Talk:Fuxi

Untitled

The traditional dates leave him as being 113 or 114 years old when he died - which seems hard to believe. Even if there are sources to support this, surely they must also state some scepticism. Could someone in the know add some relevant comments? Thanks, jguk 19:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

An age of 114 years is not outside of the realm of possiblity. However, since his existence was prior to the invention of writing (he is said to have played a role in inventing it), we will not likely get precision on this. Sunray 19:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

The traditional dates leave our flood survivor as being 950. I don't know why you're coming down on the Chinese for their "outlandishness" and naïveté. — LlywelynII 04:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

BC or BCE

Dates (eras) in this article

Jguk just reverted and changed the dates back to BC/AD. I had made them BCE/CE, which I believe is appropriate for this article.

Wikipedia guidelines are clear on the use of Eras in articles:

Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–AD 1 or 1 BCE–1 CE.

It is up to the author(s) of an article to determine the dating system to be used and there must be consistency with each article. In this case, for a non-Christian topic in a non-Christian region of the world, BCE/CE appears to make the most sense. However, it is advisable to get consensus on this talk page before proceeding. Note that articles on Buddhism and Taoism generally use BCE/CE notation. Comments? Sunray 19:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, especially since the original version of this article used BCE/CE and it remained that way for nearly two years before being changed. If it makes it more consistant with other articles of the same subject matter, I don't see why it should be opposed. Kaldari 19:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you are applying the wrong test, which should be what is best for readers; and in this case the article has been stable in its notation for at least eight months. Is there any reason to expect that this article would be read primarily by those US academics who prefer BCE/CE notation, rather than readers not familiar with the jargon? If there is, then perhaps BCE/CE would be best - but if there isn't, we should plump for terms everyone understands, jguk 20:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think your estimation of BCE/CE's obscurity as "jargon" is far overstated. It is true that BC/AD is used far more often, however, it is not at all uncommon for people (even non-academics) to use BCE/CE when talking about non-Christian religious topics (which is what BCE/CE was ostensibly created for). In most cases I would agree with you that it is better to use BC/AD, but in this case I disagree. If BCE/CE is so incredibly obscure, why are people creating articles using it? Regardless of whether it is "PC" or not, people use it (especially regarding subjects such as Buddhism, Judaism, and Taoism). Trying to wipe it out of existance on Wikipedia is POV-pushing. Kaldari 21:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I can only speak about the usage I've seen - which is throughout many parts of the UK, predominantly in the South East, where the bulk of the population is. I can honestly say I've never ever seen BCE/CE notation used (outside of the internet), except in a small number of books imported from America. I'm happy to believe that usage is different in your part of the world - though I do not believe usage of BCE/CE is common worldwide, amongst the general public. I understand it is virtually unknown in India, and where a few people have used it in Australia, it has caused a small outrage (angry questions in parliament, etc.). Incidentally, the only mention of it in the British parliament was in 1999 (I think) when a wag said to a bishop, who had the floor, that he understood BCE/CE would soon replace BC/AD soon. That was six or so years ago - and nothing's really happened since then to make BCE/CE more commonplace amongst the general public. In short, maybe BCE/CE notation is relatively common where you are in the world - you're clearly a better judge of that than me, but it certainly isn't in common usage in most of the world, jguk 21:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

BCE/CE is hardly obscure, but whether it is or not, the Manual of Style explicitly allows it. What's more, there appears to be a consensus on this page and in the edit history for one style, except for one editor reverting to a different one. I will put it back to what a couple of editors have indicated is the original. Jonathunder 22:23, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

What do you mean it's hardly obscure? It's just not used here in the UK - I have never even seen a British English style guide that even refers to the notation (even to dismiss it). I believe it is virtually unheard of in India - rare in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Even what the notation actually meant was not even taught in UK schools until 2002! Now I do not know how common the notation is in Tennessee and Minnesota, but I do know it is obscure outside North America (and to such an extent that most people do not even know what the notation means). We are a worldwide encyclopaedia, not an American one. And incidentally, the article has been stable in using BC notation for the last eight or so months, so what's the problem now? jguk 22:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The style guide for the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha is a British publication (University of Durham, UK) which recommends the use of BCE/CE. As for your other contentions, they may be true, but I can't imagine that too many people looking up information on an obscure figure in Taoist philosophy will be completely unfamiliar with BCE/CE. Kaldari 22:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha (which is, I'm sure you'll except, not in general circulation amongst the British public) has an American publisher and an editorial board with an American majority. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of the two people listed as being from the University of Durham is American (although I only have the names to guess by), jguk 07:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The taly on changing to BCE/CE for this article:

