1268:
the political science who works on the
Declaration and other early American texts, and whom I do not know personally, described the article as "fascinating" and the evidence as "circumstantial but very weighty." CWH is right that the connection between knowledge about China, on the one hand, the Founding Fathers and the Enlightenment generally on the other is very well established, and to me the virtue of raising any particular instance of this, where-ever it is relevant, is to direct people toward that larger point, which should help break down false and dangerous barriers between the people of different nations. It certainly does belong on the page for the United States Declaration of Independence, but that one was semi-locked. I appreciate all of your care about this!
106:
621:
617:
42:
96:
75:
1153:(Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1993), pp. 95-97, which quotes Herlee Glessner Creel comparing Jefferson and Confucius; links Jefferson and Franklin’s knowledge of China to their connection to the Physiocrats, whose use of the Shujing could be discussed in the article more extensively; and traces Jefferson’s knowledge of Chinese Classics (though not specifically the Shujing). So this specific possibility is entirely possible, sourced, and stated reasonably.
1457:) have overlooked an important aspect, that is, "Influence Outside China" (I named the section here "Influence in the West," but probably that should be changed). Of course, this Talk Page is not the place to make such a suggestion. I bring it up for your consideration and to suggest that it is not always good to dismiss a new point without considering all aspects – or, to adapt the advice of improv comedians, avoid saying “no” instead of “
208:
198:
180:
292:"Thy sovereign goodness is infinite. As a potter, Thou hast made all living thing. Thy sovereign goodness is infinite. Great and small are sheltered . As engraven on the heart of Thy poor servant is the sense of Thy goodness, so that my feelings cannot be fully displayed. With great kindness Thou dost bear us, and not withstanding our shortcomings, dost grant us life and prosperity."
33:
282:"Of old in the beginning, there was the great chaos, without form and dark. The five elements had not begun to revolve, nor the sun and moon to shine. You, O Spiritual Sovereign, first divided the grosser parts from the purer. You made heaven. You made earth. You made man. All things with their reproducing power got their being".
1375:
fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or
914:
The problem with surveying the contents first is that it would be implicitly focussed on the New Text chapters only, before the New/Old Text distinction had been introduced. That distinction is fundamental to any discussion of this work, though perhaps there could be less emphasis on the controversy
1427:
Further: I’m not sure which part of the section is referenced or what to make of the comment that “There are not, as far as I am aware, any major scholarly works that discuss any of the supposed influences or connections,” or that “The Jesuit bit isn't really influence either – more interpretation,
757:
The key word is "may". The "expert source" i.e. Nylan (2001) is talking in speculative terms, using "possibly" and "may" ("can possibly date much earlier than Qin unification in 221 BC, and some may postdate unification"). There is nothing concrete about them. Its fine to include these sources, but
1267:
Thanks,all, for this discussion and explanation for me, a newbie. I appreciate particularly CWH's reading the article and vouching for my scholarship, because it seems intellectually wrong to dismiss something as completely speculative before one has read the evidence. Just this week, a scholar of
893:
Kanguole – you did: you deleted it from the lead, which was my whole point. In any case, thank you for fixing it. I agree with
Sevilledade that the "controversy" paragraph is currently too prominent in the lead. Not to sound like broken record, but my original arrangement had it as the final lead
353:
Should the "classics" (yi jing, shu jing, shi jing, li ji) not all have a consistent title? At the moment we have: Shi Jing, Book of Rites, Book of
History, and I Ching. That's two English, one pinyin, and one Wade-Giles. I don't understand the logic there. If no one objects, can we change them all
1395:
The argument, we seem to agree, is “speculative.” But we are not forbidden to speculate. A “speculation” is defined by my
American Heritage Dictionary (3rd) as 1) To meditate on ... reflect. 2) To engage in a course of reasoning based on inconclusive evidence.” The section “Synonyms” distinguishes
1315:
The Jesuit bit isn't really influence either – more interpretation, and pretty marginal at that. It's common for missionaries (especially the
Jesuits) to draw parallels between local traditions and scripture, but there's nothing to suggest it affected their worldview (especially back in Europe).
