Talk:Burning of books and burying of scholars

message: (Referring to edits by User:Eiorgiomugini)
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are both names for the head of a government. However, the Chinese word Chengxiang (丞相) and Zaixiang (宰相) are conventionally translated as Chancellor - see Chancellor of China vs List of premiers of China.
There are several reasons for this, as I understand it. First, the role of the Chancellor in China is more similar to that of the Chancellor in European traditions, than the more modern Prime Minister. Thus, Otto von Bismarck's position, Chancellor, is translated into Chinese as 宰相. By contrast, Tony Blair's position, Prime Minister, is translated as 首相.
Secondly, the Chinese Chancellor's role can be filled by one or several persons at once. Thus, you may have 左丞相 and 右丞相 at the same time. Clearly, a "Prime Minister" can only be one person at a time. This is another reason why the term is translated as Chancellor.
In any case, the convention is to translate it as Chancellor - as can be seen from Wiki's treatment of this subject. --Sumple (Talk) 10:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chancellor vs Prime Minister 

message: I removed the duplicate cleanup tag. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tags 

message: Is the term "book" accurate? The article on history of books does not talk about when books appeared. Bamboo strips tied together as shown at History of Books - East Asia would seem to qualify as a book; is that what was burned? ChangMei (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books? 

message: Few scholars today believe that Sima Qian's account of the book-burning in the Records of the Grand Historian—the source of our knowledge about this event—reflects what actually happened, although no competing theories have appeared.
Really? Considering the historical symmetries between the Qin period and the 20th Century's Cultural Revolution, an historian would have to be an idiot not to come to an obvious theoretical conclusion.
Nuttyskin (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re Evaluation section 

message: I have made some edits to bring "recent" (that is, post-1800!) scholarship to bear, and will make a few more, unless other more knowledgeable editors such as  or  are willing.
* a few comments from Pedersen's article, which is cited but not used.
* As to Note a),  apologies if I misunderstood how this template works, but shouldn't the '|" be removed to allow the rest of the text? Then shouldn't the text be moved to the main text of the article? Giving the Shiji passage in this case would not be Original Research, which it otherwise would be, since it is the "traditional view." 
* Better source to replace the 1972 article by Chan.
* Reinsert an improved and better referenced version of Chairman Mao's use of the precedent.
ch (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent improvements and further suggestions 

message: I'm not sure what this wording in the lede means.  I changed to "school" for grammatical reasons... does this mean two copies of each text?  Does "schools" have a different meaning in this context? Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two copies of each schools? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Burning of books and burying of scholars. 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/20140611132550/http://yalepress.yale.edu/YupBooks/pdf/0300081855.pdf?winOpen=true to http://yalepress.yale.edu/YupBooks/pdf/0300081855.pdf?winOpen=true
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607050458/http://www.uri.edu/personal/yanma/597cl/userservicesjingliao.pdf to http://www.uri.edu/personal/yanma/597cl/userservicesjingliao.pdf
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) 11:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I notice that much of the “skepticism” section was added by an account which has since been banned as a sock puppet. However, their edits still remain, and make the skepticism seem far more extensive than it originally was. Is it possible to request that either: a) the modified content be checked carefully by an impartial editor, or b) be removed as suspect? 193.119.87.150 (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skepticism Review - Sock Puppet Account