Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xizi


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Improvements relating to content can take place outside of AfD Eddie891 Talk Work 13:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Xizi

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I can't find its chinese name for this article. The closest that I can find is Xici(繫辭), but it cannot translate as Xizi in pinyin. Ghrenghren (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and China. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly could be a hoax with the references. Also pinging User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the original creator. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. English-language sources:  The book notes: "Xizi: A book of the fifth century bce I Ching (see Yijing), which was in all likelihood composed by scholars not in sympathy with prevailing Daoist (see Daoism) thought. The book stresses mythology such as that of the emperor-god Fuxi (see Fuxi, Chinese Emperors)."  The book notes: "The ten commentaries are (i–iv) Xiang zhuan 象傳 ("Treatise on the Symbols," which explains the trigrams composing the 64 hexagrams of the Changes); (v–vi) Da zhuan 大傳 (the "Great Commentary," a general treatise on the Changes—also known as the Xizi 繫辭, or the "Appended Judgments"); ..."  Chinese-language sources: </li> <li></li> <li> Xici is the same as Xizi. It is a different transliteration of the same Chinese term. The abstract notes: "There exists three levels of the ideal personality, i.e., gentleman, sage, saint, in Xici of I-Ching. The gentleman, who has been nurtured in the moral training, doesn’t have to be a winner, but he achieves his cause if the world is in peace and prosperity, and retires if in chaos. The sage has both talent and virtue, experiences the qian-tao so as to achieve the virtue, and uses the kun-tao to help the king for achievement. The saint, who owns the extraordinarily talent-virtue such that to explore and know the mystery, has been aware of the raising of the heaven and earth, and benefit the world by his high skill. From the gentleman to the saint, the higher the level of the ideal personality is, the closer the relation between the virtue and success is, and more thorough the achievement of the train’ goal and attribution for the society will be."</li> <li></li> </ol></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Xici or Xizi to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * The page should be moved to Xici, shouldn't it? The character 辞/辭 is transliterated cí in pinyin, not zi in any major transliteration system as far as I know. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a good catch. The transliteration is cí according to wikt:辭, so I agree with moving the page to Xici. Cunard (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

<ul><li>Comment: Here are two more English-language sources about Xici:<ol> <li> The article notes: "Although the commentaries are themselves composite and sometimes fragmentary, and certainly belong to a much later period than the manual itself, portions of them are hugely important as a summary statement of an early Chinese cosmology that has had a persisting influence on the Chinese sense of its world. One of these commentaries, the Xici 繋辭, also called the Great Commentary 大傳, is perhaps the most important source we presently have for exploring early Chinese cosmology. Given that a silk manuscript version of it dating from 168 BCE was found at the Mawangdui site in Changsha in 1973, we have at least a terminus ad quem for its compilation."</li> <li> The book notes in the "Introduction" chapter: ""Treatise on the Appended Remarks" (Xici zhuan 繫辭傳), also called the "Great Treatise" (Dazhuan 大傳), in two parts (not divided according to hexagrams). This is the most philosophically rich appendix and was enormously influential in the Song-dynasty (960–1279) revival of Confucianism that Zhu Xi systematized." The book notes: "The Xici zhuan— also called the Dazhuan 大傳 (Great treatise) — comprises two of the "Ten Wings" (shiyi 十翼), or appendixes, of the Yijing. As is well known, it was one of the chief sources of ideas and terminology for the Song- dynasty revival of Confucianism. It is a composite work by unknown authors, probably written primarily in the third century BCE; that is, shortly before the Qin conquest in 221 BCE, judging from its similarities to other texts of that period, especially the "Syncretist" chapters of the Zhuangzi. The two references to the Xici in the Shiji 史記 (Historical records, ca. 100 BCE), by Sima Tan 司馬談 and Sima Qian 司馬遷, are the earliest known references to the text. Considering how heavily the Song revivalists of Confucianism relied upon the Xici, it may strike some readers as surprising how little of it is identifiably Confucian in content."</li> </ol>Cunard (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)</li></ul> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per sources identified by, particularly Ames' assessment. Moving to Xici (while leaving a redirect from Xizi, given the usage in the Tucker and Leeming sources) seems appropriate. AllyD (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Cunard. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve per Cunard. Sources exist for this very historic book. Archrogue (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * The article of A Dictionary of Asian Mythology is not Xici:
 * "which was in all likelihood composed by scholars not in sympathy with prevailing Daoist (see Daoism) thought": See the 4th Chinese-language sources given by Cunard. Most researchers believe it is a Confucian work, and some scholars think it is a Taoist work. But I've never heard anyone think this work is for against the prevailing Daoism.
 * "The book stresses mythology such as that of the emperor-god Fuxi": Xici had mentioned Fuxi, but the main point of Xici is not Fuxi.
 * The Book by John Allen mentioned Xici (繫辭) as Xizi, but it looks like a typo. I can't any other book using Xizi to mention Xici, and 繫辭 cannot translate as Xizi in Chinese or Japanese.
 * Xici is no doubt to meet Notability, people have studied it for nearly two thousand years. but the title and context of the article are totally nonsense. Just rewrite it. Ghrenghren (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.