777:
I don't think there's any doubt that Nylan and
Shaughnessy are respected authorities in the field. The uncertainty they describe is an accurate reflection of scholarship on this text – the concreteness you want just doesn't exist. Our policy is quite clear that we should prefer such secondary
1405:
Thomas
Jefferson was among those Americans who admired Chinese classics, especially through their connection with the French physiocrats when he lived in France. An American scholar notes that the structure of King Wu's "Grand Pronouncement" parallels that of the United States Declaration of
649:
It's true that the counts on Google searches are commonly huge overestimates (but ngrams give accurate numbers). Another approach is to just look through the Google books search for "the Book of
Documents"; I got to page 8 before I found one that wasn't talking about the Chinese classic.
1001:
I made a change that suggests a relation to the
Declaration of Independence. This was based on an extensively-researched academic article that underwent double-blind peer review. I don't think it is up to you (whoever you may be) to override that scholarly judgement. Can we discuss?
831:
s contents now means the "Contents" section isn't represented at all in the lead (other than the simple number of chapters), which goes against the fundamental purpose of leads themselves. If you wanted to trim it down, that's fine, but completely removing it was excessive.
680:
1237:): I can't imagine how this completely speculative content could warrant inclusion in this article. There are not, as far as I am aware, any major scholarly works that discuss any of the supposed influences or connections, and I can't see why we would here.
1429:
1396:“speculation” from “conjecture,” which implies “without sufficient evidence,” or “surmise,” based on intuition, while “speculation” implies a “process of reasoning based on inconclusive evidence,” e.g. scientists speculate on the origins of the universe.”
531:
1191:. That is extremely weak support for the claim. So we have a conjectur of a connection which the author describes as "possible, but not proven or even provable", and which no-one else seems to have run with. I can't imagine this material in the
762:
reference gave a concrete date in which the readers can easily see. The whole point of an encyclopedia article is to present different perspectives. They don't necessarily contradict each other, but it is simply an opinion of that particular
606:
I don't feel particularly strongly but since I've contributed to this page I just wanted to see that the best and most accurate outcome was being found. I'm having trouble figuring out a methodology to get a good answer. Look at this search for
978:
Demonstrates how the
Tsinghua bamboo slips, together with quotations from the classic of rites and Guo Yu, indicate that Confucius edited version of the book of documents is actually the old text, more than it indicates that the old text is a
868:
I didn't delete the paragraph – I moved it to the Contents section, because it contained detail not present in the body of the article. But sure, the lead should include a brief summary of the contents, though not down to the chapter level.
476:
1062:
and the Declaration of Independence has not achieved any significant acceptance in the scholarly community (Google Scholar identifies only one minor citation of it), and in any case is not notable enough for inclusion in the main
594:
1494:
Certainly the issue is not fringe, but rather due weight. Is this speculation a "significant viewpoint"? I would say not, given that it it so thinly supported and no-one else has picked up on it. In a huge literature on the
878:
A major problem with the recent arrangement of the article is that almost the entire lede and the focal point has become about the "controversy". For a general article not specifically about controversy, it shouldn't be that
739:
An additional problem is that it differs from the better sources by giving an end-date of the 4th century BC for the New Text chapters, when Shaughnessy (1993) and Nylan (2001) say some may postdate the Qin unification. Per
1057:
content as they receive in the community of experts and scholars at large. While I'm sure you did some nice research for your article, the identification of some possible similarities or influences between a chapter of the
333:, This translation by Damascene is from a prayer in a book of Ming era. Matteo Ricci has arrived to china during the Ming era, so if this is indeed a translation of a chinese text, it might be a christian-influenced text.
1399:
The problem is to give background in few enough words as to maintain Due Weight (the present paragraph is 89 words, out of an article total of c. 2,000). I would be happy to see the text re-phrased as something like
1148:
The section puts forth an idea that has legs – that Enlightenment thinkers looked East. Of the works I have here at home, I quickly found that Jefferson’s knowledge of China is discussed in Alfred Owen Aldridge.
