Talk:Zuo Zhuan

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Textual history of the Zuozhuan
Can anyone tell me about the textual history of the Zuozhuan. What is the earliest xylograph, what are the extant manuscripts, which is the earliest, etc. etc. I would love to see some of this information incorporated into the article. Tibetologist (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Duke?
It's not clear what a duke is in this context. Wakablogger2 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky one since, based on your comment, a trailer something like "one of the five orders of nobility in ancient China" should be added to every Duke of this period and there are an awful lot of them. My view is that people reading up in this area well soon become familiar with the titles used and we should leave things as they stand. Philg88 (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not really "duke" anyway because the Chinese title gong 公 is used to refer to a deceased lord of any rank. See C.N. Tay, “On the Interpretation of kung (Duke?) in the Tso-chuan,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 93.4 (1973): 550-55.--74.103.157.38 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * At this point, most early China specialists just say "lord."--108.16.230.212 (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Bilingual text of Zuo Zhuan
The presented bilingual text (as well as any other Legge translation appearing here) is actually Legge's translation to the chun qiu, not the zuo zhuan. The details from the zuo zhuan are only included in Legge's commentary together with details from other sources, his own conculsions and his own research notes. There are indeed places where he gives a full translation of the zuo zhuan's passeges, but it seems that he mostly gives the reader a digested version of what is written, and not a direct translation. The duke (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wrong, Legge included a complete translation of the Zuo. It is maddeningly interspersed in his notes, as you've observed, but the translation is complete (and amazingly accurate, considering his circumstances).--74.103.157.38 (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Missing references to three crucial books
Any discussion of Zuo zhuan has to take into account these three recent books:

SCHABERG, David. A Patterned Past: Form and Thought in Early Chinese Historiography. Harvard East Asian Monographs 205. Cambridge, Mass., and London, 2001.

PINES, Yuri. Foundations of Confucian Thought: Intellectual Life in the Chunqiu Period, 722-453 B.C.E. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002.

LI, Wai-yee. The Readability of the Past in Early Chinese Historiography. Harvard East Asian Monographs 253. Cambridge, Mass., 2007.--74.103.157.38 (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * the article is fine as is. These sorts of books tend to get into far-reaching and deep-level theoretical constructions and analyses that, in my experience, are not terribly useful when writing encyclopedic entries. I'll look at these and see if there's anything worth adding.  We might convert the translations to the new Schaberg/Lee/Durrant version soon once I look at that too.


 * At a minimum, they have to be cited as relevant books worth consulting. Wikipedia can't ordinarily afford to ignore scholarship on the grounds that it's too "far-reaching" or "deep-level."  You can't just leave the discussion of the textual history with Karlgren and Maspero, and dismiss everything in the decades since then as unnecessary theory and analysis.--74.103.157.38 (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia can't ordinarily afford to ignore scholarship on the grounds that it's too 'far-reaching' or 'deep-level.'"


 * It often has to. You may wish to familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia handles these issues, such as carefully reading WP:Reliable sources and WP:Notability.  The main standard treatments of Chinese literature (think the Cambridge volumes, Idema & Haft, Loewe, etc.) do not get into the details these books give, and so neither do we.  One must understand that Wikipedia articles are not textbook entries and are aimed at an educated but definitely non-specialist audience, and so we must be very judicious with the  scope of articles and details given.  For example: Schaberg's book is particularly good, but its discussions are mostly too erudite for the scope of a Wikipedia article, with the possible exception of the appendix.  An easy test of this is to look at Kern's review of it in the HJAS: of the material he discusses, only his analysis of its compilation could theoretically really fit into a general article on the Zuo zhuan. Pines' book has similar problems: it's not so much about the Zuo zhuan, but a deep dive into the intellectual and cultural features of the middle Zhou period, and contains a number of controversial interpretations.  These things are just not notable enough for inclusion in a Zuo zhuan article that usually gets less than 50 views per day in the first place.


 * When Schaberg, Li, & Durrant (2016) finally isn't back-ordered I'll peruse their introduction and see if they incorporate any of this material. I hope this makes things a bit more clear.    White Whirlwind  咨   05:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The Cambridge volumes, Loewe, etc. were all written before the three books that I listed, so that's irrelevant. Anyway, the bottom line is that if you guys think it's OK to leave the article with Karlgren and Maspero, then you're basically saying that the last eighty years of scholarship aren't even worth acknowledging (with the back-handed compliments that they're too "erudite" or "deep-level").  Li, in particular, has a very good summary, early in her book, of the competing positions and their strengths and weaknesses.  I'd recommend that over Karlgren and Maspero for any interested reader, specialist or not.--74.103.157.38 (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Please read carefully before you respond: the Cambridge volumes were not "all written before the three books [you] listed": the Literature volumes, in which is found Kern's excellent chapter, were published in 2010, after all three of the books you listed. If you are unable to accurately comprehend written information and make correct statements, I'm afraid you will find participating on Wikipedia to be quite difficult.