• Approve: Kaldari, Johnathunder, Sunray (also Maurreen, who didn't comment on the talk page, but did indicate a preference for BCE/CE in her recent edit.
• Oppose: Jguk

That represents greater than 66% in favour, thus we have consensus to change to BCE/CE. I request Jguk to please abide by this vote. Sunray 22:28, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sunray, the guideline is on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), which says the notation should not have changed. The way the most recent vote is going shows that the community does not support an article-by-article approach, but prefers a global approach. So we are left with the MoS guidelines. I suggest we all stick to this guideline until such a time as an alternative gains consensus (which doesn't appear to be any time soon), jguk 07:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Where does the guideline say that the notation should not be changed? Sunray 16:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Jguk -- Grow up. Maurreen 07:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen, as you are a stickler for guidelines, I'd have thought encouraging compliance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and Wikipedia:No personal attacks would have been up your street, but alas no. Apparently disagreeing with your attempt (last September, for crying out loud!, to insert an extraneous comma in "September 11, 2001 attacks") is worthy of constant harrassment by you. Perhaps it is you who should grow up, or at least get over it, jguk 07:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Jguk: I'm confused about your explanation for reverting from BCE to BC. Your edit summary at 23:04, July 25, 2005 says "reverting changes made contrary to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) - please follow established WP guidelines". Your comment above says we should stick to the MoS guidelines. Please explain where we are not following the guidelines. We have consistent dating as to eras and a majority of editors who have commented on this page have agreed with BCE/CE. What's the problem? Sunray 16:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Jguk is not following consensus here, and I wish this date style crusade would stop. Jonathunder 16:50, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

The guidelines are clear - no-one should change articles that consistently use the one notation. And that is exactly what SouthernComfort has done here. You will also be aware of a proposal to change the guideline so that on each page we can have a separate discussion on the point - and likewise aware of its impending failure. I just wish this BCE/CE lobby - which so likes to politic and stick two fingers up at our readers - would abide by the current rules instead of this constant sniping and attempts to get one over on the community.

What you are doing is disrespectful to the WP community (who have been asked to give their views to your proposals many times recently, and have rejected them at each turn). It is disrespectful to the reader, as you seem to prefer to take a political stance yourself rather than use terminology that everyone in the world understands. And you are disrespectful to me by making offensive accusations and claims which already have been dismissed by the ArbCom.

At what point will you stop? You have a number of community wide votes against your viewpoint. You can see that those who support you are from a very narrow area of the world. You know changes similar to those you have made have caused offence throughout the world - questions in both chambers of the New South Wales parliament, angry letters to newspapers in Britain - but that doesn't bother you as long as you can politic away.

I really struggle to fathom your motives. Do we not write for the benefits of others? Surely if you want to write for yourself you keep a diary, you don't contribute to an encyclopaedia? And yet you prefer to alienate potential readers from outside North America (and many within it)? Elsewhere in WP, if there are two usages, one used nine times more frequently (based on google searches, which will be biased towards US academia here), surely we use the most frequent usage. It's perverse to do anything else.

So please stop this silly campaign, which has wasted all our time. We have a guideline - it's a compromise (which no-one will say is ideal) - but it's a guideline all the same. ArbCom has already specifically ordered half a dozen or so of us to abide by that guideline, with a clear message that others should follow that guideline too. I have been doing this assiduously for months now. Please follow it yourself! jguk 17:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

>The guidelines are clear - no-one should change articles that consistently use the one notation.

Perhaps you are referring to your arbitration decision, as I can find no such guideline in the MoS. In your arbitration decision, however, it was declared that: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."

