Talk:King Wu of Zhou

Untitled

I removed this sentense:

The Dangun myth of Korea referred to him as King Wu.

Here is the original text of the legend: http://www.buddhist-canon.com/history/T490962a.htm I don't think it is worth noting.

As a historical source, the legend of Dangun in Samguk Yusa is of no value. It was written at the end of the 13th century. The details are based on Chinese sources.

As a matter of convenience I didn't mention it at Dangun, but Samguk Yusa referred to him as King Ho (虎王) to avoid the use of the character 武, which was used in the name of someone noble (I don't remember). --Nanshu 01:00, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The sentence was pasted from the King Wu page which in turn stemmed from the Dangun article. The above explanation shall clarify some mysteries about the term "King Wu" kt2 01:07, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Zhou Gong Dan

He's also an important figure in Chinese history. We need some help to expanding the article about him.

You mean Gugong Danfu, right? — LlywelynII 03:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Given name?

Could someone check the transliteration of the given name on the page? Right now it reads "fa1". -Rholton 02:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's fā. I've corrected it.--G.S.K.Lee 05:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, Fā, but yeah. Added it to the running text as well. — LlywelynII 03:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

More Detail

This article obviously needs to be expanded. King Wu is a major figure since he founded the Zhou Dynasty, which ruled for longer than any other dynasty in Chinese history.

I recently read the Shu Ching (I think that's how it's spelled), which is the Book of Historical Documents, one of the Confucian classics. King Wu is an impportant figure in part of the text, when he leads his army against the Shang. He makes speeches to his army about the Mandate of Heaven, and how the Shang have abused the right to rule, making it neccesary to overthrow the dynasty. This is significant because this concept of gaining or losing the right to rule by virtue is a key Confucian concept, as well as one that has played a large part in Chinese history.

I guess I could add a little to this article based on what I read, but I think more knowledgeable people could do a much better job. --Anonymous

Be bold! --Menchi 20:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

suspect dates

Perhaps some details could be added about the evidence for his age: 90 years before he acceded to the throne seems unlikely.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

THe dates given in the French article are quite different and that does have a source though perhaps not reliable.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Clan name/surname

星光下的人, Every entry for members of the Zhou family on WP states that the surname was Ji. Until you can provide a reference to back this change up or gain a concensus from other editors it should stay as it is. Philg88 (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me which page said Ji was surname?Where are their source?

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose.

《潜夫论·志氏姓》

卫之公族，石氏〔一〕、世叔氏〔二〕、孙氏〔三〕、宁氏〔四〕、子齐氏〔五〕、司徒氏〔六〕、公文氏〔七〕、析龟氏〔八〕、公叔氏〔九〕、公南氏〔一０〕、公上氏〔一一〕、公孟氏〔一二〕、将军氏〔一三〕、子强氏〔一四〕、强梁氏〔一五〕、卷氏〔一六〕、会氏雅氏〔一七〕、孔氏〔一八〕、赵阳氏〔一九〕、田章氏、孤氏〔二０〕、王孙氏〔二一〕、史龟氏〔二二〕、羌氏、羌宪氏、〔二三〕邃氏〔二四〕，皆卫姬姓也。

