Talk:Ba–Shu culture

Requested move 30 March 2023

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The WP:RECOGNIZABILITY of the current title has been disputed, whereas the proposed title has been argued to have an unclear scope. With low participation even after a relist, this discussion did not result in a consensus for any specific title. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Ba–Shu culture → Culture of Sichuan – I don't see evidence that "Ba-Shu" is a term commonly used to describe Sichuan culture. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 03:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Ba–Shu Chinese Oimate123 (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

"Ba-Shu" is a common term in the Chinese-speaking world to refer to Sichuan and Chongqing as a single entity and anything related to them. In the case of this article, "Sichuan" can be confusing. Since the separation of Chongqing from Sichuan in 1997, it's not clear whether this "Sichuan" is in a historical sense (including Chongqing) or it denotes the current "geopolitical" situation (excluding Chongqing). Besides, "Ba-Shu" is frequently used in Sichuan studies, e.g., 巴蜀文化研究 (Research on Ba-Shu Culture), 巴蜀文化大典 (Encyclopedia of Ba-Shu Culture), 巴蜀文化志 (A Chronicle of Ba-Shu Culture), 古代巴蜀与南亚的文化互动和融合 (The Cultural Interaction and Integration of Ancient Ba-Shu and South Asia), 巴蜀佛教文史论丛 (A Collection of Essays on Ba-Shu Buddhist Literature and History), 巴蜀石窟 ("Ba-Shu Buddhist Caves"). Uriel1022 (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Ba-Shu part of 'Chinese civilisation'?

I suggest removing this statement "it is considered to be one of the cradles of Chinese civilisation and culture by historians.".

The Ba-Shu culture has a script that isn't sinitic and completely unrelated to the Seal Script. Not everything in the borders of modern China should be considered 'Chinese', in the same way we do not call the Etruscans a 'Roman culture' or 'Roman civilization' just because the Etruscans were assimilated by the Romans through conquest.

It is also the problematic redefinition of Chinese civilization as an umbrella term to label cultures which themselves may not identify as such.

The sources are all from mainland China, whose historiography is possibly affected by nationalist sentiments. Are there Western sources that can either affirm or dispute this as well. Veryhappyhugs (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

According to book "Scripts, Signs, and Swords" published by the University of Pennsylvania, "It should be noted here that recent works on ancient China define Ba, Shu, Dian as a related cultural area. It should also be noted that, during the period in question, the peoples of this area were regarded as non-Chinese by the Chinese commentators. The people of Ba and Shu were not only literate in archaic Chinese, but they also had two scripts of their own, neither of which has yet been deciphered". So the Ba and Shu people were literate in (archaic) Chinese in addition to other two scripts, and it is considered a related cultural area. As for the sources mentioned above, since they are reliable sources their viewpoints should be represented as well, although it should be stated that it is only the views of some historians. --Wengier (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Note that the argument that Ba-Shu appeared literate in archaic Chinese seems a fairly weak argument for it to be subsumed under Chinese 'civilization', in the same way literacy in Turkic during Tang times does not imply the Tang to be a Turkic civilization.

I'd also argue that we must avoid the culture/civilization distinction in academic discourse, because the latter is a far more loaded, value judgment, when the word 'culture' can easily be a more neutral synonym for civilization.

While I appreciate your feedback, I think we should base on the views of reliable published sources (WP:RS), rather than trying to argue them by ourselves. If there are scholars who actually argue this, their views may be appropriately represented, in a certain weight (per Wikipedia:UNDUE). One should try to avoid own POVs. Moreover, I would strongly suggest you to log in, especially if you are same person as the original poster. --Wengier (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Wengier, thanks for your feedback, I've seen that the wiki page has been slightly edited to make it more neutral. I think I'll close this thread.

On your particular points, I am just pointing out that the UPenn source only points out the side usage of Chinese seal script alongside the Ba-Shu script hence it shouldn't be understood as paradigmatically 'Chinese' in the same way usage of Turkic during the Tang doesn't mean the Tang was Turk. So its not a matter of citation. And yes, thanks for the heads up on logging in. Appreciated! Veryhappyhugs (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)