Talk:Kong Rong

Birthplace

"Kong Rong was born in the former State of Lu." Can someone specify the birthplace? Sarazyn • TALK • DE 12:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

少府

I feel "Chamberlain for Palace Revenues" is the best translation for 少府, because I feel Charles Hucker's Dictionary of Official Titles of Imperial China is the most authoritative source for English translation of Chinese official titles. It is a massive work of almost 700 pages, 100 of which detail the bureaucratic system of each dynasty, and could be described as Hucker's life work. It was published in 1985, five years after Hans Bielenstein's The Bureaucracy of Han Times, and Hucker takes Bielenstein's titles under advisement, so the Hucker dictionary could be said to supersede Bielenstein.

In this paper linked on User:Deadkid_dk/WP3K_stuff, an undated and unpublished list of proposed official title translations compiled by Jack Dull follows Bielenstein in proposing "Privy Treasurer" for 少府. Hucker acknowledges Dull's contributions in his preface on p vii, and since Dull's work was never published it could be said that the Hucker dictionary also supersedes that.

The translation of 少府 as "Minister Steward" cites Rafe de Crespigny's 2006 Biographical Dictionary of the Later Han to the Three Kingdoms, a worthy chronological continuation of Michael Loewe's 2000 Biographical Dictionary of the Qin, Former Han, and Xin, but I don't know to what lengths de Crespigny went to systematise his titles. I don't have access to this book.

Hucker's translations could be said to have a weakness in that as long as the administrative function of a position didn't change, he kept the title the same, so "Chamberlain for Palace Revenues" is the translation of this title from the Qin to just before the Sui. Also, Hucker's dynasty of concentration was Ming, whereas de Crespigny has spent his life working with the Later Han and Three Kingdoms periods, but I still feel a moderate inclination that Hucker's systematic effort should be the standard. Snuge purveyor (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

But many Three Kingdoms articles on Wikipedia are currently using de Crespigny's translations. Shouldn't there be some form of standardization? It'll be messy and confusing to readers if different sets of translations are used. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 08:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If de Crespigny style title translations are already the standard in 三國-era English wikipedia articles, I suppose we might as well follow them, since a standard of any quality is better than a mix of systems, and de Crespigny's work is the foremost material available to English speakers who are unable to deal with primary texts. I'll revert my last edit so that 少府 is translated as "Minister Steward"; maybe someplace can be found to discuss this outside of talk pages. Apparently even Government of the Han Dynasty follows de Crespigny and Bielenstein. Snuge purveyor (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think this issue about standardizing translations in English Wikipedia articles on Chinese history should be brought to greater attention in the Wikipedia community. I've seen other editors using their own translations. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 10:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've set up a reference and discussion page to address this topic at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chinese_history/Translation_of_Han_Dynasty_titles. I would be grateful for your perusal and input. Snuge purveyor (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)