User:Waldgrave/sandbox

= Wikipedia Preparatory Assignment = This wikipedia prep assignment is intended to provide a general look on three entries and to conclude with a discussion about opportunities and challenges that come from writing in Wikipedia about modern Chinese Philosophy.

Chen Duxiu
This entry provides a holistic view of Chen Duxiu’s chronology, biography, literature, and intellectual contributions and disputes. Most information, clearly cited, extends to literature, communities, people and thinking that are crucial or related to Chen’s life, providing a good directory and expanding the scope. After reading the entire entry thoroughly, individual readers should be more capable of relating Chen’s influences and contributions to the development of modern Chinese philosophy and associating Chen to Chinese revolutionary socialist and Chinese Communist Party. I deeply appreciate that the Chinese names are included after significant literature and thinking. For instance, “爱国心与自觉/愛國心與自覺” is included after “Self Consciousness on Patriotism”. As many readers accessing this entry might be able to read in Chinese or care about the translational differences between Chinese and English, including Chinese texts in the English version becomes very useful to deliver the information and the difference. Only a small number of names, such as Tokyo Jiayin Magazine, are not cited or included with their names in original texts.

Chinese Philosophy
This entry helps readers to construct a basic overview of some most influential Chinese philosophical schools. It presents continuity and changes in Chinese philosophy chronologically. Not all important entries mentioned are attached to its name in Chinese. For instance, "Hundred Schools of Thought" is not followed by 諸子百家. The entry effectively presents all important categories in general. However, the English version does not include how Chinese philosophy is treated and the translational issue arisen from "ZheXue" (哲学/哲學) and "philosophy". The latter is briefly mentioned in the Chinese version of this entry. I agree with the necessity of labeling 中國哲學 as Chinese philosophy but also believe that this entry should include the fact that the term philosophy had not been used until the late 19th century. Besides, the content of Concepts within Chinese philosophy lacks references and citations and thus lacks accuracy and reliability.

Three Obediences and Four Virtues
This entry offers a basic explanation of what three obediences and four virtues are. The English version assigns “feminine” in the more detailed breakdown, a reasonable yet potentially misleading approach because femininity is not assigned in Chinese.The scope of this entry is also limited because it does not delve into the history of this concept, its development and how it has been treated differently in the history. Besides, I find some descriptions, phrased in a too casual style, lack references and further discussions, such as “Even Chinese prostitutes in Ancient China followed this code to be defined as feminine. Some imperial eunuchs and modern gay men are also heavily influenced by these principles and rules, both observing them themselves and also enforcing and policing these behaviors in imperial harems, aristocratic households and society at large.”

I was intended to search Three Bonds and Five Constant virtues (三纲五常/三綱五常) but did not find an English Wikipedia page for this entry. Thus I approached Three Obediences and Four Virtues (三从四德/三從四德), a set of moral values that are related to three bonds and five constant virtues.

Brief Discussion
One of the biggest challenges stems from the great difference between English and Chinese languages. Appending the original Chinese term is necessary not only for a more accurate understanding but also for people who potentially learn or understand Chinese to trace back the origins of the terms. However, for those who only read English or other non-Chinese languages, the misunderstanding due to the huge difference between languages seems inevitable and thus brings challenges into writing Wikipedia about modern Chinese philosophy.

The other issue lies in the debate that to what extent the English page editor should alter the perspective when they write pages related to modern Chinese philosophy. Some issues might be an issue for Chinese or someone who is familiar with Chinese but not necessarily significant for others. Whether these issues should be included into English Wikipedia pages remains to be answered and might vary case by case. However, English readers have to be aware of the potential limitation of the pages they read, a problem that in fact exists in any scenario when one reads about something linguistically foreign in their own language.

What is more, it is possible that those who write English Wikipedia pages on modern Chinese philosophy might include their own misunderstandings or bias when they write the pages. They might also include examples that are included in order to help foreign readers better understand the content but not necessarily accurate. This type of mistakes can be lessened or eliminated by other editors. However, it would be less effective to construct a detailed, thorough and accurate entry.