Talk:Shang dynasty

too-detailed scholarly discussion of dates in lede?

Reading the first paragraph of this article, I am surprised by the in-text inclusion of the names of three scholars and a scholarly project (Pankenier, Nivision, Shaughnessy, and the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project) in debate with each other on the dating of this dynasty. This is valuable for certain, but perhaps too much detail for the first paragraph. I suggest instead, after the sentence on how the current text of the Bamboo Annals suggests rule dates of 1556 to 1046 BC, something like: “Modern scholarship supports this chronology, and radiocarbon dating from archeological sites has suggested a founding date as early as c. 1600 BC.” Interested readers could turn to the Absolute Chronology section for more detailed information. Thoughts? Resaliest (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

100% they need to be discussed as is, but yes the place for that is in their own section and not the lead. The lead can just begin with the generally accepted dates and acknowledgement of dispute or simply say that the specific dates are disputed within a range of ~. — LlywelynII 03:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to mention the traditional dates at all in the lead, considering there is practically no use of them in contemporary academia. Aza24 (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio paragraph

Given recent incidents in articles around early Chinese history/archeology, I've been more wary of copyvio—this revision by Porcinipal appears to plagiarize a paragraph pretty much verbatim from the source it's attached to, which is unacceptable. It's only one, but I suppose I've been seeing it too much in this space to be happy about it. Remsense留 02:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Spot-checking their other contributions, they seem to do this with approximately one paragraph per article. Remsense留 02:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Qing dynasty which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

About Shang religion

Since the article on Shang religion is already too large for this article's religion section to summarize, is it okay now to do a thorough rewrite of the section? Strongman13072007 (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

That seems certainly worthwhile @Strongman13072007, particularly since the dynasty article is rather short at only 3.5k words. Nice job with the Shang religion article – Aza24 (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)