Talk:Di Xin

Semi-mythological?

This article apparently incorporates too much from a later work of historical/mythological fiction, the Fengshen Yanyi, which dates from the Ming dynasty (cf. the mention of the torture devices etc.)! This may be quite misleading for the uninitiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.56.187.177 (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Pejorative Name?

I am slightly perplexed as to why Zhou (紂) is considered pejorative, since I can find no meaning more sinister than "saddle strap". Doesn't seem very offensive to me. Anybody? ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 08:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

According to Shuowen Jiezi: "残忍捐义曰纣". Zhou basically means cruel. But some historians argue that Zhou was simply a homophone of the king's personal name Shou. -Zanhe (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality?

This article is about as neutral in tone as a tabloid newspaper; it's full of tautologies and weasel-words! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.62.23 (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes but one cannot expect much detail nor neutrality from a figure more than 3000 years old now, can we? Augend (drop a line) 17:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course you can. The period sources will be biased but this isn't Wikisource. We should reflect the present state of modern scholarship, including appropriate framing and context for bias in historical sources and removal or dismissal of entirely fictional ones. — LlywelynII 23:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Recommendation: A rewrite of the article by adapting the Chinese version.

Compared to the Chinese version, the English version is lacking in accuracy and neutrality. In the Chinese version, King Zhou's legacy is discussed in great detail compared to the section on his life, as a huge deal of what the English version put in the same section is muddled with, to put it simply, generations of propaganda that are not only unverifiable but also evidently contentious in modern time.

While the Chinese version of the article still has imperfections, I do believe that it is leagues better than the English version as it is now, and should still at least be a direction to go for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B011:4004:1A56:A461:A13B:C640:31AD (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion

• Wu Shu-hui (2011), "The Great Migration: Inception of the Zhou Identity", Studia Orientalia, vol. 111, Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, pp. 407–445, ISBN 978-951-9380-79-7, ISSN 0039-3282.

regarding the state of the late Shang as it was overtaken by the Zhou. — LlywelynII 23:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) TarnishedPath^talk 00:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

---

King Zhou of Shang → Di Xin – The current name is a posthumous exonym given by the Zhou dynasty after the Shang were conquered, which does not follow the endonyms used by the Shang. 商帝辛 Emperor Xin of Shang would be the correct name, as it was his temple name, and the name follows the grammar used with Emperor Yao and Emperor Shun. While it is common to use posthumous names for articles, this specific case does not exactly apply and results in an extreme, non-neutral position. Sui Yangdi has a similar issue but it isn't close to Di Xin's case. A move would be a good start in bringing this page in line with zh:帝辛, which is a great example of how to handle this specific individual; there, we see it using the name Di Xin, clarifying the posthumous name thereafter. Shira the Mogul (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

King Shou of Shang could also work as he was called this when he was alive. Alternatively, Di Xin as is done with Di Yi. Whatever is preferred, just...not what's currently there. - Shira the Mogul (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Chinese history, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, and WikiProject China have been notified of this discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 11:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I would advocate for Di Xin rather than Emperor Xin of Shang, on the basis that this is what the subject is called throughout the reliable source below. And also that this harmonises with other similar page titles on Wikipedia as Shira the Mogul has noted. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keightley, David (1999). "The Shang: China's First Historical Dynasty". In Loewe, Michael; Shaughnessy, Edward L. (eds.). The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC. (Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.)

I would also argue for Di Xin as the conventional name per SunloungerFrog, even though of course this king didn't receive the same burial rites as his predecessors. Translating "Di" as "Emperor" would be incongruous, as the Shang called their rulers kings. The personal name Shou in not found on the oracle bones (which never named the current king), and is only found in Warring States texts (which is not to say it's wrong, but the evidence is shaky). Kanguole 13:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Mhm, mhm! I support this, then! - Shira the Mogul (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

As people are moving towards Di Xin, I have modified the move request accordingly, as I am in agreement. - Shira the Mogul (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.