Talk:Jing Xiang (politician)

Translation of Jing Xiang's titles
This article seems to use different translations for office names than the available English language literature on the subject. Wang Gungwu in his much cited The Structure of Power in North China during the Five Dynasties translates Jing Xiang's first office as "sub-inspector of post stations" (translating from the Old History), in 907 his appointment to "Commissioner of the Military Secretariat" and then in 912 to "Chief Minister". In Richard Davies' translation of the New History (Historical Records of the Five Dynasties) uses "inspector of postal relay stations", "commissioner of Bureau of Venerable Governance", "minister of war and academician of Jinluan Hall" for the 911 promotion, and finally "deputy director at the Palace Secretariat with concurrent powers as chief minister". At least the translation "chief minister" seems fairly well established, I've seen it used in books on the Tang and Song dynasties as well. It would seem better (and more in line with WP policy) to use existing published translations rather than to invent our own. Fornadan (t) 10:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but it creates more problems doing that. "同中書門下平章事," at least in the Tang Dynasty context, is, I think, fairly well-established as translatable as "chancellor," and it is actually the authors you cited that created this inconsistency with translation from Tang usage.  For one thing, throughout the Five Dynasties (as was the case in Tang) there were always multiple people carrying the title of "同中書門下平章事" (even when not counting the regional governors carrying the title as honorific titles) and it would be quite incongruent, logically, to translate it as "chief minister" in that context given that that title implies that there was only one.  I think as far as that is concerned, keeping in line with Tang usage (given that the Five Dynasties largely inherited Tang governmental titles) is more prudent.  (I acknowledge that the Song Dynasty governmental structure was quite different in actuality and therefore even though Song retained all of Tang titles, using different translations for Song titles than for Tang would be justified, but since the Five Dynasties made no real attempt to wholesale-modify the Tang governmental structure, I don't think using the Song usage is proper rather than using the Tang usage.)  I have no objection to changing the rest.  --Nlu (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * An additional note, however: as far as Jing's responsibility as "宣政使" (although he was never formally that, but was only acting (行)) is concerned: it is fairly clear from the historical descriptions that 宣政院 replaced Tang's 樞密院, with the intent that it no longer be run by eunuchs. I honestly don't know how scholars in the field have translated 樞密院 in the Tang context, but I have translated it as "office of palace communications" because that's what it did and because this is a direct English translation from Bo Yang's modern Chinese translation (of it as 宮廷機要室).  (See, e.g., Bo Yang Edition of the Zizhi Tongjian, vol. 64, p. 153.)  Since 宣政院 was a replacement of 樞密院, I feel that there should be consistency there, too.  By translating it as "Commissioner of the Military Secretariat," I think Wang was confusing the 樞密院 to 宣政院 change by Later Liang with the subsequent reinstatement of the 樞密院 title by Emperor Zhuangzong of Later Tang and turning it into a military, rather than palace communication, institution — a change that became permanent and entrenched by the time of Song.  (For example, I think that is a proper translation for the title of Guo Chongtao, the chief advisor to Later Tang's Emperor Zhuangzong, although I am intending on translating it as "chief of staff" when I write the article on Guo (hopefully in a few weeks, but may be later).)  That hadn't happened yet at the time that Jing was alive; indeed, the historical texts were quite clear that Jing's office (at the time that Jing held it) was within the palace and was in charge of communications between the emperor and the imperial government.  It was not military in nature.  --Nlu (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can cite English lagnuage references for the usage of "chancellor" that is fine. As for the others, Wikipedia can't make up its own nomenclature, we have to follow the existing literature, our personal opinion doesn't really enter into it. Fornadan (t) 16:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to find a source on "chancellor" — but note that there is no requirement that we cite to an English source. I feel that Bo Yang is a reliable (Chinese) source and that using a direct translation of Bo Yang's nomenclature is not original research.
 * But there is another point here: I think the sources that I've cited already showed that Wang's translation is incorrect. (This is not a matter of personal opinion; both the History of the Five Dynasties and the Zizhi Tongjian explained exactly what 宣政院 did, and they are inconsistent with Wang's translation.)  Given that the sources that I cite are, I believe, reliable sources, their descriptions, which run in opposition with Wang's translation, should prevail over Wang's translation.  --Nlu (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of an article that translated 同平章事 as "chancellor." --Nlu (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, your translation of Bo Yang is effectively a translation of a translation though. I see that you so far have not made any comment on Davies' translation, who uses "commissioner of the Bureau of Venerable Governance" for the Liang office and "commissioner of military affairs" for the "Later Tang" era, so the use of "commissioner" at least seems consistent.  Fornadan (t) 18:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(unident) Davies' translation is correct, but is too literal as to be uninformative. As far as being a translation of a translation, that is correct — but that, as far as I can see, doesn't make it original research. Bo's translation is corroborated by the description of the office given in the official histories. --Nlu (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I should clarify here: I don't think "venerable" is the right word, although I can't say it's wrong, per se. (宣 in this case should be interpreted as a verb rather than an adjective, as Davies was using it — "commissioner of policy declarations" would be, I think, just as literal and perhaps a bit more informative.)  Davies took 宣 as an adjective which caused him to translate it as an adjective; it really was a verb.  --Nlu (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)