Talk:Religion in China/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Didier should not be relied on for so much

I don’t have an opinion as to whether the material from Didier was paraphrased or constitutes copyright infringement, as alleged in recent removals, but I do think that there is too much material from Didier that is counter to Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, probably WP:FRINGE, and possibly wrong.

Didier and his theories have been negatively reviewed and not widely cited in any case.

Saso, Michael (2009), ""In and Outside the Square: The Sky and the Power of Belief in Ancient China and the World, c. 4500 b.c. –a.d. 200." (review)."", China Review International, 16 (4): 491–493, doi:10.1353/cri.2009.0085 cites scholars who give strong arguments against the theory that astronomical knowledge came or had to come across Asia. The Big Dipper, for instance, “is recognizable across the entire northern hemisphere, sometimes with seven or more stars, and it is not necessary to ascribe this recognition to any given culture.” He notes that “Didier suggests, the square, not the circle, is the symbol for the heavens” in early Chinese culture, but ignores or does not know of texts that prove otherwise: “The fact that the work of Didier does not make use of these important texts, contained in the Gu weishu ??? ancient weft texts (also called Weishu ??), challenges the assertion that the heavens are square, a notion basic to the Didier hypothesis.” Saso makes several more points to undermine Didier.

It also seems strange to mention that “John C. Didier and David Pankenier have studied ...” without citing Pankenier directly. Didier feels Pankenier has not done him justice, though for whatever reason he does not want to say so in so many words: Volume I p. iv he says he sent Pankenier his manuscript, which had been circulated to university press referees, “What is most striking is that in our work of 2003 and 2004 Professor Pankenier and I made several of the same mistakes, which errors, with the additional years since 2004, I have been fortunate enough to locate and correct...” [p. v] and “Although apparently my earlier manuscript remains uncited, Professor Pankenier’s work now continues with his recent delivery of a paper on what in both my earlier and present manuscripts I have identified to be the highest, and celestial polar, power of Shang religion....” [vi], though Didier adds that he has come to differ from the position that he and Pankenier had taken earlier.

There is more, but it seems better not to use Didier as a major source or mention him as an authority four times and in a dozen notes.ch (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You should add the arguments made by Saso and other authors rather than delete Didier's and Zhou's theses.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The Big Dipper “is recognizable across the entire northern hemisphere, sometimes with seven or more stars, and it is not necessary to ascribe this recognition to any given culture.” → This is exactly what Didier says in his paper and what I reported in the article.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

There are several reasons to cut Didier material.

1) Didier is not a reliable source for this material. The Saso review is weighty. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says:

Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available....

There are many good secondary studies of early Chinese religion.

2) It is not Wiklipedia policy that I "should add the arguments made by Saso and other authors rather than delete Didier's and Zhou's theses." On the contrary, WP:ONUS:

While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

I have further objections, which I will make in a more general way in a new section, but these are enough.ch (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Saso's review is weighty"? I can't access the entire article, but from the introduction he doesn't seem to dismiss entirely Didier's hypothesis. The fact that Saso's paper gives voice to "scholars who give strong arguments against the theory that astronomical knowledge came or had to come across Asia", or that the Big Dipper "is recognizable across the entire northern hemisphere, sometimes with seven or more stars, and it is not necessary to ascribe this recognition to any given culture", or that Didier doesn't take into consideration important weft texts is not enough to dismiss Didier's hypothesis. As he notes, there was a knowledge "inside the square" (warp?) and "outside the square" (weft?) and only at a certain point in history the square symbolism passed from Heaven to Earth.

Saso's review even cites Victor H. Mair in the introduction:

"In and Outside the Square is one of the most remarkable achievements of Sinological research that I have ever encountered. The ample subtitle, "The Sky and the Power of Belief in Ancient China and the World, c. 4500 b.c.–a.d. 200," gives an indication of the broad and inclusive aims of this three-volume work. Yet neither the title nor the subtitle can adequately encompass the rich assemblage of themes that are woven together in this outstanding scholarly treatise. To be sure, what we have in John Didier's magnificent magnum opus is the first and only investigation into all significant aspects of the rise of civilization in the East Asian Heartland (EAH), from its beginnings to the establishment of a bureaucratic system that persisted (albeit with numerous changes of dynasty and modifications in details of structure and operation) until 1912.… This grand synthesis of diverse disciplines will stimulate lively, fruitful debate among Sinologists and Eurasianists alike; … the present bountiful offering gives us plenty to feast upon." (I hope they won't delete this direct quotation for copyright infringement!)--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Here I have to agree with ch... It's not that we should not mention John Didier's work at all. It's just that we're using it out of proportion to its importance in the field. See WP:UNDUE, a sub-section within WP:NPOV:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace 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 means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

