# Talk:Religion of the Shang dynasty

I wrote this page, but I think that my sources are not enough. Could you find mỏe supporting data? Strongman13072007 (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Strongman13072007, you appear to be copying large chunks of text from other articles. Just so you know, the authorship of Wikipedia articles when used still needs to be attributed, please see WP:CWW for details: just note the article you're copying from in the edit summary.That said, a lot of the copied text requires a lot of editing work, in my view. In a way, this could potentially double the work I need to do to edit the text, and it can be an inconvenience to go back and forth hunting down instances of the same flawed paragraph. Do you think it would be possible to WP:TRANSCLUDE the excerpts from the source article instead, so that improvements made once can improve all articles it's included in? Remsense留 03:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll paraphrase the texts. Recently I copied paragraphs from the original sources to the editing window and left it for another time for paraphrasing. But I think there was a mistake, and the button "Publish" was pressed. I have paraphrased some texts, and I rewrote the longest ones that take considerable paraphrasing effort as quotations from the attributed authors.
My apology for the mistakes. Strongman13072007 (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
The original sources as in other Wikipedia articles, or as in the referenced sources? Because you shouldn't do either unattested, but you seriously shouldn't do the latter. Regardless, you should state which articles you have copied from, attribution is required even when copying within Wikipedia, as stated above. Remsense留 18:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok. Strongman13072007 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't enjoy doing so, but copyright issues can really create bigger problems with articles, so they have to be taken seriously. Remsense留 23:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Did you have any thoughts on transclusion, by the way? I'm not sure how much of this material is covered on other wiki articles and could be transcluded somehow. Remsense留 01:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Strongman13072007, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I am concerned that this article is not quite being written as an encyclopedia article—a tertiary source synthesising an understanding of a subject from secondary sources for a general audience, but rather simply listing paraphrased, undigested points made by your secondary sources, and including a lot of them in a way that will make the article very hard to improve in the future. The article is presently 10k words, it should probably be around half that, with the extra information put into related articles or subarticles. Remsense留 00:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, there are a lot of style concerns, please see MOS:ZH as to why you shouldn't be including so much Chinese-language text in this article, it is not useful to the vast majority of readers. Remsense留 00:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm scanning for unnecessary and subjective texts and have deleted some of them. Some broad topics mentioned can be put into other articles, but I'm searching for more sufficient sources so I amn't able to do it at the moment. Strongman13072007 (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
also—please be aware that you are massively overlinking in the article. I've gone through and fixed it and other style issues (such as using Chinese characters with a linked term, which goes against our style guide. I would recommend reading the Manual of Style in general also, I would prefer to make fixes once, and not come back and see the same issues again, which if i recall correctly has already happened once, before I can start working on larger problems in the article.These larger problems are made daunting by effusive repeating of the same things over and over again in the previously undigested manner, making it very difficult for anyone else to try and improve the article, especially when you are prone to just undo their changes, seemingly without noticing.Due to these issues, the article is presently nigh-unreadable, unfortunately. Remsense留 03:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize for my faults. I kind of repeating information without noticing it. I have sorted out some serious repetitive sentences and acknowledge that I've gone too far by this point. I've cleared about 10 thousand bytes, and currently looking for irrelevant information.
Could you clarify what major issues this article has? I'd like to correct them and see if any improvements can be made. Strongman13072007 (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
In turn, I sincerely apologize for getting confrontational in my tone, it was rude: you are working very hard on this article, and it's highly appreciated from someone who wants to see China topics better covered on here. I haven't gotten to edit this article much because you've been working on it consistently and I dislike stepping on others' toes, I'll take a look tomorrow. Cheers! Remsense留 09:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that some article problems in the "Multiple issues" template have been addressed. Can you sort out any issues left? I think that some indicators regarding issues can be removed. Strongman13072007 (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I've done a total revision of this page and made changes. I did these things: Reduced lists to short paragraphs
+ Rearrange all sections
+ Turn some sections into subsections
+ Erase unrelated topics
So maybe you could re-read the new version and give me some advice? Strongman13072007 (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently I have basically remixed all sections hoping to create a more cohesive content. There are currently five sections now instead of seven like before. I also removed too deviated paragraphs. Strongman13072007 (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I read some other sources pointing out that works like Keightley 1978 and Eno 2008 support some information, but I can't specify the pages since I don't have real access to these works. I think that I've cited these sources in paragraphs that they don't support. I really appreciate it if you do some revision of these sources and delete them if necessary. Strongman13072007 (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I will take a look ASAP, thanks for asking! Remsense诉 10:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
If possible, you can specify the pages for those books. Strongman13072007 (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Strongman13072007, could you please take a look at MOS:ZH and implement its guidelines, especially considering language tagging and making sure not to use diacritics in running text for pinyin? It is rather frustrating to come back to this article a few months later and see most of my style and copyediting fixes I already spent hours doing overwritten or disregarded. Remsense诉 01:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't get it. Are diacritics a problem, or have I put them to excessively in the article? Strongman13072007 (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Our guideline is meant to reflect the general WP:COMMONNAME naming policy in the Chinese context: i.e. most English-language publications don't use pinyin with diacritics, so we avoid using them in running text (meaning, outside of linguistic notes in parentheses and the like) because that's the form a general English-language audience is most familiar with
Does that make sense? I know these things can be unintuitive, and I want to explain them well if I can. Remsense诉 04:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok so I get it. But is it OK to apply diacritics and italics to some names for places, peoples and spirits in the article? I've seen the "Late Shang" article having such toned, italicized names. Strongman13072007 (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Another point is there is simply too many superfluous Chinese-language terms listed inline. For some, like Di, it is important, but unless there's something English-language readers might like to know about the word specifically, we do not really need to be told what the word they used for "wind" was, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Remsense ‥ 诉 11:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you read through the article and say what Chinese terms are appropriate within the context? And whether some ancestors need Chinese terms or not? Strongman13072007 (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense I removed the majority of terms in the Sacrifice section. Is it OK? Strongman13072007 (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Generalissima, would you like to take some time assessing this article? The GA review has been paused for a while; I think during that period you can do me a favor. Strongman13072007 (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

