Talk:Three Ducal Ministers

To clarify
« A salary of 10.000 bulshel. » 220.135.4.212 (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Bushel of what ? rice ? I'm not sure that rice was common under the Han dynasty (in north China)
 * 2) by month ? by year ?


 * To tell the truth, I don't think I've seen a source that explained the 10,000 bushels were of. (They were yearly salaries, to answer the second part of your question.)  My guess is wheat.  --Nlu (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspected the same (wheat). I also suspected yearly, which seems more logic according to ancient cycle of life. So I go ahead and expand the article. 06:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact the text already state "annual salary", I simply missed it. Yug 07:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.122.97.165 (talk)

The recent move
I wonder what was the basis for the recent move, and even declaring a reputed professor's translation as "incorrect"? Other than de Crespigny's "Three Excellencies", there also is UofOregon's recommended use of "Three Ducal Ministers". The translation "Three Councillors of State" is hitherto unknown to me, and though I am not questioning its accuracy, I wonder what authority it rests on that allows it to overrule and place itself over other authorities. Cheers. _dk (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Deadkid dk, thanks for the comment. I thought about this a lot before I changed it and the reason is largely based on what the Chinese means based on the many Chinese dictionaries I use on a daily basis. In early Chinese history hanzi, especially when used in official contexts, had a nasty habit of changing their meaning (郡 and 州) are a good example. As you well know with your long experience on Wikipedia, during the Zhou Dynasty, 公 was a noble rank equivalent to Duke so a translation as "Three Dukes" or "Three Ducal Ministers" would be technically correct as per UofOregon BUT it really says nothing and adds to the confusion of what they actually did. In English, a "councillor of state" as I understand it is somebody who advises the ruler of a sovereign (or otherwise governed) state and that is exactly what the 三公 did. The bottom line is that 公 does not and has never meant "excellency", the closest it would come is as an honorific address for an old person which is not the intended meaning here. Don't get me wrong, I do not have a hang up about what the English term used for 三公 is, but it should be appropriate in the context of its historic usage - it is up to de Crespigny how he translates things but Wikipedia should be accurate and informative above all else, words like "excellency" serve no purpose to that end. Best Philg88 (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your sentiment, but Wikipedia has policies that discourage original research (in this case, an original translation unsupported by scholarly references) and encourage content based on a sample of reliable sources. Also, I'd like to say that 三公 itself doesn't really say anything about what they actually did as well - the most we can infer from the words themselves is that these three people are ministers that are honoured as dukes or perhaps are dukes. Though "councillor of state" is what they are in essence, I think we should explain that in the article itself, not in the name. _dk (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am well aware of the policies but I would argue that translation of a phrase like 三公 does not fall into the category of original research. My change is also supported by online dictionaries such as this one. We should not have incorrect translations in WP even if they are used by some sources. Best Philg88 (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The online dictionary iciba seems to be a user-generated tertiary source, much like Wikipedia, and that makes it unsuitable to be used as reference. And the dictionary does not provide a translation, it merely provides meaning to the words (See my reasoning above). Correctness versus verifiability is one of the classic conflicts on Wikipedia, and our core policy states that "verifiability, not truth" is the threshold of inclusion; and "any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source". Cheers. _dk (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, this is a tricky one since based on your reasoning every single Chinese word or phrase in WP should have a reference. Clearly that would be impossible whilst no one would argue that 黄河 doesn't mean Yellow River. By the same token and using the reverse argument, 公 does not mean excellency so why should it be translated as such? Maybe we should ask some other bilingual editors for their input. Best, Philg88 (talk) 06:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yellow River and others is different since the translation is well-documented and is very unlikely to be sensibly challenged. All I am saying is we should use whatever the sources say, and that means either we find a source that supports the current name or move the page to a name that is supported by sources. There is no use arguing with the policies here, but you are free to ask others for their input, as will I. Cheers. _dk (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi dk, don't get me wrong, I am certainly not arguing with WP policies. A couple of points though, the Berkshire Encylopedia of China in its Han Dynasty article translates 三公 as the "Three Lords" " so who is right between de Crespigny, Berkshire and your University of Oregon source? Needham probably says something else too but I do not have access to his material. This is why I contend that translation of a term should be accurate. Generally, the English term excellency refers to an ambassador and WP's Excellency article states that is an honorific rather than a job description which in this context it seems to have been since there are three job descriptions associated with it. I'm aware that the WP article is unreferenced but as far as the Chinese section is concerned I have never seen Hu Jintao or Wen Jiabao referred to in Chinese sources as 公. Let's wait and see what others say. Cheers, Philg88 (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that we should move back to Three Excellencies, I am saying we should move to a name that is supported by sources, whichever one that is the most appropriate according to consensus. As it stands, "Three Councillors of State" is not one that is supported (or I have not been made known of the existence of a supporting source). Consensus is not something that can be decided by two people, so yes, let's wait for the input of others. Best, _dk (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Philg88 has asked me to join in the discussion here. Certainly neither of you are "wrong" in this situation - however, we should find the translation used by the majority of scholars or the one that is currently most accepted and stick with that, I think.  I don't have a problem with either "Three Ducal Ministers" or "Three Councillors of State", personally.  I've looked in my PDF copy of Loewe's Qin/Han Biographical Dictionary and he doesn't have a 三公 entry.    White Whirlwind  咨   03:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Compile your list of sources here
Hello everyone. User:dk has asked me to provide some input here while enjoying my (hopefully) permanent semi-retired status. I think the best solution to these types of naming convention problems is to simply compile a list of sources and the terms they use. That's the simplest way to demonstrate scholarly consensus on any issue (if one exists). Feel free to tack on your own sources (in the same manner) to the list I shall start below:-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 00:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sources using "Three Excellencies":
 * de Crespigny, Rafe. (2007). A Biographical Dictionary of Later Han to the Three Kingdoms (23-220 AD). Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. ISBN 9004156054.
 * Bielenstein, Hans. (1980). The Bureaucracy of Han Times. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521225108.