805:
I believe Kanguole probably has the right idea here. Regardless of how unclear the Nylan source is (whether or not he and Shaughnessy are correct, which I personally doubt, is moot here), I don't think the
827:
As long as I'm here, though, I'd like to voice my dissatisfaction with Kanguole's revision of the two lead paragraphs I wrote. Specifically, the complete removal of the paragraph summarizing the
1862:
1538:
We are to treat "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", but in this case the issue isn't even remotely "significant". There is no major treatment of the
1306:
of the two texts can be pedagogically useful in history classes." To place this in a section entitled "Influences on Modern Thought" or "Influence in the West" is completely unjustified.
1091:
I hope this makes the reasons for my revert clearer. There are a few other China experts on here who would, I'm sure, be happy to respond to any other concerns or questions you might have.
1053:
that is germane here. The community-defined Knowledge policies instruct us to be careful with the content of articles so that we only give as much weight to novel, unusual, or otherwise
620:
I'm trying to get out all the words related to the Chinese version to find out how many other ways "Book of documents" is used. But the results are highly misleading. But now look at the
618:"the Book of Documents" -"china" -"chinese" -"chou" -"shi" -"zhouyi" -"wu" -"chuang" -"kung" -"zhuangzi" -"karlgren" -"shu" -"confucian" -"tao" -"confucius" (last page of search result)
1598:
778:
sources to tertiary ones, particularly those as limited as the anonymous 170-word entry in the MW encyclopedia. You also haven't presented any argument for retaining the quotation.
957:
Why is it important that the character 誥 appears on bronze vessels, when we have the same word being written with 告 on the oracle bones? That seems more about paleography than text.
894:
paragraph before Kanguole went to work, and I would suggest reverting it to that position. I think that would solve the problem... which shouldn't have existed in the first place.
505:
1842:
593:
Remember that ngrams are case-sensitive, while the Google books searches aren't. I don't see many occurrences of "the Book of Documents" (with that capitalization) in
1857:
1024:
Hi, and welcome to Knowledge. You may wish to familiarize yourself with the some of the rules, practices, and guidelines here prior to editing. The major ones are
152:
1760:
1756:
1742:
1650:
1646:
1632:
354:
to "Book of..."? I suppose I Ching is simple: Book of Changes, but what about Shi Jing? Book of Odes, Songs, Poems? I prefer Odes. Is someone able to do this? --
789:
The argument for retaining the quotation was that the encyclopedia has given a precise date, which can be useful to readers, whereas the other authors didn't.--
287:"Thou hast vouchsafed, O Di, to hear us for, Thou regardest us as a Father. I, Thy child, dull and unenlightened, am unable so show forth the dutiful feelings".
1073:" chapter, though such an article does not exist (and probably does not warrant existence due to a lack of notability, as given in the Notability guidelines).
530:
Note that ngrams distinguish case but the ordinary Google books search doesn't. The ngram can be slightly refined by adding "the" at the front of each name.
1499:, it is one article, and equivocal about the claim at that. The proportional prominince would round to zero in a considerably longer article than this one.
406:". If you feel English culture as a whole isn't consistent... well, it's not. As for Wiki policy, you can try to change it or move on to getting a job with
659:
Yeah; I noticed that, too. Without other compelling evidence, I would say this is the most appropriate title for the page. Sorry for the post-move drama!
1119:, for bringing up a topic for discussion and giving us the push to get things right. Your explanation in response is exemplary in avoiding a charge of
627:- it says there are 7,770 results! There were in fact only 201 results. I'm not sure if all the searches are plagued with false information like that.
1832:
1827:
1192:
1599:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110725180238/http://news.tsinghua.edu.cn/publish/newsen/6057/2011/20110304172109458964142/20110304172109458964142_.html
1406:
Independence. She speculates that Jefferson could have read Gaubil's translation and, although it is not provable, that it influenced him. (63 words)
687:
seem to be what modern Sinologists prefer among themselves at the moment, so we may need to wait a few decades before we revisit moving this back to
1542:
that mentions this speculative theory, and thus this article should not do so, either. I find it bizarre that we're still even considering this.