SilverTiger12 mentioned this on Discord and I've skimmed over the article. I will likely go over it again to do some more small copyedits, but I don't think I have the capacity to do a full GAN review in the near future. Maybe Generalissima can, or perhaps @Remsense will come back to it (they are active elsewhere so I'm gonna ping them as a reminder). The article looks really good though, thank you very much Strongman for your hard work! Toadspike [Talk] 09:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I know I've promised a few times, but as you can see I'm working through it again and have now worked over the bulk of the issues. I had to stop repeating how bad I feel about it taking so long—the fact that I'm a perfectionist and want to do the very best job I can is not a good excuse here—and just work instead. Thank you et al. as always for the back-up and encouragement. Remsense ‥ 论 09:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)


### Religion of the Shang dynasty
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to be my first featured article candidate. The topic covered in the article (currently a GA) is not known to many people, but to enthusiasts it may be considerably interesting. The religion of the Shang is a complex one, and this article alone cannot describe the whole of it. I was desperate to make it both comprehensive and understandable to readers at the same time, but I'm running out of ideas for further article development.
I'm mostly concerned with the sourcing of the article. Although they are not the majority, Ph.D dissertations are used within some sections. I've given Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP a decent look, but I'm still not sure whether the cited dissertations are valid as reliable sources. Besides, I feel that Wikipedia prefers books to journal articles, so whether my mixed reference list of book and journals is allowed is also a thing I want to know.
Another problem for me is whether the article has covered enough information. For a small religion like this, it's of great importance to me to know what can be added to the main prose. I think the sections about Shang beliefs and practices are broad enough because I devote most of the time to these. But there remain questions when it comes to political influence and history of the religion. If there's something I should improve, please let me know.
Finally, if my article doesn't satisfy certain MOS rules, I'd like to be reminded about this.
Thanks, Strongman13072007 (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

SC
Comments to follow soonish - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a big article about a heavyweight subject and one that needs a good review. A very quick read of the opening couple of sections shows it's very well written and well sourced, (by which I mean there is no chance of a quick fail at FAC) so I'm going to take my time in going through it properly. Pinging Tim riley and UndercoverClassicist as two excellent reviewers who may also be able to help out here. - SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Happy to look in shortly. (And I have a new peer review of my own, too, if anyone's interested.) Tim riley talk 15:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for replying this late. Anyway, appreciate all of your help and I'll give your reviews a decent look. Strongman13072007 (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

In terms of the sourcing questions you mention in your opening comment: I'm not sure it's true that Wiki prefers books to journal articles. Certainly at FAC the use of journals is common and it's recognised that they tend to be a source of high quality academic input on specialist topics, so there's no issue with them being used here.I see two PhD theses being used. That's not necessarily a problem, depending on the works themselves. WP:THESIS gives more background on how and why they can be used. Have either of these been cited by other works or referred to by subject specialists? Were they put through a wider peer review or were known subject experts involved in reviewing them at any stage? These points all build up a case for inclusion, so the more supporting information you can get on them, the more likely a source review will give them a thumbs up. More to follow on the prose and coverage shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Strongman13072007, I think this is an excellent article as it is, and one that could certainly go to FAC. There are a few uses of American English in an article overwhelmingly in British English, and a few false titles that could probably do with having a definite article popped in front of them, but on the whole it's in excellent shape. Footnotes 293, 297 and 299 need examination: all point to Takashima 2012, when there is only a Takashima 2011 in the sources - is there a missing source, or is 2012 a typo? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying on this.
English varieties & false titles: need some time to spot, but I'll try to fix it ASAP
PhD theses: I recall both being cited elsewhere (with Smith 2008 cited in Schwartz 2020, also a source in the article)
Takashima 2011: fixed
If there's more please ping me. Tysm! Strongman13072007 (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Ah @SchroCat, currently "Art and architecture" is a quite new section detailing Shang art, drinking traditions and temples. etc as related to the religion. Some of its subsections (Ritual art & Temples and altars) used to belong to the first two sections but are now in this one. I appreciate a look for now, and if there's anything to work on this please ping me too. Cheers Strongman13072007 (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)


