Talk:Mandate of Heaven: Difference between revisions
imported>Yim Kai-mun No edit summary |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
Really excellent! Could you kindly include some dates, for Duke of Zhou, for example. Thanks, Nancy [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 09:44, 31 January 2007 (CST) | Really excellent! Could you kindly include some dates, for Duke of Zhou, for example. Thanks, Nancy [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 09:44, 31 January 2007 (CST) | ||
---- | |||
Thanks! How does it look now?--[[User:Yim Kai-mun|Yim Kai-mun]] 10:07, 31 January 2007 (CST) | |||
---- | ---- | ||
| Line 6: | Line 11: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Yep, amended the typo error. Thanks for highlighting. As for wiki...I decided to re-write since I'd already written an article.--[[User:Yim Kai-mun|Yim Kai-mun]] 10:04, 31 January 2007 (CST) | Yep, amended the typo error. Thanks for highlighting. As for wiki...I decided to re-write since I'd already written an article.--[[User:Yim Kai-mun|Yim Kai-mun]] 10:04, 31 January 2007 (CST) | ||
---- | |||
I wonder about the 5,000 years in the second sentence. The phrase ''X thousand years of Chinese history'' is used with various values of X, and there's no need here to get into disputes over that. But are there really records from well back into the Neolithic, 2,000 years before the Duke of Zhou, to support such antiquity? Perhaps a "traditionally considered to be" sort of hedge would work here? [[User:Daniel Drake|Daniel Drake]] 16:35, 29 March 2007 (CDT) | |||
:I think you are correct that the idea of the Mandate of Heaven is not 5000 years old but I think that 'earliest times' is rather vague. Since a precise origin is given later in the text, to the duke of Zhou, shouldn't we be equally precice in the introduction. [[User:Derek Harkness|Derek Harkness]] 11:55, 24 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
==Idea vs. Notion?== | |||
Why is the ''Mandate of Heaven'' and idea but the European ''Divine Right of Kings'' just a notion? As in: | |||
::''The idea was different from the European notion of Divine Right of Kings ...'' | |||
It seems a bit Asia-centric to me? [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 13:54, 21 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
:"Notion" is a non-neutral word: it clearly implies dismissal. Obviously it doesn't belong in an article unless there's some specific justification for it. So why doesn't somebody just edit it? | |||
:Oh, all right-- [[User:Daniel Drake|Daniel Drake]] 20:39, 22 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:05, 10 November 2007
Really excellent! Could you kindly include some dates, for Duke of Zhou, for example. Thanks, Nancy Nancy Sculerati MD 09:44, 31 January 2007 (CST)
Thanks! How does it look now?--Yim Kai-mun 10:07, 31 January 2007 (CST)
Shouldn't the title be "Mandate of Heaven"? And whynot proceed from the Wikipedia version? Andres Luure 09:53, 31 January 2007 (CST)
Yep, amended the typo error. Thanks for highlighting. As for wiki...I decided to re-write since I'd already written an article.--Yim Kai-mun 10:04, 31 January 2007 (CST)
I wonder about the 5,000 years in the second sentence. The phrase X thousand years of Chinese history is used with various values of X, and there's no need here to get into disputes over that. But are there really records from well back into the Neolithic, 2,000 years before the Duke of Zhou, to support such antiquity? Perhaps a "traditionally considered to be" sort of hedge would work here? Daniel Drake 16:35, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
- I think you are correct that the idea of the Mandate of Heaven is not 5000 years old but I think that 'earliest times' is rather vague. Since a precise origin is given later in the text, to the duke of Zhou, shouldn't we be equally precice in the introduction. Derek Harkness 11:55, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Idea vs. Notion?
Why is the Mandate of Heaven and idea but the European Divine Right of Kings just a notion? As in:
- The idea was different from the European notion of Divine Right of Kings ...
It seems a bit Asia-centric to me? Will Nesbitt 13:54, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
- "Notion" is a non-neutral word: it clearly implies dismissal. Obviously it doesn't belong in an article unless there's some specific justification for it. So why doesn't somebody just edit it?
- Oh, all right-- Daniel Drake 20:39, 22 May 2007 (CDT)