1428:
and pretty marginal at that...” For the influence of Confucius on the Jesuits, see any of the several dozen references in the Google Book search “
1852:
1847:
1837:
729:) when we have good subject-specific secondary sources on the same issue? What special authority does the anonymous author of that entry have?
1029:
483:
for repeated references, which is easier to follow if the title includes that word. The standard English translations of the work are Legge's
162:
1602:
46:
1142:(2006); "Clean Politics: Race and Class, Imperialism and Nationalism, Etiquette and Consumption in the Chinese and American Revolutions,"
1877:
1867:
368:
I would like to know how long I have to wait, and how I can change the names to make them consistent. I'm a stickler for consistency! --
228:
1126:
I have suggested a slightly expanded version of the material that was cut. I have read Schneewind’s article and one of her books, the
513:
1728:
1738:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
726:
232:
128:
562:
Wish I'd seen this before. It's really rather unclear how many of those hits were related to the Chinese book and how many not.
1822:
1033:
1872:
1298:; the emphasis is on possibilities. Even the abstract admits the lack of evidence, and hedges its bets: "Whether or not the
1234:
1083:
1348:, who have made strong points, and I agree that this is at best a borderline case, one that needs to be stated carefully.
810:
is an appropriate source for an article like this, as there are a decent number of much higher quality works to draw from.
1803:
1693:
1450:
664:
632:
567:
373:
359:
55:
556:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
443:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
222:
185:
119:
80:
1291:
1273:
1007:
127:
related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1549:
1244:
1098:
1041:
901:
839:
1759:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1649:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1078:
Also, Knowledge does not forbid the addition of one's own publications as sources, but does advise caution: see
1037:
679:
I know how you feel: this is such an ugly name and an unfamiliar one from anything I've seen. Looking through
1794:
1720:
1684:
1590:
660:
628:
563:
369:
355:
479:, a more common title than "Classic of History". It's also common for authors to use the abbreviated form
1603:
http://news.tsinghua.edu.cn/publish/newsen/6057/2011/20110304172109458964142/20110304172109458964142_.html
954:) unless his views were particularly influential, in which we'd have modern scholarship about it to cite.
1778:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1766:
1668:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1656:
1269:
1019:
1003:
987:
884:
794:
768:
733:
338:
61:
1719:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1589:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1623:
1345:
1116:
1025:
696:
411:
388:
236:
32:
1729:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110807130610/http://www.chinapage.com/confucius/classic/english.html
1510:
1317:
1307:
1228:
1196:
1181:
1079:
961:
916:
870:
779:
749:
741:
730:
688:
651:
598:
533:
521:
492:
468:
1763:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1653:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
331:
1779:
1669:
1712:
1582:
1449:
SS's contribution calls attention to the fact that our articles on the ancient Classics (e.g.
745:
723:
582:
472:
457:
391:
95:
74:
1132:
Long Live the Emperor! : Uses of the Ming Founder across Six Centuries of East Asian History.
1349:
1054:
880:
790:
764:
320:
1786:
1676:
1732:
1353:
1294:, and it is certainly speculative. There is no evidence that Jefferson had ever seen the
1050:
509:
240:
1432:.” In the Thierry volume in the footnote, there are 42 mentions of Shujing in particular.
1179:
but Chinese culture more broadly; he quotes Jefferson recommending the 13th-century play
1745:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1635:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1120:
758:
it is clear these authors are not absolutely sure in terms of the dates as well. That
748:
from a general encyclopedia of literature when in-depth expert sources are available.
306:
17:
1785:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1675:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1816:
1469:
1341:
1224:
1158:
983:
517:
334:
207:
1187:
578:
547:
453:
434:
213:
111:
1752:
1642:
1458:
1454:
1376:
as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.
316:
1509:
I agree about the broader question, but as you say, that's for another place.
1751:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1641:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1151:
The Dragon and the Eagle: The Presence of China in the American Enlightenment.
