![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have greatly expanded this page, with extensive references, while leaving out all information on the nature of the oracle bone script itself, so as to keep these pages separate; there is only a little room for further expansion of oracle bone without excessive lengthiness IMO, but there is quite a bit of room for expansion on the script itself. We also need more pictures. Dragonbones ( talk) 14:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pericles, thanks for the Fairbanks reference. You wrote "Dragonbones, I'm not used to this style of citation where the full reference is not spelled out, but I will add a citation from Fairbank's book here according to your style." Actually, the reason for the lack of full reference is because the in-text refs are used again and again, with different page numbers for different facts; the full refs are given in the reference section at the end. Thus, your full Fairbanks reference should be added under the References section. Cheers! DB Dragonbones ( talk) 15:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor came in today and changed one instance of BCE to BC, which is inappropriate. First, the rest of the article uses BCE, and Wiki guidelines require consistency. Second, it is specifically stated in the style guidelines that while either style is acceptable, it is not appropriate for an editor to come along and change all of one to the other simply due to preference. My understanding is that what this means is that whichever style gets set first in an article stays. Dragonbones ( talk) 13:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC) my toothbrush is an example of this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.176.99 ( talk) 23:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems that everything that the Plastromancy article has is (or should be) in the Oracle bone article as well. Would it make sense to merge the former to the latter, and to set a redirect? Otherwise, it seems to invite needless duplication. Vmenkov ( talk) 04:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This sentence is oddly inconsistent:
It begins with an emphatic statement, but then says the same thing with "may". I think it needs to be clarified what the source (Qiu?) is saying here. Kanguole 09:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to add a few paragraphs about James Menzies, the first person to scientifically excavate and study the oracle bones. Some of the sourced information about him is wrong: although he had the largest collection in the world, he never "bought" any of them. They were either formally excavated or donated by locals, who he was friends with. He kept as much as he could in China, and never thought of them as "his". I will find a good source to replace the source used now. Ferox Seneca ( talk) 05:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
His name leads to a link which doesn't exist. Despite his relevance in history, it seems that he does not have a wikipedia page. AnotherToast ( talk) 02:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Tibetologist: Many of these collections are listed in Keightley, Sources of Shang History, pp. 229–231. Kanguole 21:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I kind of dropped a turd and left but I don't have much time right now to expand the article. There is a decently sized body of work which mentions the use of oracle bones in Yayoi Japan, used similarly to the Chinese oracle bones, and this article does not reflect that whatsoever, being centered entirely around China. If no one objects, I'd like to change the article to include Japan, even though Chinese oracle bones are both older and significant and probably what people come to this page looking for. The issue I'm having here is that the article for Scapulomancy includes Plastromancy, which makes no sense. That article is sparse and frankly it's a mess, but could be used for divination scapula which were not labelled "oracle bones", or just renamed and reformatted entirely to include both non Chinese scapulomancy and plastromancy. Considering Japanese oracle bones are called such in books and articles (and used in almost the exact same way), I suggest we include at least the Japanese bones in this article.
Itsabooknotacourse ( talk) 16:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Let me know what you think. This is based on Keightley's work on changes in Shang divination practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanba42 ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Bone divination I am working on this splinter article and want to make it go over the current redirect Bone divination 14:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)