《日知录·氏族》

• 《礼记·大传》正义：诸侯赐卿大夫以氏，若同姓，公之子曰公子，公于之于曰公孙，公孙之子其亲已远，不得上连于公，故以王父字为氏。若适夫人之子，则以五十字伯仲为氏，若鲁之冲孙、季孙是也，若庶子妾子，则以二十字为氏，则展氏、臧氏是也。若异姓，则以父祖官及所食之邑为氏。以官为氏者，则司马、司城是也，以邑为氏者，若韩、赵，魏是也。凡赐氏族者，比为卿，乃赐有大功德者。生赐以族，若叔孙得臣是也。是公子之孙，若有大功德，则以公干之字赐以为族，若仲遂是也。其无功德，死后乃赐族，若无骇是也。其子孙若为卿，其君不赐族，子孙自以上父字为族也。氏、族，对文为别，散则通也。故《左传》云：“问族于众仲”下云：“公命以字为展氏”是也。其姓与氏散亦得通，故《春秋》有姜氏、子氏，姜、子皆姓，而云氏是也。
• 战国时人大抵犹称氏族。姓也。汉人则通谓之姓，然氏族之称犹有存者。《汉书·恩泽侯表》“褒鲁节侯公子宽，以鲁顷公玄孙之玄孙，奉周祀。元始元年六月丙午，封于相如嗣，更姓公孙氏。后更为姬氏。”公子公孙，氏也，姬，姓也。此变氏称姓之一证。 　 　　
• 《水经注》“汉武帝元鼎四年，幸洛阳，巡省豫州，观于周室，邈而无祀。询问耆老，乃得孽子嘉，封为周子南君，以奉周祀。”按《汲冢》古文谓卫将军文子为子南弥牟，其后有子南劲。《纪年》“劲朝子魏，后惠成王如卫，命子南为侯。”秦并六国，卫最后灭。疑嘉是卫后，故氏子南而称君也。据此，嘉本氏子南，武帝即以其氏命之为爵。而《汉书·恩泽侯表》竟作“姬嘉”，则没其氏而书其姓矣，与褒鲁之封公孙氏更为姬氏者正同。 　 　
• 　姓氏之称，自太史公始混而为一。本纪于秦始皇则曰姓赵氏，于汉高祖则曰姓刘氏。 　
• 先生《原姓篇》曰：男子称氏，女子称姓。氏一再传而可变，姓千万年而不变。最贵者国君，国君无氏，不称氏称国，践土之盟，其载书曰：“晋重鲁申、卫武、蔡甲午、郑捷、齐潘、宋王臣、莒期。”荀偃之称齐环，卫太子之称郑胜、晋午是也。次则公子，公子无氏，不称氏，称公子，公子驱、公子益师是也，最下者庶人，庶人无氏，不称氏称名，然则氏之所由兴，其在于卿大夫乎？故曰：诸侯之子为公子，公子之子为公孙，公孙之子以王父字，若溢、若邑、官为氏。氏焉者，类族也，贵贵也。考之于《传》，二百五十五年之间，有男子而称姓者乎？无有也。女子则称姓。古者男女异长，在室也称姓，冠之以序，叔隗，季隗之类是也。已嫁也，于国君则称姓，冠之以国，江羋，息妫之类是也。于大夫则称姓，冠之以大夫之氏，赵姬、卢蒲姜之类是也，在彼国之人称之，或冠以所自出之卧若氏骊姬、梁赢之于晋，颜懿姬、鬷声姬之于齐是也。既车也称姓，冠之以溢，成风敬赢之类是也。亦有无溢而仍其在室之称，仲子、少姜之类是也，范氏之先，自虞以上为陶唐氏，在夏为御龙氏，在商为豕韦氏，在周为唐杜氏。上会之帑处秦者为刘氏。夫概王奔楚，为堂溪氏。伍员属其子于齐，为王孙氏。智果别族于大史，为辅氏。故曰氏可变也。盂孙氏，小宗之别为子月民氏、为南宫氏。叔孙氏，小宗之别为叔仲氏。季孙氏之支子曰季公鸟、季公亥。季寤称季不称孙。故曰贵贵也。鲁昭公娶于吴，为同姓，谓之吴孟子。崔武子欲娶棠姜，东郭偃曰：“男女辨姓，今君出自丁，臣出自桓，不可。”夫崔之与东郭氏异，昭公之与夷昧代远，然同姓，下世而婚姻不通者，周道也，故曰姓不变也。是故氏焉者，所以为另别也；姓焉者，所以为女坊也，自秦以后之人以氏为姓，以姓称男，而周制亡而族类乱。

不要欺人太甚—星光下的人 (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Which says what, exactly? — LlywelynII 17:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Tone marks

Don't use them in the running text. Cf. NC-ZH, MOS-ZH, USEENGLISH, COMMONNAME, &c. — LlywelynII 17:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:ERA

The first edits to the page started with BC/AD, so that remains the convention. — LlywelynII 17:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{Zh}}

Seriously, it's terrible; don't restore it. The semicolons make simplified characters and pinyin look like their own languages. The pinyin and Wade are badly formatted (one's italicized, one isn't). It generally wastes far too much space. All of this has been noted on the template's talk page, but the creator still has not fixed it, so we should just avoid its use in our articles. — LlywelynII 03:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The title "King Wu"

Sima Qian started using his regnal dates within Zhou as though he were the rightful king even before the battle of Muye, but had he established it as an era name? or was it a posthumous name or temple name granted by his descendants? or was it some kind of actual regnal name? We should be clear within the article, to the best of our ability, instead of using it anachronistically of him as a child.