1134:(Minneapolis: Society for Ming Studies, Ming Studies Research Series, 2008);
278:
I ran across a quotation that is supposedly from the Shujing that read as so:
203:
101:
974:
Ma Wenzeng of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, on a paper presented here:
301:
This is not in Legges translation. Can anyone verify if this is authentic?
1808:
1698:
1557:
1513:
1473:
1320:
1310:
1277:
1252:
1199:
1195:
article, and it seems undue to give it any weight in this article either.
1162:
1106:
1011:
991:
964:
919:
909:
888:
873:
847:
798:
782:
772:
752:
704:
668:
654:
636:
601:
586:
571:
536:
525:
495:
461:
419:
377:
363:
342:
324:
309:
1067:
article. It might theoretically be notable in an article on the "Tai shi
383:
In answer to your question, not necessarily. Review Knowledge policy: for
197:
179:
1465:
1218:
1154:
1506:
and other classics. Whether it influenced them is a different question.
970:
In light of Tsinghua bamboo slips, Old text is not necessarily a forgery
1352:
mentions “Flat Earth” and other theories which do not cover this case.
692:
504:. The proposed name seems to be a standard translation, as you can see
403:
227:. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can
951:
577:
If you feel strongly about it, I'm willing to reopen the discussion.
124:
975:
410:, but I personally feel this is the best compromise available. —
718:
Why should we include a quotation from a tertiary source like
26:
1608:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
950:
I don't think we should be citing an 11th century scholar (
1723:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1593:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1140:
A Tale of Two Melons : Emperor and Subject in Ming China.
516:
are "Book of Documents", so the Ngram doesn't help much.
433:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
1733:
http://www.chinapage.com/confucius/classic/english.html
1716:
1586:
1175:
As you say, the Aldridge passage doesn't relate to the
1049:
The "Neutral Point of View" guideline has a section on
1138:(Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2006);
546:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
297:
Original source: Shu Ching, Book of History/Documents
123:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1755:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1645:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1356:states that to give “due weight” an article should
349:Should the titles of these articles be consistent?
1863:B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
1144:Asia-Pacific Journal Japan Focus ' '7.45 (2009).
1464:Cheers in any case and thanks for your patience.
485:The ShĂ» King or the Book of Historical Documents
597:that aren't referring to the Chinese classic.
239:. To improve this article, please refer to the
1741:This message was posted before February 2018.
1631:This message was posted before February 2018.
1136:Community Schools and the State in Ming China.
1068:
8:
760:Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature
720:Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature
713:Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature
981:This puts the forgery claim in doubt again.
1711:I have just modified one external link on
1581:I have just modified one external link on
710:
235:. To use this banner, please refer to the
174:
69:
1193:United States Declaration of Independence
1843:Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Arts
233:discuss matters related to book articles
997:Relation to Declaration of Independence
241:relevant guideline for the type of work
176:
71:
30:
1858:High-importance China-related articles
1620:to let others know (documentation at
1130:. Here are some of her publications:
7:
448:The result of the move request was:
219:This article is within the scope of
117:This article is within the scope of
60:It is of interest to the following
1502:The Jesuits certainly studied the
398:using "Book of Changes"; it means
25:
1715:. Please take a moment to review
1585:. Please take a moment to review
1833:Knowledge vital articles in Arts
1828:Knowledge level-5 vital articles
1082:, which is a sub-section of the
402:using "Yijing"; it means using "
206:
196:
178:
104:
94:
73:
40:
31:
1030:WP:Identifying Reliable Sources
387:article, we should go with the
157:This article has been rated as
1853:B-Class China-related articles
1848:B-Class vital articles in Arts
1838:B-Class level-5 vital articles
976:http://www.guoxue.com/?p=18687
744:, we should not be using this
343:07:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
1:
965:16:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
920:10:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
910:04:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
889:10:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
874:12:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
848:04:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
799:10:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
783:12:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
773:04:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
753:00:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
378:07:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
364:09:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
131:and see a list of open tasks.
1699:23:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
1451:Four Books and Five Classics
734:10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
1185:and the 17th-century novel
705:09:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
420:09:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
315:-- No, It's not authentic.