It seems that Didier's ideas are idiosyncratic; they have not been widely accepted. I really like Victor Mair. He is a free spirit who works against the received ideas of traditional sinology. For that purpose, he established and is still editing the Sino-Platonic Papers (SPP), whose explicit goal is to publish and encourage "unconventional or controversial" research by "younger, not yet well established, scholars and independent authors". The SPP's programmatic statement, which appears at the beginning of each paper, starts like this:

"SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS is an occasional series dedicated to making available to specialists and the interested public the results of research that, because of its unconventional or controversial nature, might otherwise go unpublished." (my emphasis).

This is where Didier's work was published. SPP challenges received ideas: it is not the place to find new authorities or core ideas for Wikipedia articles! Unless of course they become influential in their field, as should be noticeable in the reliable sources that represent that field. Madalibi (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

When an administrator will send me the text of the article as it was before the deletions I will rewrite the parts of the history section trying to give less weight to Didier's emphasis on the square. Is Ruth Chang's Understanding Di and Tian: Deity and Heaven from Shang to Tang Dynasties less controversial? She doesn't treat the square at all. It gives important insights about the development of Di and Tian in the Song and Tang dynasties.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Later It is indeed a big problem that editors (and scholars in general) cannot get free access to journals. I may be wrong, but I think that JSTOR offers free access to a certain number of articles per month. Follow this link for possible "Free Access" on Saso's article linked above.ch (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Eno (2008) in Lagerwey & Kalinowski Early Chinese Religion I pp. 73-74 discusses the association of the supreme God to the celestial pole based on Pankenier's research. Eno discusses both the association of the high God (Di) to the pole and the identification of the High God / Shangdi with the Shang's progenitor Shangjia.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Pankenier's hypotheses are published by Cambridge University. See Astrology and Cosmology in Early China. At p. 106-107 he criticises Didier's theory for claiming that Di was associated to a "square" constallation; Pankenier's view differs by claiming that the Dipper itself (and the pole star around which it rotates) was instead the representation of Di. In my latest revision of the article I included both Didier's and Pankenier's views, although without pointing out the difference between the two visions, as I did not notice it. My text said that Didier and Pankenier have both studied the association of the supreme God to either "Ding", "Big Dipper" and "Ursa Major".--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

More at p. 133, note 43: Ding is instead the great square of Pegasus at the south of the north pole / Dippers (p. 132), that was used as the "celestial temple" to divine i.e. rectify (zheng *tjen *ten, Gr. "orthos" as in "orthodox") syn. "cauldron" (ding *ten *teen), i.e. to align with the supreme Lord / bring the Order of Heaven to the earth (pp. 137-145). The mistake of Didier is to have identified the square as the supreme Lord itself, while it is the means by which to align with the supreme Lord.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

In any case, this material is too esoteric for a general level article, see WP:DETAIL. It would be better in a subarticle, see Wikipedia:Summary style. ch (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course this knowledge is "esoteric" for contemporary general Westerners, but it is not in China. Indeed, this knowledge constitutes the very core of Chinese religion, and politics, especially since the government has resumed the state cults of the Yellow Emperor. So, a cursory mention is needed. Without this anchorage in the idea of Di and universal order all Chinese religion becomes incomprehensible. Of course, an in-depth description of this knowledge should be developed in separate articles, such as "Chinese theology" or "Tees".--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Aethelwolf Emsworth: One test of a topic's notability is whether it is mentioned in general surveys and/or encyclopedia articles. I would be flabbergasted if any of them include such details as "[Ding] was used as the "celestial temple" to divine i.e. rectify (zheng *tjen *ten, Gr. "orthos" as in "orthodox") syn. "cauldron" (ding *ten *teen), i.e. to align with the supreme Lord / bring the Order of Heaven to the earth...."ch (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)