Likewise, his father wasn't "King Wen" until the first meeting at the ford. — LlywelynII 03:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

myth & references

There's a lot of detail regarding lineage but the rest is pretty barren. That there are very few references, seemingly no archaeological evidence of his existence, and being placed alongside two mythological figures (yk & yu), perhaps the article could address why we believe that he existed. 2604:CA00:16A:C52:0:0:260:730B (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Shortdesc issues, also reflected in the article

Hi Remsense! Glad to see you here ☺️ I haven't looked over the prose in this article and its sourcing recently (within the past year), so it probably reflects the same problems as the shortdesc does. I'm not going to edit the shortdesc right now because the article is definitely the more important bit to get right, and I'm supposed to have gone shopping like two hours ago.

Before I stop procrastinating, I just want to mention two things I'd like for us (watchlisters) to address, which I hope to end up doing but have a tendency to make commitments I am unable to fulfil.

The smol one is the regnal dates. I'm not sure which chronology we're going off of here (probably Shaughnessy), but as recently discussed at Talk:Western Zhou, there's no consensus on dates for this period, so we might need to qualify / explain / provide alternatives for the 1046–1043 claim, and maybe c. it in the shortdesc, although "r. c. 1046–1043 BCE" is pretty infelicitous.

The bigger issue is founding dynast or dynastic founder or whichever wording we're preferring. Sure, Wu Wang was the first king of the Zhou dynasty. That checks out. But the founding dynast was his dad Wen Wang. I don't remember if he ever claimed the title "king" during his lifetime, but if it was a posthumous elevation it was already there in Wu Wang's time (unlike the posthumous elevation of more distant ancestors like Patriarch Dan of Gu) — where I got sidetracked with other problems and forgot what I was going to say, although at least ReplyTool cached my comment when my browser unloaded the page for no reason Folly Mox (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I think "11th-century BCE founder of the Zhou dynasty" might work? Remsense ‥ 论 14:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I think my main point was that "first king of the Zhou dynasty" is preferable over "founder of the Zhou dynasty", which was his dad. The dates can low key do whatever in the shortdesc; I'll try to have a look at proposed reconstructions of his regnal dates soon for the article proper.

Also, an unrelated historical note is that the Zhou dynasty itself, meaning the royal house as descended from Zhou Wen Wang, was actually not even the senior lineage in the larger Ji ancestral temple group. This afforded some minor polities in the northwest (the Zhou traditional homeland) special privileges. Maria Khayutina has done the most thorough English language work on this. Folly Mox (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure if Ji Chang (King Wen) was really the founder of the Zhou dynasty. There were already a few Zhou rulers before King Wen, known as the rulers or elders (先公) of the Predynastic Zhou, such as Ji, King of Zhou and King Tai of Zhou. King Wen was also one of such rulers or elders (of the Predynastic Zhou) but clearly not the first. On the other hand, King Wu conquered the Shang dynasty in the Battle of Muye and is thus considered to have founded a new dynasty (i.e. Zhou dynasty) to succeed the Shang dynasty. --Wengier (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Wen Wang was the one who received the initial Mandate of Heaven, which formed the theoretical underpinning of the Zhou claim to worldly sovereignty. All early histories consider Wen Wang the founding dynast (even though his own ancestors did have their own polity under the Shang), and use the Mandate calendar to express dates in terms of how many years it had been since Wen Wang received the Mandate. Sure, Wu Wang defeated the Shang king after taking over his late father's political movement, but Wen Wang started the rebellion and Cheng Wang was the one who consolidated the conquest.

There are other dynastic founders who never ruled as sovereign (the Sui dynasty is another example of this, as is the Yuan dynasty; there are probably more). In short, "founding a dynasty" and "overthrowing a government and installing yourself as the new boss of all bosses" are separate acts. Folly Mox (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It is arguable that "founding a dynasty" and "overthrowing a government and installing yourself as the new boss of all bosses" are separate acts, but many reliable sources actually consider them synonymous (for the purpose of Chinese history). For example, the book "The Origins and Continuity of Chinese Sociology" (Page 211) states that "When King Wu, the founder of the Zhou Dynasty, overthrew Zhou of Shang, he declared resoundingly that, 'Heaven is impartial, and aids only the virtuous'". Similarly, the book "The History of Ancient Chinese Economic Thought" (Page 6) states that "Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that the Zhou dynasty was founded by King Wu around 1125 BC and that it endured as a powerful entity until c.770 BC". Likewise, the book "Chinese Theatre: An Illustrated History Through Nuoxi and Mulianxi" (Vol 1, Page 15) states that "The sixth part re-enacts the triumphant return of King Wu in commemoration of his conquering the Shang dynasty and founding the Zhou dynasty", etc. Also note that the Zhou dynasty is considered by the "Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project" to be started in 1046 BC, during the reign of King Wu. So I think the term "founding a dynasty" can well also mean the latter, as indicated by sources. --Wengier (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)