249:Knowledge:WikiProject Books
137:Knowledge:WikiProject China
1894:
1878:WikiProject Books articles
1868:WikiProject China articles
1772:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1708:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1662:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1578:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1340:: I second SS's thanks to
992:10:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
252:Template:WikiProject Books
163:project's importance scale
140:Template:WikiProject China
1809:10:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
1069:
669:14:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
655:13:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
637:13:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
602:12:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
587:12:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
572:12:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
537:07:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
526:03:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
496:16:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
462:11:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
325:15:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
310:17:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
191:
156:
89:
68:
1558:00:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
1514:18:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
1474:03:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
1321:23:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
1311:16:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
1278:14:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
1253:02:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
1200:21:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
1163:16:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
1107:02:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
1034:WP:Neutral Point of View
1012:01:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
595:this Google books search
553:Please do not modify it.
440:Please do not modify it.
408:Encyclopaedia Britannica
1704:External links modified
1574:External links modified
1084:WP:Conflict of Interest
18:Talk:Classic of History
1823:B-Class vital articles
1051:"Due and Undue Weight"
681:ngram and Google Books
143:China-related articles
1873:B-Class Book articles
746:two-paragraph article
489:The Book of Documents
47:level-5 vital article
1753:regular verification
1643:regular verification
1743:After February 2018
1633:After February 2018
1612:parameter below to
1115:Thanks once again,
1797:InternetArchiveBot
1748:InternetArchiveBot
1687:InternetArchiveBot
1638:InternetArchiveBot
1182:The Orphan of Zhao
1121:Biting the Newbies
1042:WP:Manual of Style
689:Classic of History
661:TheSoundAndTheFury
629:TheSoundAndTheFury
564:TheSoundAndTheFury
469:Classic of History
370:TheSoundAndTheFury
356:TheSoundAndTheFury
56:content assessment
1773:
1713:Book of Documents
1663:
1583:Book of Documents
1556:
1251:
1105:
1038:WP:Citing sources
908:
846:
473:Book of Documents
271:
270:
267:
266:
263:
262:
223:WikiProject Books
173:
172:
169:
168:
120:WikiProject China
16:(Redirected from
1885:
1807:
1798:
1771:
1770:
1749:
1697:
1688:
1661:
1660:
1639:
1627:
1554:
1552:
1548:
1547:White Whirlwind
1543:
1290:I have read the
1270:Sarah Schneewind
1249:
1247:
1243:
1242:White Whirlwind
1238:
1222:
1103:
1101:
1097:
1096:White Whirlwind
1092:
1072:
1071:
1023:
1020:Sarah Schneewind
1004:Sarah Schneewind
906:
904:
900:
899:White Whirlwind
895:
844:
842:
838:
837:White Whirlwind
833:
702:
701:
555:
475:– According to
442:
417:
416:
392:English-language
257:
256:
253:
250:
247:
229:join the project
216:
211:
210:
200:
193:
192:
182:
175:
145:
144:
141:
138:
135:
114:
109:
108:
107:
98:
91:
90:
85:
77:
70:
53:
44:
43:
36:
35:
27:
21:
1893:
1892:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1813:
1812:
1801:
1796:
1764:
1757:have permission
1747:
1721:this simple FaQ
1706:
1691:
1686:
1654:
1647:have permission
1637:
1621:
1591:this simple FaQ
1576:
1550:
1546:
1545:
1430:Shujing Jesuits
1346:White whirlwind
1245:
1241:
1240:
1216:
1117:White whirlwind
1099:
1095:
1094:
1017:
999:
972:
944:
938:comments about
902:
898:
897:
840:
836:
835:
716:
711:Quotation from
699:
697:
560:
551:
487:and Karlgren's
438:
428:
414:
412:
351:
276:
254:
251:
248:
245:
244:
212:
205:
159:High-importance
142:
139:
136:
133:
132:
110:
105:
103:
84:High‑importance
83:
54:on Knowledge's
51:
41:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1891:
1889:
1881:
1880:
1875:
1870:
1865:
1860:
1855:
1850:
1845:
1840:
1835:
1830:
1825:
1815:
1814:
1791:
1790:
1783:
1736:
1735:
1727:Added archive
1705:
1702:
1681:
1680:
1673:
1606:
1605:
1597:Added archive