 * I appear not to have made myself sufficiently clear. Let's use your Maspero/Karlgren example.  Those lines were drawn from comprehensive, field-level sources that are widely known and accepted and aimed at a broad audience.  If a newer such source comes forth and achieves equal levels, then we will update appropriately.  Wikipedia is never a cutting-edge source, for reasons that it takes time for things to be published and academic consensus to broadly coalesce, and then itself be formulated by experts for a general audience.  Good Wikipedia editors are cautious and judicious here, for reasons explained at the policy pages I reference earlier, as well as as WP:Original research. I promise I will go and re-read Li's section you referenced: if it has formulations and material that is widely accepted and accords with the other major sources we have referenced, I will happily add it.  I hope this makes things clearer.   White Whirlwind  咨   10:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that all of these books are "widely accepted." In Wikipedia articles in the sciences, you don't wait decades for researchers to die before you decide that their work is "widely accepted."  You could certainly add the books by Pines and Schaberg to the "further readings" section.--108.16.230.212 (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Page needs moving
Even if we were adopting Chinglish orthography for English-language articles (which we shouldn't since actual pinyin guidebooks capitalize each word of titles and it jars so much with standard MOS capitalization rules that it will create constant makework removing "corrections"), the proper Chinese formatting for this name would be Zuozhuan as a single word. It needs to be restored there or back to its proper English capitalization as Zuo Zhuan, in place of the current mistake. — Llywelyn II   23:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hm.. or just to the English name Commentary of Zuo. This isn't a much-discussed volume in English but that seems to be the common English name by a wide margin on cursory googling. — Llywelyn II   23:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Why do your first two search results have the second word as "zhuang"? That is nonsensical, and I assume a typo on your part?  If not, please enlighten me.


 * There is no academic consensus on whether or not Zuo zhuan is to be rendered without a space. The new Durrant, Li, and Schaberg translation doesn't, but a number of other recent major sources (The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature, Knechtges' reference guide, etc.) do render it with a space.


 * Additionally, there is by no means any clear consensus on the translation of zhuan 傳 as "commentary" (the CHCL and the new translation referenced above, for example, use "Zuo Tradition"). In early uses like this, "transmission" is probably the most accurate, but it's problematic because of "transmission"'s new meanings in modern English, especially American English.


 * Finally, it is quite standard in Sinological literature to not capitalize literary titles' words/morphemes unless they are themselves proper names. Zuo zhuan is very common and acceptable (see seminal works referenced above).   White Whirlwind  咨   07:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The dilemma is that common academic practice is to only capitalize the first word in Chinese literary titles, which contradicts the Wikipedia guideline to capitalize all words of proper names. Removing the optional space would solve the issue nicely, at least in this case. By the way, great work bringing this important article to GA standard, White Whirlwind! -Zanhe (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * that's very kind of you to say, thanks.  White Whirlwind  咨   04:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead changes
Making this section so can describe the changes he wishes to make. It sounds like they might involve significant changes and/or additions to the current section on leads at MOS:CHINA, so maybe it would be better raised over there.  White Whirlwind  咨   17:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's very cute.


 * No, there are no changes involved. Just reread it. I know you're very helpful and active over there, but it would be nice if you didn't try to change the section on leads, since it's completely accurate and fits general guidelines: there's no need for including characters again when everything's already available to the curious in the infoboxes. That goes double for Chinese IPA that's only helpful to people who can already speak Chinese/read pinyin, which makes it superfluous. It belongs at Wiktionary and really shouldn't even be in the infoboxes. (Yeah, that can be my minority viewpoint. I'm certainly not removing it from any infoboxes, pending new policy.)


 * In any case, that's the general policy. If you think that the Wade version of this name is common enough in English, it might merit inclusion in the lead for that reason. (But it should be in the running text and bolded in that case.) We can also add a name section here if you really want to dig into it. Honestly, they're probably helpful for most Chinese articles, given the numerous romanizations and alt names there can be. — Llywelyn II   19:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As a sidenote, Zanhe agreed with the move to Zuozhuan mooted above. Did you have any arguments against it to add up there? or did you agree with him and we can get this fixed finally? — Llywelyn II   19:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why this is "very cute" – let's try to avoid snide comments here on WP (they're specifically mentioned at WP:Civility).


