Talk:Classic of Mountains and Seas

Format Characters

Eiorgiomugini, thanks for the previous updates; they really help the article. However, I find the addition of Chinese characters in the articles greatly enriches the usefulness of the article; it adds hints to the text for English/Chinese readers, and allows for Cut&Paste searches. Please do not assume they do not have value because you do not use them. Your method removes detail, which does not interfere with your purposes; however, this is not just your article. Those additions do not sacrifice anything fore you but increase the usefulness to others. Please leave them in. mamgeorge 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If the term does not have an established translation, feel free to provide the Chinese characters, as the Manual of Style (China-related articles) said so. By the way, do you consider 山海经海经新释卷 actually correspond to the English beside anyway? Eiorgiomugini 14:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No. I removed that on the last revision; it was the section header for the translation I had. mamgeorge 14:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Liu Xiang

I think there has been a mixed up between father Liu Xiang and son Liu Xin in this article. In his bibliographical essay on Shan hai ching (in: Early Chinese Texts. A Biliographical Guide edited by Michael Loewe, ISBN 1-557-29043-1, p.356-367) Riccardo Fracasso stdies thoroughly the authorship and textual transmission of the text. According to him it was Liu Xin who wrote a preface and it was Liu Xin who produced a definitive text. No mentioning of Liu Xiang at all in his essay. Guss2 (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

I've received some spam on a Twitter account which points to the "Catalog of Human Population" which is a Russian site claiming that the Shan Hai Jing contains information about human personality "programs". I think this is some kind of complex tarot or horoscope scam. There are no references to the facts claimed on the CHP site anywhere else on the internet, as indexed by Google. I'll be adding Dubious tags to the changes by user Emaze9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.153.180 (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this dubious site is commercial spam and I'll remove it. Thanks for noticing. Keahapana (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This site is not spam. You can remove the links, but please do not state something that you have never checked. The information about Shan Hai Jing being the Catalog of Human Population is valid and it has nothing to do with tarot/astrology. Shan Hai Jing identifies the content of the individual subconsciousness of every person. This claim has been tested for more than 30 years now. This discovery was a breakthrough in psychoanalysis and we wanted to let people know about it. So please do not misinform the public due to reasons based on personal opinion with no scientific validity behind it. emaze9 —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

This sort of extraordinary claim needs references to reliable third party sources that discuss the issue, specifically in relation to this text. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

English translation of shanhaijing

Here. Jerezembel (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This just re-directs to a Soft Redirect to a user who has been blocked for sockpuppeting!! Nuttyskin (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nuttyskin: you were meant to click on the word "Here". Leads to what looks like a useless page for the book. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Duly noted. But it is usual in everyday life to look at the thing an indicator is pointing at, rather than the indicator itself.

Nuttyskin (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

31000 "words"

Seems much more likely "characters" is meant, most of which (but still not all) are individual words in 古文. Anyone have a source on the claim and can clarify if this is just a mistake? If not, we should list the number of characters as well, since that's the actual 'size' of the work. — LlywelynII 08:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Name

Google ngram backed up my hunch that published works don't go anywhere near break-ing up Ch'in-ese words in-to in-div-i-du-al syl-la-bles anymore.

The WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME of this work is the Classic of Mountains and Seas. The very close second is Shanhaijing as one word. Both are far and away more common (even historically) than chopping everything up into pieces as we currently have. — LlywelynII 08:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Just ran Shanhai Jing as well. Also uncommon. — LlywelynII 08:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

And even with the Wiki article in the wrong place, googling these terms "-wikipedia" puts "Classic of Mountains and Seas" well above the others. — LlywelynII 08:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Shan Hai Jing → Classic of Mountains and Seas – Per WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME. As noted at Talk:Shan Hai Jing, this is it (just a bit above Shanhaijing on ngram; 25% bigger on Google as a whole; and by far more common than the current page name). It's also more in keeping with the other Chinese classics, mostly located at their English common names. I can't do it on my own as the move is blocked by an existing edit history.

As an alternative, the page should be moved to Shanhaijing (as one word), which is the 2nd most common English name and which is also blocked from being moved by normal editors.  — LlywelynII 08:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Chinese isn't a Latin alphabet like Czech or Vietnamese where we can and should accurately represent names without losing meaning. Plus the Penguin Classics title gets about 30% more GBhits than two spaced and non-spaced toneless pinyin taken together. So move. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support: ngram output is convincing. -Zanhe (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support change to Classic of Mountains and Seas. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Translation of the Name

Yes, there were not plurals or upper-case characters in Classic Chinese but, when translating, you adapt the customs of the original language to the new one as well as you can. Literal translations mean you don't overdo that, but still: "mountain sea classic" is nonsense in English, "Mountainous Seaborne Classic" is just bizarre, and the meaning of the Chinese is "Classic of Mountains and Seas". So please leave it that way.

I'll add a link to Wiktionary and someone can put up an entry for them if you're that afraid someone will think 山 means "classic", but kindly don't substitute nonsense for an actual translation. — LlywelynII 07:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

As one of the most easily recognisable kanji, I should think nearly everyone knows that 山 means mountain. Nuttyskin (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing Workshop

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xiannvzah, Yogidoggie (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nymaker (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

English translation to the title of this book

Hi, I was wondering if we should translate the name of the book as "Classic Mountains and Seas" or "Classic Mountains and Rivers." If you translate the Chinese character “海” in English directly, it should indeed be "sea," but the problem is that the actual meaning of “海” during the ancient Chinese period means "the place where water meets." In fact, this “海” isn't what we call “海” in the contemporary era. Therefore, the term “海” during the ancient Chinese period actually means the different rivers in China. And so isn't it perhaps better to translate the term “海” into "river" instead of "sea"? Xiannvzah (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)