 * Sources using "Three Dukes" or "Three Ducal Ministers"
 * Ch'ü, T'ung-tsu. (1972). Han Dynasty China: Volume 1: Han Social Structure. Edited by Jack L. Dull. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. ISBN 0295950684.


 * Sources using "Three Lords"
 * Cheng, Linsun, ed (2009). Berkshire Encyclopedia of China. Berkshire Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-9770159-4-8


 * Sources using "Three Councillors of State"
 * [Just fill in the blanks here; I don't have any sources which use this term.]


 * Sources using "Three Grand Councillors"
 * Ropp, Paul S., Barrett , Timothy Hugh (1991). Heritage of China: contemporary perspectives on Chinese civilization. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-06441


 * Sources with no specific terminology:
 * Loewe, Michael. (1968). Everyday Life in Early Imperial China during the Han Period 202 BC–AD 220. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.; New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.

It's already looking quite varied, if you ask me! Cheers.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 00:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Google Book searches such as this one might also prove useful.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 00:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input guys - I just found yet another source using a different translation which I've added above. Unless I find a source for "Three Councillors of State" then I accept it is disqualified as the article title. However, for the reasons I gave above, I don't think "Excellencies" is the correct term and we should use one of the alternatives listed above. Best Philg88 (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, that is a lot of choices. It would take a while to decide on a name if even the scholars don't all agree on the term to use. I would like to say that the UofOregon compilation that I provided (it was actually compiled by U of Washington, my mistake) notes that the translation "Three Ducal Minister" is a title "that have already been used in works which are quite far along", I believe that refers to Bielenstein's works and those who have followed his example. Thanks all _dk (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My vote is for "Three Ducal Ministers" based on _dk's comment above and the fact that 公 is a duke according to the Five Orders of Nobility. Do we have consensus for a further move? Best Philg88 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Three Ducal Ministers" sounds fine to me. I have only been able to find Chinese-language references here where I am.  Nice to see _dk cite UWash PDF - I expect to matriculate there as a grad student in the next year.   White Whirlwind  咨   09:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If no one objects, the page can be moved to "Three Ducal Ministers" then. While we are at it, can we work toward merging Three Dukes with this article? Congrats, White Whirlwind. =D _dk (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like we have a consensus, I'll wait a couple of days for objections then carry out the move if there are none. I will also merge the Three Dukes article at the same time. Best Philg88 (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was at least able to find the Ch'ü (1972) source to support it, so my vote will also go to "Three Ducal Ministers" from the list. Besides, Phil brings up a good point about the English translation of "duke" for 公.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 22:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone. For reference sake (since the debate seems to be over), here are three more sources that use the term "Three Dukes" as a translation for sangong 三公: Hucker's general explanation of sangong (before he explains its specific meaning period by period) is this: "from antiquity a collective reference to dignitaries who were officially considered the 3 paramount aides to the ruler and held the highest possible ranks in the officialdom, though from N. Wei to Yüan commonly superseded or overshadowed by the term Three Preceptors (san shih, q.v.). The posts were seldom conferred capriciously and were considered regular substantive posts throughout history." (Source: Hucker (1985), 399.)
 * Charles Hucker (1985). A Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
 * Robert des Rotours, trans. (1948). Traité des fonctionnaires et traité de l'armée [from the New Tang History, Xin Tangshu 新唐書, ch. 46-50). 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. (Uses "trois ducs.")
 * [Sung Project] Chang Fu-jui (1962). Les fonctionnaires des Song: Index des titres (Matériaux pour le Manuel de l'histoire des Song, V). Paris: Mouton. (Uses "trois ducs.")

If I had joined the debate earlier, I would have proposed calling this page "Three Dukes" because we have four different scholarly sources (three of which are specialized works on official titles) translating sangong that way. Only one source (Ch'ü T'ung-tsu's book on Han social structure) uses "Three Ducal Ministers," but that same book uses "Three Dukes" as well. But as I said, the debate is probably over! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I now notice that the term "Three Dukes" does not appear anywhere in the article. Considering how many scholarly sources use that translation (see my entry above), this seems like a big omission. I ask for permission to replace "Three Lords" (which comes from one large, not exclusively historical book on China) with "Three Dukes" in the opening paragraph. Thanks! Madalibi (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a topic that exceeds just the scope of this article
What steps should we take to standardise translations of official Chinese titles across separate pages? Should we try to agree on a source, or give readers as many different translations as we can find? Should we use titles with most consensus across sources or more internal consistency?

I've compiled a brief bibliography of specialist reference literature for rendeing Chinese titles in English, along with a fairly robust table of comparisons, at WikiProject_Chinese_history/Translation_of_Han_Dynasty_titles. I hope the page will spur some more discussion in the vein of what was going on here recently. Snuge purveyor (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Move already
It was clearly established above that this is an archaic and less common version of the title. Move it already. — Llywelyn II   22:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)