Talk:Xi'an Stele

message: Assyrian Christian Stele is the historically correct name for what was formerly and improperly called the Nestorian Stele.  Gubernatoria (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's not, and you cite no source for that, on top of moving it improperly and filling it with typographic errors. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

text: That's still not a reference, provide a website that links to the name. Scholarship most commonly refers to it as the Nestorian Stele, even if it's not technically correct. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Still not a website that can be easily referenced for those without an English-language website nearby, but you're getting warmer. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: name

message: Has the stone ever been subjected to scientific analysis - with regard to dating etc ? would be good to include that information if so Monowiki (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mungello (1989) had summarized the debate about the stele, and his account implies (to me) that Henri Havret (ca. 1900) had pretty much said the last word about the stele's authenticity. Other people also mention a book by Pelliot (d. 1945). There well may have been more research since (although, I guess more of the textual/paleographic type, rather than "physical" - after all, you can't do radiocarbon analysis on a stone tablet), but a cursory web search (in English) doesn't uncover anything. Vmenkov (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, that was my impression of what Mungello (1989) said in connection with the stele. In my view, he was not emphasizing arguments for the authenticity of the stele, but basically was saying that the people who were doubting its authenticity were bullshitting: they hated Jesuits, so naturally they claimed that the stele, thought by them as a "Jesuit discovery", was a fake, even though their arguments against the inscription's authenticity did not hold the water. But of course the focus of Mungello's book was very much on the Jesuits, and not on the stele, so whoever wants to expand on the pro-authenticity side of the debate would probably need to actually get Havret's or Pelliot's books. Their text is not presently available on Google Books, but maybe Keevak (2008) has a discussion - i did not read his book either, beyond a few snippets. Vmenkov (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Scientific analysis"

message: It might be nice to provide a breakdown of the main Chinese characters (at least for the heading) to provide more information about the English(etc) translation. Monowiki (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Athanasius Kircher did it... :-) Vmenkov (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Here's the work of Boym and his Chinese collaborators, published in Kircher's China Illustrata that I was talking about: http://kircher.stanford.edu/gallery/djvu/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=93 Every character has an index, which refers to a gloss elsewhere in the text (not in this picture, but probably  a scan of China Illustrata in its entirety is available somewhere too). Vmenkov (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

text: And here's a link to the full book http://books.google.com.au/books?id=-VKNZ4SAXqYC ; the glosses you want are in pp. 13-28. Each character is numbered in the original, transcription, and trnaslation. So if your Latin is better than your Chinese, and the 16th-century transcription (not quite Pinyin...) does not daunt you, you're all set.   There should be translations of Kircher's books into other languages elsewhere too, of course. Vmenkov (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Glossing

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nestorian Stele. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070531045639/http://f17.aaa.livedoor.jp/~kmaz/keikyo/keikyou-hi.htm to http://f17.aaa.livedoor.jp/~kmaz/keikyo/keikyou-hi.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nestorian Stele. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100730215142/http://kircher.stanford.edu/gallery/djvu/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=93 to http://kircher.stanford.edu/gallery/djvu/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=93
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I don't think I could write it very well, but there is a discussion of it in this article I would like to see paraphrased on this page. GoutComplex (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of the theorized history of the Stele