#### Comments from Tim riley
From a first canter-through for spelling etc: the text seems to be in the King's English – formalised, neighboured, recognised, favourably, practised etc – but I spotted three intrusive Amerenglish spellings: "the center of the heavens" (twice) and "were modeled". And "CCTV New Year's Gala gala" could do without the duplicate gala. More anon. Tim riley talk 16:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Detailed comments
This is a huge article and I'll need several goes at it. Here's the first lot, down to the end of the Beliefs section:

"The state religion of the Shang dynasty" – it would be as well to specify the country in which all this took place.
"and is believed to have emerged significantly earlier ... Religion played a significant role in Shang court life" – you are fond of "significant" in its adjectival and adverbial form (and in one instance in its noun form). This is the wise advice of Plain Words on "significant": This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'
"The Shang likely believed" – we appear to be in BrE, in which case you may like to consider this advice from The Guardian's style guide: In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as “they will likely win the game” sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well.
"whom they called the 'five adjutants' or 'five ministers'" – not sure why single quotation marks rather than the MoS standard double.
"Allan claims that this totemic tradition was implied" – I'd be cautious about using "claims", which carries overtones of doubt about the claimant's veracity.
That's all for now. Tim riley talk 12:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

To the end of the Practices section
"The king was able to convene directly with his most recent ancestors"– I don't understand the meaning of "convene" here. Could you clarify?
"to obtain divine appeasement" – if, as I am guessing, this means to appease the gods it would be better to say so in plain words
"in more secular contexts, like in this excerpt" – "like", as used here is all right in colloquial usage but too informal for encyclopaedic prose. You would be better off with "as".
"however, interpreters including Kwang-chih Chang state that this is not a satisfactory interpretation" – "interpreters" normally means "translators", but here you seem to be referring to commentators.
"sinologist Victor H. Mair" – clunky false title; adding "the" at the front will make the prose better
"David Nivison has speculated seemingly inherent patterns" – seems to be missing a preposition such as "about" before "seemingly". And when you write "So-and-so" says "such-and-such" it is as well to explain briefly who So-and-so is, so that your readers can understand why you are quoting him/her.
"and alternative theories have been proposed" – you ought, I think, either to say what the theories are or omit the six words.
More anon. Tim riley talk 11:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Tim riley I've improved the article according to your (and of course, @SchroCat and @UndercoverClassicist's) suggestions. Anything else problematic spotted yet? Strongman13072007 (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)


#### UC
Commenting, fairly briefly, by request:

The article is very heavily illustrated -- text reaching the right margin is the exception rather than the norm. For readability, it's usual to go for about one image per "screen" of text. Some of those images don't appear to be particularly related to the text, or else seem to hint at something which ought to be discussed in the text -- see the bronze jue and masks, for example.
For quite a long article, I'm not sure the lead fully summarises it. The idea, under MOS:LEAD, is that the lead could stand as a shortened version of the whole -- a good rule of thumb is that each paragraph of the body becomes a sentence in the lead.
Separately, and for the same reason, it's unusual to use citations in the lead (MOS:LEADCITE) except for direct quotations and things that are likely to be edit-warred -- everything in the lead should be stated and cited in the body.
I must admit that I often, as a reader with very little knowledge in the topic area, found myself getting lost in the article. The summary paragraphs at the top of the macro-sections are a good idea, and I would expand these into mini-leads -- give the reader a one-paragraph run-down of what's about to follow before going into the weeds.
On which, remember that the article will be read by people exactly like me, who will need key concepts explaining. See for example:
, likely indicate the existence of a bird symbol that constituted Shang totemism (what's totemism, and how does the existence of a symbol constitute it?)
The upper one of these, Shangdi, was a manifestation of Shang mainline ancestors through the polar square: what's the polar square? Was it important?
Remember MOS:NOFORCELINK: if a reader would have to follow a link to understand something, it should be explained in the text.
We have two PhD theses cited. Liu 2005 seems only cited in relation to the image of the scapula -- I'm not sure exactly what it's supporting, but on the assumption that it's something uncontroversial not stated in the other source (e.g. a translation), I think that's probably fine. The other is Smith 2008: we cite a long chunk of that to support, alongside two others, one group ... reflect[s] a distinct writing style from that of the royal divinations (NB grammar correction there). Could we simply remove the Smith citation -- is it actually holding any weight?
Further Reading sections worry me in FAs. If there's something useful in those sources that isn't mentioned in the text, that's a worry for comprehensiveness -- it should be found and added. If there isn't, why should the reader read them?
I hope this helps, and good luck with the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! I'll take a look at each of your points here ASAP. Strongman13072007 (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)