1575:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1507:
1500:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1462:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1397:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1313:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1146:
1124:
1110:
1109:
1088:
1087:
1075:
1074:
1046:
1045:
998:
995:
982:
980:
971:
968:
959:
958:
955:
943:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
891:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
803:
802:
801:
715:
709:
708:
707:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
642:
641:
640:
639:
611:
610:
609:
608:
590:
589:
559:
558:
548:requested move
542:
541:
540:
539:
514:Lots of things
467:
465:
446:
445:
435:requested move
429:
427:
426:Requested move
424:
423:
422:
350:
347:
346:
345:
313:
312:
299:
298:
294:
293:
289:
288:
284:
283:
275:
272:
269:
268:
265:
264:
261:
260:
258:
218:
217:
201:
189:
188:
183:
171:
170:
167:
166:
155:
149:
148:
146:
129:the discussion
116:
115:
99:
87:
86:
78:
66:
65:
59:
37:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1890:
1879:
1876:
1874:
1871:
1869:
1866:
1864:
1861:
1859:
1856:
1854:
1851:
1849:
1846:
1844:
1841:
1839:
1836:
1834:
1831:
1829:
1826:
1824:
1821:
1820:
1818:
1811:
1810:
1805:
1800:
1799:
1788:
1784:
1781:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1768:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1744:
1739:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1709:
1703:
1701:
1700:
1695:
1690:
1689:
1678:
1674:
1671:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1658:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1634:
1629:
1625:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1579:
1573:
1559:
1555:
1553:
1541:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1515:
1512:
1508:
1505:
1501:
1498:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1431:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1398:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1322:
1319:
1314:
1312:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1254:
1250:
1248:
1236:
1233:
1230:
1226:
1223:I agree with
1220:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1201:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1189:
1184:
1183:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1147:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1108:
1104:
1102:
1090:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1076:
1066:
1061:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1026:WP:Notability
1021:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1009:
1005:
996:
994:
993:
989:
985:
977:
969:
967:
966:
963:
956:
953:
949:
948:
947:
941:
937:
921:
918:
913:
912:
911:
907:
905:
892:
890:
886:
882:
877:
876:
875:
872:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
849:
845:
843:
830:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
809:
804:
800:
796:
792:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
781:
776:
775:
774:
770:
766:
761:
756:
755:
754:
751:
747:
743:
738:
737:
736:
735:
732:
728:
727:0-87779-042-6
725:
721:
714:
706:
703:
694:
690:
686:
683:, though, it
682:
678:
670:
666:
662:
658:
657:
656:
653:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
638:
634:
630:
626:
624:
619:
615:
614:
613:
612:
605:
604:
603:
600:
596:
592:
591:
588:
584:
580:
576:
575:
574:
573:
569:
565:
557:
554:
549:
544:
543:
538:
535:
532:
529:
528:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
500:
499:
498:
497:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
464:
463:
459:
455:
451:
444:
441:
436:
431:
430:
425:
421:
418:
409:
405:
401:
397:
394:. That means
393:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
379:
375:
371:
366:
365:
361:
357:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
330:According to
329:
328:
327:
326:
322:
318:
311:
308:
304:
303:
302:
296:
295:
291:
290:
286:
285:
281:
280:
279:
273:
259:
255:Book articles
242:
238:
237:documentation
234:
230:
226:
225:
224:
215:
209:
204:
202:
199:
195:
194:
190:
187:
184:
181:
177:
164:
160:
154:
151:
150:
147:
130:
126:
122:
121:
113:
102:
100:
97:
93:
92:
88:
82:
79:
76:
72:
67:
63:
57:
49:
48:
38:
34:
29:
28:
19:
1795:
1792:
1767:source check
1746:
1740:
1737:
1710:
1707:
1685:
1682:
1657:source check
1636:
1630:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1607:
1580:
1577:
1544:
1539:
1503:
1496:
1337:
1303:
1302:exists, the
1299:
1295:
1239:
1231:
1188:Haoqiu zhuan
1186:
1180:
1176:
1150:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1093:
1064:
1059:
1000:
973:
960:
946:Two things:
945:
939:
896:
834:
828:
807:
759:
719:
717:
712:
684:
622:
561:
552:
545:
501:
488:
484:
480:
466:
449:
447:
439:
432:
407:
399:
395:
384:
367:
352:
314:
300:
277:
221:
220:
214:Books portal
158:
118:
112:China portal
62:WikiProjects
45:
1624:Sourcecheck
1459:Yes, and...
