This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry 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.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
This 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
No, 古公亶父; pinyin: 父 is not "literally" Father Dan, Lord of Gu, or Patriarch Dan of Gu. Gu is just the adjective for ancient, not a placename, and he wasn't the Lord of Antiquity. — LlywelynII02:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sure, that's the traditional interpretation. Did you read the Shaughnessy 1989 source? The bit about interpreting 古 as a toponym is page 7. Honestly it makes more sense from a grammatical perspective, although the archaeological evidence certainly isn't overwhelmingly convincing. How would you feel about "Father Dan, Patriarch of Gu" as an alternative name somewhere, with or without specific attribution to Shaughnessy? Archaeological discoveries really have shed a lot of light and reinterpretations on traditional thought. Folly Mox (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
If page 7 presents convincing evidence of other places it got used as a toponym in Old Chinese, it can go back in the lead. Bonus points if he has some rough idea of where it was to put into the bio section. If it's just his feelings/desire to boost his citations with random noodling and the "traditional" (=usual) reading is the clear meaning of the Chinese, then we have a #Name section (not the lead or phrasing that gives it WP:UNDUE prominence or support) to offer his proposed emendation with whatever evidence he provides. If it's worth noting but even you don't buy what he's selling, then you could note it with a {{efn}} footnote and a #Notes section above the refs with a {{noteslist}} template. — LlywelynII04:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