In this case the article was originally in BCE/CE. When half of it was changed to BC/AD this was an inappropriate edit. The original edit, however, went unnoticed until you changed the other half of the article for consistency. Sunray then changed the notation back to the original usage to be consistent with other Taoism articles. Whether or not that constituted a "substantial reason" is debatable. But rather than debate the merits of the change, you decided to wage an edit war. Of course at this point we are all guilty of violating the above mandate, but you, by far, have violated it more than anyone else, and in a completely unilateral fashion. Kaldari 18:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the edit history, it was Jguk himself who originally changed the article (which was started using BCE/CE and used BCE/CE consistently) to BC/AD here [1], which is quite clearly against policy. I would assume his continued reversions are just more trolling. Sortan 18:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Jguk: I asked a simple question and I got, in return, a great deal of verbiage laced with Ad hominem comments. I do not wish to get into the issues about who is on what kind of campaign, nor even what votes have been taken with what results. I am only concerned with existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please point me to the line in the guideline on dates and numbers that says that editors may not change notation. Sunray 18:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute... Jongarrettuk is jguk!!! Thank you for this clarification. I regret having wasted so much time feeding the troll. Kaldari 18:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Jongarrettuk and JGUK are sock puppets of each other? What a surprise.

WP:ERA

As pointed out in the hullabaloo above, this edit established the usage of the page as BCE/CE. Kindly maintain it consistently, barring a new consensus. — LlywelynII

Cease-fire on eras

I've suggested a cease-fire on eras, at the Village pump. Maurreen (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Spelling of I Ching

The I Ching spelling is so well known in English that to use pinyin in this instance serves only to confuse. -- TheEditrix2 16:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC), a 13-year China resident

2012 misspelled it!--刻意(Kèyì) 12:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

But they still knew what it was. — LlywelynII 01:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Spelling of Fu Hsi

Article is inconsistent in spelling of Xi/Hsi. Because the article is primarily listed under the latter spelling, I'm changing all but the first reference to the primary spelling. If someone wishes to swap the entire article out to the Pinyin spelling, I won't care. But consistency requires a change one direction or t'other. -- TheEditrix2 16:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree pinyin should use. LDHan 14:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What makes Po Xi so special?

Fu Xi is known by many names, but what makes Po Xi so special? Hanfresco 05:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Real mausoleum?

There is a place with a photo in Google Earth called "Fu Xi Mausoleum" in English, labeled 太昊陵午朝门 in Chinese. But if Fu Xi is a mythical emperor how does he have a real mausoleum? Who is buried there? Wnt (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's morely that the one buried in there is not Fu Xi. Many ancient mausoleums before CE are of more nominal sense. They may be real ancient tombs but may not contain the one they are labelled with. However, for this particular mausoleum, if Fu Xi is not in there, then it is a mistake made more than two thousand years ago when in Spring &Autumn Times, this mausoleum was already delicated to him. However, nobody in China cares to verify this; what they only care is to have a right place to worship one of their farmost ancestors. Btw, just notice that there's no entry in English Wiki for this mausoleum.Chrisliu (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there's a FuXi Temple in TianShui; I'm not sure how significant it is wrt FuXi: http://www.travelchinaguide.com/picture/gansu/tianshui/ --Bobbozzo (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Enoch

According to the Figurists, Fu Xi was an incarnation of Enoch. This could maybe be added after proper sourcing. ADM (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

12000 BCE Date in Intro?

Where does the 12000 BCE date come from in the introductory paragraph? Is this simply a nod to the notion that the legend is rooted in the neolithic period, or is there some reason to give that extremely early date in this paragraph and then to mention him as emperor who ruled around 2600 BCE later on in the article? Or is this just a typo? Thanks Rowenrye~enwiki (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hua Hsu

is presumably Wade and should be changed to pinyin. There should also be an article and the current far less notable "Hua Hsu" article about a current figure should be dabbed with the Chinese god... assuming of course that there even was such a figure in Chinese mythology. — LlywelynII 16:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Alt names

Another alt romanization was Fu-hi, as at Schoff, Wilfred Harvey, ed. (1912), Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, Philadelphia: Commercial Museum, p. 263. It's so outdated it shouldn't really go in the lead; the {{Chinese}} infobox doesn't really have a "missionary/alt romanization" section; but it could go into a #Name section or a footnote somewhere for people leafing through old books. — LlywelynII 16:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

~

The cutesy ~ formatting in the lead apparently dates to a student editor last year. It should be removed and returned to the previous format, although the variant characters could go into the infobox. They don't even need to be separate altnames. Just use <br> commands in the |c= field. — LlywelynII 05:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)