1455:Mozi (book)
1086:guidelines.
1080:WP:SELFCITE
881:Sevilledade
791:Sevilledade
765:Sevilledade
742:WP:TERTIARY
623:second last
389:most common
1817:Categories
1804:Report bug
1694:Report bug
1304:comparison
1300:connection
1128:Two Melons
1040:, and the
616:With this
477:this ngram
1787:this tool
1780:this tool
1677:this tool
1670:this tool
1540:Documents
1504:Documents
1497:Documents
1350:WP:FRINGE
1296:Documents
1177:Documents
1065:Documents
1060:Documents
1055:WP:FRINGE
915:aspect.
829:Shangshu'
763:source.--
481:Documents
307:mamgeorge
50:is rated
1793:Cheers.—
1683:Cheers.—
1511:Kanguole
1354:WP:UNDUE
1342:Kanguole
1318:Kanguole
1308:Kanguole
1235:contribs
1225:Kanguole
1197:Kanguole
984:The duke
979:forgery.
962:Kanguole
942:chapters
917:Kanguole
871:Kanguole
780:Kanguole
750:Kanguole
731:Kanguole
698:Llywelyn
652:Kanguole
607:example:
599:Kanguole
534:Kanguole
518:Kauffner
493:Kanguole
413:Llywelyn
335:The duke
305:Thanks,
274:Versions
1717:my edit
1610:checked
1587:my edit
1338:Friends
1292:article
808:M-W EoL
693:Shujing
579:Jenks24
502:Support
454:Jenks24
404:I Ching
161:on the
52:B-class
1618:failed
952:Su Shi
879:way.--
317:Bao Pu
58:scale.
450:moved
246:Books
186:Books
134:China
125:China
81:China
39:This
1614:true
1470:talk
1344:and
1274:talk
1229:talk
1159:talk
1008:talk
988:talk
885:talk
795:talk
769:talk
724:ISBN
695:. —
685:does
665:talk
633:talk
625:page
583:talk
568:talk
522:talk
510:here
508:and
506:here
458:talk
385:each
374:talk
360:talk
339:talk
321:talk
231:and
153:High
1761:RfC
1731:to
1651:RfC
1628:).
1616:or
1601:to
1453:or
1219:CWH
940:gĂ o
691:or
550:.
491:.
400:not
396:not
1819::
1774:.
1769:}}
1765:{{
1664:.
1659:}}
1655:{{
1626:}}
1622:{{
1551:ĺ’¨
1472:)
1466:ch
1276:)
1246:ĺ’¨
1161:)
1155:ch
1100:ĺ’¨
1070:泰誓
1036:,
1032:,
1028:,
1010:)
990:)
903:ĺ’¨
887:)
841:ĺ’¨
797:)
771:)
700:II
667:)
635:)
585:)
570:)
524:)
512:.
471:→
460:)
452:.
437:.
415:II
376:)
362:)
341:)
323:)
1806:)
1802:(
1789:.
1782:.
1696:)
1692:(
1679:.
1672:.
1468:(
1461:.
1272:(
1232:·
1227:(
1221::
1217:@
1157:(
1123:.
1044:.
1022::
1018:@
1006:(
986:(
883:(
793:(
767:(
722:(
663:(
631:(
581:(
566:(
520:(
456:(
372:(
358:(
337:(
319:(
243:.
165:.
64::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
