Talk:Book of Rites

title

 * modern scholars believe that the original title, Lijing ("Classic of Rites"), was dropped so that jing ("classic") would be reserved for ...

What does 禮記 mean, then? Unfortunately, only an "original" title is explained, not the actual one. And even the original title is just mentioned in passing (we only hear that "the" title is dropped!)--why was is dropped, when was it dropped, by whom was it dropped, ...? --Ibn Battuta 15:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Title mistranslation
Wouldn't "Liji" or "Record of Rites" be a better title for this article? '"Classic of Rites'" doesn't translate Liji 禮記, it translates Lijing 禮經, the lost pre-Qin classic. In standard usage, Lijing is an old title for the Yili, as William Boltz explains: "When Han texts refer simply to the Li, or to the Li ching, they mean the I Li, as opposed to the Chou li or the later Li chi. Even the name Li chi 禮記 in Han texts refers top the Li ching, i.e., the I li, together with the incorporated chi 'records'; the term does not refer to what is known today as the Li chi. (Loewe, Early Chinese Texts, 1993:234)" (Compare the Chinese-language WP, where 礼经 redirects to 仪礼.) I thought this misnomer might derive from Legge's Liji translation, but it doesn't. He (1885:20) criticizes "Wylie's 'Book of Rites' and Callery's 'Memorial des Rites' always failed to give me a definite idea of the nature of our classic", suggests Liji might be translated "Ceremonial Records" in parallel to Shiji "Historical Records", and awkwardly prefers "A Collection of Treatises on the Rules of Propriety or Ceremonial Usages". How can we improve the current title? Keahapana (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Consistent titles?
Should the "classics" (yi jing, shu jing, shi jing, li ji) not all have a consistent title? At the moment we have: Shi Jing, Book of Rites, Book of History, and I Ching. That's two English, one pinyin, and one Wade-Giles. I don't understand the logic there. If no one objects, can we change them all to "Book of..."? I suppose I Ching is simple: Book of Changes, but what about Shi Jing? Book of Odes, Songs, Poems? I prefer Odes. Is someone able to do this? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been three days; I'm not sure where I'm allowed (or exactly how?) to change the titles of these articles. If someone is aware and could share that with me, and also let me know that it's OK to do so, I would appreciate that. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

monument at UN?
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20110611000103

Dai Rui-ming, Taiwan's former ambassador to the Holy See, also spoke at the seminar. He said he hopes that Beijing could re-erect in front of the UN Building the "Book of Rites" monument that the ROC donated to the world body as a founding member.

anyone has information on this? 218.186.17.10 (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Classic of Rites → Book of Rites – by far the most common name for this work in English. In Google Books, Book of Rites is an order of magnitude more common than Record of Rites (a more literal translation of 禮記 Lǐjì), which is another order of magnitude more common than the current title, Classic of Rites. Google Scholar yields similar results. The work is indeed one of the Five Classics, but the same goes for the Spring and Autumn Annals. More to the point, if all those authors aren't persuaded by that reasoning, we should not seek to override them. Kanguole 01:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, i.e. WP:COMMONNAMES. —  AjaxSmack   00:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. James Legge's translation is entitled, The Li Chi: Book of Rites. This was first published in 1885, but it is the still the standard translation. Kauffner (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. --Zanhe (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support P0M (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Book of Rites → Record of Rites – I agree that the title Classic of Rites is not the most appropriate name for this book, however I think the current title Book of Rites is also not as appropriate, as it does not correspond at all to the original Chinese title, Li Ji, which refers to record, the Record of Rites. Further, the term "Book" might confuse readers with the Four Books, which is often associated with the Five Classics. --Relisted JHunterJ (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC) --Sevilledade (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Book of Rites" is far more common, according to this ngram. It's also the title of the standard translation. Kauffner (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Though Record of Rites is used by popular references, such as Britannica, Liji.  I think a major problem regarding the naming of these Chinese classics is that the different English-language variations used by scholars, thus it creates difficulty when it comes to the titles.  I thought Record of Rites would be the least confusing.--Sevilledade (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Britannica article gives "Record of Rites" as a literal translation, but uses Liji as the name of the book. Kanguole 08:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per User:Kauffner. —  AjaxSmack   22:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:ERA
Per WP:ERA, the usage of the page was established as BC/AD by this edit and the dates should not have extraneous ~Es added to them. — LlywelynII  08:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The burning of the books
This article discusses the supposed burning of the books and the burying of the ru as if it were undeniable fact. I think this ought to be edited to reflect the current understanding of Confucian textual transmission. Confused Sea Creature (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)