Talk:Spring and Autumn Annals of the Sixteen Kingdoms

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Books (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject China (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Changes and additionsEdit

Just a few questions:

  1. According to Otto Franke the name of Tu Qiaosun is written as 屠喬孫 and not as 屠本. So why reverting this twice without any explanation??
  2. Why reverting the addition Zizhi tongjian? There is a difference between main work and total number of works. According to the article Sima Guang he also wrote Leipian. Besides This author gives Zizhitongjian-Kaoyi 資治通鑑考異 as a seperate work. However, even if Sima Guang had written only one work, it is still useful to mention it. Not every reader is so well versed in Chinese historiography.
  3. extant as you used it twice sounds archaic, that is why I changed it into Extant to this day which makes its use a bit smoother. You know, sometimes changes in an article are just meant as an improvement.
  4. Why removing links from names like Cui Hong, Tu Qiaosun and He Tang? Maybe you do not know more about them at the moment, but you (or even someone else!) might do so in the future. This is what Wikipedia should be. Guss2 10:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. 屠本 was given in the journal I posted, so I prefered 屠本 over 屠喬孫, the zh-wiki given his name as 屠介孫, after further checking in the pdf, his name should be 屠喬孫.
  2. If that journal you posted was correct, then your addition[1] here would be wrong in that cases, what does that mean?
  3. Used twice and so? I asked you what's the different between the changes, not the reason. And no I only used once. We're all trying to imporve the article don't we?
  4. Instead of ranting over the article I had created and imporved which you seemed to be enjoying it. Why don't you created their own articles by the way (with sources of course). Don't stated to me what Wikipedia should be or should not, that's your view. Eiorgiomugini 12:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for answering! Don't feel insulted or attacked when I make a few remarks on this article. This is not what I want to achieve. It is even the other way around: wishing to write an article about 十六国 on Dutch wikipedia I was quite surprised finding an article on 十六国春秋, which wasn't there a few months ago, so yes I really enjoyed it. A remark like ranting is therefore way out of line here. The same goes for Why don't you created their own articles. I know what I am talking about. I simply prefer to write articles on Chinese history on Dutch wikipedia more than on English wikipedia. After writing I compare my article with English or other wikipedias and if there are differences or questions I like to solve them on the answering pages of those sides. There are, I presume, contributors like you, who know what they are talking about.
2. There remains a difference. You wrote the remaing 20 chapters were used by Sima Guang in his only work 資治通鑑, the article says he used it in 資治通鑑考異. I simply do not know if these are two different works, or 資治通鑑考異 is just a part of 資治通鑑. I assumed they were, that is why I added 資治通鑑.
3. It is just a matter of style, not a matter of right or wrong. I simply thought you would prefer an article written in smooth English. (By the way twice meant originally and after reverting).
4. This one you did not answer: Why not linking names like Cui Hong, Tu Qiaosun and He Tang? Yes they will be coloured red, but they may become blue in the future.

"Don't feel insulted or attacked when I make a few remarks on this article" Same goes to you, I am free to make any remarks as long as they are truth. Since you're not happy with it, you might had to stay away from me. "wishing to write an article about 十六国 on Dutch wikipedia I was quite surprised finding an article on 十六国春秋" I saw there is another dutch 十六国春秋 created by you on jul 9, why waited for 2 lousy mths before you decided to write one yourself? The 十六国春秋 was already available since May 8. "so yes I really enjoyed" You enjoyed waiting for 2 mths? I don't get it. "This is not what I want to achieve" So what do you wanna achieve? For dutch wikipedia? Does that even concern to the article here? "A remark like ranting is therefore way out of line here" I prefer to use the word ranting, I don't understand how are they out of line. "The same goes for Why don't you created their own articles" What's wrong with this comments by the way? I know what I am talking about too. " simply prefer to write articles on Chinese history on Dutch wikipedia more than on English wikipedia" So go ahead why bother to make those nasty remarks here and there? "After writing I compare my article with English or other wikipedias and if there are differences or questions I like to solve them on the answering pages of those sides." I am sorry, you will had to solve that yourself, usually I tend not to compare between different language version of wikipedia. If anybody has an interest on creating another side of article, so as a contributor like myself on this side must help them out?? Do you know you're wasting other time, and apparently these are two different version of wikipedias, you can't simply took the issues there to here.

  1. I am sorry, but had you ever read 资治通鉴 by the way? Or drawn any original research from it for your own? You assumed that they were part of the work and therefore what? "You wrote the remaing 20 chapters were used by Sima Guang in his only work 資治通鑑" I didn't wrote that didn't I? I wrote it was quoted by Sima Guang, that's all. What's wrong?
  2. Is the matter of style of your own I supposed. If you called that written in smooth English, which for me is no difference on your changes.
  3. "This one you did not answer" No I had answered anyway. If you do think they're important why don't created their articles and makes the link blue yourself, yes I hate red link, just a matter of style, not a matter of right or wrong. Eiorgiomugini 12:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Three questions remain puzzling me:
  1. Franke writes about the history of the version by 屠喬孫. He wrote the book appeared during Ming, but was published for the first time in 1781 by 汪日桂. According to Franke 汪日桂 states in his preface the work is made up from small parts from other books and a number of additions made by 屠喬孫. Do you know anything about this 汪日桂?
  2. When were the sixteen chapters in 漢魏叢 written? According to Franke they are the same as chapters 101-130 in 晉書. If that is the case can these sixteen chapters be traced back to the original work by 崔鴻 or do they form a seperate edition?
  3. You wrote: Also there is a 100 volumes edition from the late Qing Dynasty by Tang Qiu, taken from the edition by He Tang and from other materials. Do you know anything about those 'other materials'? Or is it just a new edition of the book originally written by 屠喬孫? Guss2 09:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. I not sure about Franke, does he read Chinese, or just based upon other studies that were made? The journal I posted said Tu edition was re-published for the third time in 1781 by 汪日桂 at least. So I guess 汪日桂 is not really the key figure for the history of Tu's edition. No, I do not know about him. "According to Franke 汪日桂 states in his preface" Do you have 汪日桂 original quote at hands or in his work, otherwise how are we gonna be sure that this guy actually interpreted correctly.
  2. There is no date given, but He's version were taken largely from Jinshu, it was not written but printed. And I don't believe that the sixteen chapters can be traced back to the original work, there is a debate since the Qing dynasty for the derive of his version. Only Tang Qiu agreed that these were original. Again, what's the point?
  3. The 'other materials' isn't stated, but He's version was the 底本 for his version. Eiorgiomugini 12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my last three remarks, Thou answers were helpful indeed. Even more thanks for writing that nice piece of prose, I feel honoured Thou were willing to spend so much time in answering me and analyzing things in such a sharp way and with such great amount of knowledge. It still makes me shiver. Just one question remains. Why reverting 屠喬孫 to 屠本 and calling it arbitrariness change (by the way a wonderful handling of English grammar, Thou are an asset on English wikipedia indeed) after Thou wrote down the following statement: after further checking in the pdf, his name should be 屠喬孫. Greetings Guss2 17:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)