Talk:Sinology

List of Sinologists

Planning to move "famous recognized sinologists" to new article "List of Sinologists". Any thoughtsIluvchineselit 03:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

>Sure, put them all on one page. It's too hard to divide them into a "famous" and "others" list. Separate pages for individual sinologists will tell how famous (or better, how good) they are. A Question: Are "Sinologists" "Hanxue jia"? That is, need they be non-Chinese? If not, then we need to add many names: Rao Zongyi, Yeh Chia-ying, Wang Li, He Peixiong, etc. I think a "sinologist" must be recent--since the Jesuits. If we included traditional Chinese scholars before that, there would be too many, and what they did is, I believe, not exactly "sinology." They were already inside the proverbial fishbowl. The Qing philologists (though after the Jesuits), for example, should have their own page. Shih-hua ("critical poetry talks") needs a separate page too. Etc. Also, postmodern scholars of China, as far as I can see, aren't really "sinologists"; that construct is something they aim to break down, and probably would reject the label anyway. So we should be cautious about adding some scholars to the list. Recent scholars of traditional China such as Owen, Schafer, Knechtges, Mair, JJY Liu, KIS Chang, Birrell, Boltz, Kroll, Idema, etc are indeed "sinologists."

Also needed is a section on French and German sinologists. See David Honey's book.

I find it shocking that one of the greatest sinologists of the 20th century, Joseph Needham and his seminal Science and Civilization in China, has not been mentioned anywhere in this article. With such a glaring hole in the article, it almost sounds like he was kept out on purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.93.22.81 (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sinologists as experts on china

I took the liberty of removing the following sentence from the beginning: "In China, sinologists are sometimes, with admiration and affection, called "experts on China" (中國通)". Apart from the characters to me displaying as question marks, which i hope has to do with me not having chinese fonts enabled, the sentence appeared to me not informative, as sinologist and 'expert on china' are nearly synonyms. Jens Nielsen 14:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prodigy

Question for the author:

Sinologists -> U.S.: "Scott D. Gerner (1983-) 3 Kingdoms period specialist"

An awfully young specialist - where can I find more information on this prodigy? There's nothing available online.

New section: Studying Sinology in the UK

I would like to add a section: Schools in the UK offering chinese Studies. There used to be a great list under http://www.bacsuk.org.uk/UKUniversities.html. However, the site seems to be inaccessible in China. The german wikipedia has a similar chapter (Sinology in german-speaking countries) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.213.138.202 (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would cast my vote in favor of your generous offer. I took the liberty of adding a reference which would be helpful.

The site you mention is called "Chinese Studies," however, and I think it is necessary to maintain the distinction between "Sinology" and "Chinese Studies." Would you start an article, "Chinese Studies"? This seems to be the term of preference both in North America and the UK, and there is nothing to be gained by confusing the two. ch (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge

Neologism, content fork which would be better here. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merging Superzohar

Talk 08:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinology, as used in the US and Europe, are different fields even though there is widespread use to simply mean "study of China." So I think that the two should not be merged. ch (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me, but the two concepts are distinct. The citation from a dictionary which is almost a century old should not trump a citation from a contemporary one. The move actually demonstrates the point by removing the more recent sense of "China Watcher," which would not have referred to the People's Republic in 1913. The citation was not to Amazon.com but rather to a book which appeared on it, but I will expand the citations to "China Watching" with other and better examples. ch (talk)

Are the sinology people Sinologists or sinologists?

Should people involved in sinology be written with an upper case S or a lower case s? - Tournesol (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit surprised to see it capitalized. Mythirdself (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not capitalized here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_sinology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythirdself (talk • contribs) 00:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kuijper's "criticism" section

Can't imagine that this one will be too controversial but I'm going to give my reasons just in case. I removed it because it was a transparent attempt at self-promotion by the author of the summarized article. He even went so far as to announce this edit by sending a mass e-mail to a bunch of China scholars, apparently hoping to incite a debate about his points. This isn't the place for such a debate, and I'm sure Mr. Kuijpers won't have any trouble finding a forum for sinologists to engage in a discussion. The argument as presented in the summary is also completely non-notable because it's a silly false dichotomy - either you're an expert on all facets of China, which is indeed impossible, or you don't have any relevant knowledge about the country and its culture. Röstigraben (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]