 * What exactly is the issue? Are you talking about 's "either/or" addition over there?  I just reread that section on the talk page the other day, and I have real doubts on its correctness, not to mention whether we have sufficient consensus on it.  I'd like to readdress that issue when I'm finished with final exam season.


 * I also do not understand why you claim that the "IPA [is] only helpful to people who can already speak Chinese/read pinyin", when the truth is almost exactly the opposite. The entire point of IPA is to make a word's pronunciation clear to those who do not already speak the language or know the romanization system in question.  For example: while a layperson would not know how to pronounce 左 or zuǒ correctly, the purely phonetic /tswò/ gives a more-or-less exact rendering.  IPA is our default phonetic system here on Wikipedia (see WP:PRON).


 * Regarding the naming issue – I responded with a number of counterarguments to which you never responded. Also, I'm not sure how 's noting of a "dilemma" constitutes "agreeing" with your position.  In any case, his note isn't valid, since Wikipedia's "guideline to capitalize all words of proper names" falls under the penumbra of WP:COMMONNAME, and thus the "common academic practice" supersedes this guideline.   White Whirlwind  咨   21:41, 6 December 2017‎

Requested move 28 June 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Zuo zhuan → Zuo Zhuan – Correct capitalisation, per Wikipedia guidelines (Manual of Style/Titles) of capitalising every word in a title (a book title in this case), and consistent with Gongyang Zhuan and Guliang Zhuan; all three are Confucian commentaries on the Spring and Autumn Annals which are usually grouped together, hence the relevance of the other two articles. Zuo Zhuan should be the main article and Zuo zhuan should redirect to it, not the other way around as is presently the situation. Scyrme (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Zuo Zhuan is the right capitalization to use on an English-language wiki. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It has long been the standard practice in the field to not capitalize the titles of Chinese works except for words that are themselves proper nouns.  White Whirlwind   04:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Searching on Google Scholar it looks like there are plenty of examples of "Zuo zhuan", "Zuo Zhuan", and "Zuozhuan". There are even examples where "Zuo zhuan" is used in the text but "Zuo Zhuan" is used in the title. This suggests to me that there is no universal standard and that capitalisation depends on the particular publisher's standards. If this is so, then I think Wikipedia's Manual of Style takes precedence here. Scyrme (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Outside academia, it also looks like published translations of the work that leave the title untranslated are sold as "Zuo Zhuan"; same seems to be true for untranslated Chinese texts sold to English-language markets. Since this is Wikipedia and not an academic journal, I think this is also something to consider. Scyrme (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As a note, if we were to apply the standard of "Zuo zhuan" on Wikipedia, then a lot of other articles are going to need renaming to conform to that standard, starting with the two other commentaries. Scyrme (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it some more and, regarding "except for words that are themselves proper nouns", since in the context of this article "Zuo Zhuan" is (perhaps arguably) a loan into in English, and not simply a transcription of Chinese as is the case with academic articles about the text which render it as "Zuo zhuan", then general English conventions apply; in English the entire title is itself a proper noun so should be capitalised. Scyrme (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that so? Searching on Google Scholar I can find plenty of examples of both conventions – some papers use title case; others use sentence case. I checked a few other English Wikipedia articles, like Tao Te Ching and Shuowen Jiezi, and they seem to use title case for these works. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Suggest RFC MOS:FOREIGNTITLE does not seem to discuss capitalization of transliterated names from non-Latin scripts that do not have capital letters. The evidence above also suggests there is no overwhelming pattern of use for some specific capitalization.  I can see arguments both ways. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 23:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Requests for comment and Requests for comment suggest RfC is not appropriate here since this about applying guidelines to a specific case. Although maybe someone should start a separate discussion with a RfC to clarify Wikipedia policy/guidelines regarding this issue more generally, idk. Scyrme (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was suggesting an RFC to clarify MOS:FOREIGNTITLE for non-Latin scripts, not at this page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 18:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support. Each word of the title should be capitalised per WP:PINYIN ("English Wikipedia uses pinyin as the default Romanisation method for Chinese characters") because, as Section 4.9.2 in this source points out, pinyin title cap rules are the same as English (i.e. "If a proper noun consists of two or more words, capitalize the first letter of each word.")  —  AjaxSmack  00:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per AjaxSmack's reference. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 03:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)