. One solution to the problems discussed above would be to make this page about Chinese sage kings. I mentioned that possible title above, but I didn't explain why. Here's what I think would be the advantages of such a topic:

As requested in Wikipedia:Article titles, this title would be "recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." The title itself doesn't state whether these sage kings are mythological, legendary, or historical, so nobody would feel offended. The title would just acknowledge that this is an important topic in Chinese culture, which it is.
Such a wiki would not be a "content fork." As Wikipedia:content forking explains, "a content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided." So we would avoid writing an article that overlaps with articles about mythology like Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors or about history like Xia dynasty, both of which are about the same figures and roughly the same period.
With such a topic, we could write a balanced article that gives their due weight to all existing points of view. In other words, we would respect the fundamental rule called Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The point of view of modern scholarship should be most prominently presented, because it is proportionately dominant within reliable sources. But one section could also explain in a fair and unbiased way that Chinese history textbooks often describe these ancient sage kings as shapers of "primitive society," as having led such-and-such tribes, and as having accomplished such-and-such feats. But this is a minority view, and so it could not define the structure of the entire article. By "minority view," I'm not saying that it is not widely embraced. (Actually a huge number of Chinese people take it for granted.) What I'm saying is that this discussion of ancient sage kings as leaders of "tribes" within "primitive society" is not recognized by "reliable sources": the published work of Western, Chinese, and Japanese scholars on this topic. Popular history, collective memory, and ethnic identity are all important and fascinating phenomena, but they are not "reliable sources."

These are just a few thoughts. I hope they will help editors turn this page into acceptable Wikipedia material. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know I gave this some thought. This page should be at about the same point of view as pages like Anunnaki, another ancient society. Benjwong (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben. I just came back from a month off the Wiki, so I'm sorry if I didn't reply sooner. I agree that the way the Anunnaki are discussed would sound about right in this article. But the Anunnaki wiki discusses a "group of deities," not an "ancient society." Does this mean you would agree to treating the ancient Chinese sage kings as mythological figures who were later given a role as cultural heroes? Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new title?

Hi again! I'm still not sure what to do about this page, but I think "Yuanshi society" is not a proper title, because "yuanshi" has a direct equivalent in English. Would other editors agree to rename this wiki "Primitive society (China)"? Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]