text:
Talk:Chinese character radicals

Character examples need to be completely revised
The character examples under each radical given in this page give the impression that they may be under that radical. As such, I am of the opinion that the entire list of example characters should be edited and repopulated with characters which does reflect the radical, rather than the current case where any old character with that radical element is used.

Dylanwhs 19:51, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * But how do you know which radical a character is listed under? In almost all cases, I listed characters under the same radical that they were listed under in the Unihan database.  In most cases it is arbitrary which radical a character is listed under, isn't it? ☞spencer195 20:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't say in most cases the character radical is arbitrary. The characters in Unicode are listed by Kangxi order, even those which are simplified have been shoehorned into the Kangxi 214 radical scheme. If you look at the source code for the characters examples and compare it to the radical character code, you will note that if they differ by from +/-10 to +/- 500 in some radicals, the likelihood is that they are not correctly assigned to that radical. For a list of Unicode CJK characters along with their codes as used in Wiki, have a look at my site, of CJK Characters in Unicode. Notice that since the CJK Ext.A characters and more recent updates in Ext. B (not in the site) have been created, characters lie outside the U+4E00 (19968) and U+9FA5 (40869) range. The characters within the range are those which were found in encodings of CJK character using countries, and one could refer to them as Unicode 2.1. The extensions A and above were published in 1999 and later, and now I think the whole lot amounts to around 70,000+ characters, taking in stuff from larger sets like CNS. As yet, I don't think there is a font which has all these characters in, and the wait may be a while. Unless you have SimSum 18030 you won't be able to display Unicode 3.0 which has the 20900 plus characters of Unicode 2.1 and Extension A of around six thousand extra.

 * Dylanwhs 07:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I have found several non-kangxi radicals have been added, probably by simplified character users. We should clean them up.  I also think it's best to list only ideophonetic (形聲) characters in traditional shapes, because their radicals are clear. - TAKASUGI Shinji 04:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it would be best to list the Kangxi radicals as one set, and non-Kangxi ones as a separate table so that both are not conflated into one confusing mass. I understand that Japanese character dictionaries also have 'extra' radicals too, at least from my Kanwa Jiten at home. This could also be a feature. Dylanwhs 18:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I have completely rewritten the Kangxi radical list. All characters are traditional forms and they belong to correct radicals. - TAKASUGI Shinji 18:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Major revision based on the French version
I've incorporated the text from my translation of the French version of this article (Talk:Radical (Chinese character)/French Translation, started by User:Adjusting). I've tried to integrate the information in the existing text as much as possible, but fairly little of the actual previous text remains. The Kangxi radicals have been moved to List of Kangxi radicals with minimal change. So, any issues related to that content should go there.

Please read the new text and check it as well as copy-edit it. I do know Chinese (poorly), but I am used to looking words up in Chinese dictionaries and I know a lot about the linguistics of Chinese and of CJK languages in general, so I'm not totally out of my depths in this field. But that doesn't mean I haven't made mistakes or misunderstood.

If someone with administrative privileges wants to delete Talk:Radical (Chinese character)/French Translation when they don't feel it serves any purpose for verifying the translation, I'd appreciate it.

I am preparing the article Chinese character classification based on the French fr:Classification des sinogrammes.

--Diderot 13:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clarification request
The article doesn't make it absolutely clear, at least not without reading it in its entirety, what exactly a radical is. Surely this is the most important thing here? Does it mean any graphically distinguishable part of any Chinese character? Must it be in other characters? Must it be in the modern, commonly used list of about 200 radicals? Must it be in the older list of about 500 radicals? Must it be used in (at least one, commonly, what?) dictionary as an index, or is the index usage separate and has no influence on the definiton of what a radical is? Is bushu exactly the same thing as "radical" in English, and is it used that way in Chinese/Japanese/other languages? Must the radical(s?) of a character denote meaning, or may it be purely phonetical? ("These examples intentionally use the radical for its semantic value, but this not always the case." says so, but the text above contradicts it at least implicitly by classifying characters as "radical+radical" and "radical + phonetic ideo-phonograms", strongly suggesting that these "phonetic ideo-phonograms" that look like radicals are in fact not radicals)

In short, the article, being a definition of what a radical is, should strive to make it absolutely clear what is meant by the word, and this definition should be given at the beginning. As it is, it seems as if the authors themselves have different contradicting ideas of what the word means.

 * Not sure whose comment that was, but I wish to comment on the problem of the term radical, and how it is unfortunately applied to two different animals, the semantic component and the bushou, which may or may not coincide. I believe this will answer part of the above question --
 * First, when the earliest European sinologists decomposed Chinese characters, they attempted to apply to them the terms for decomposing the inflected words of European languages, namely radix or radical (the semantic root of a word, which provides its core meaning) and termination (the portion which changes when inflected, showing case, time and mood). Since the majority of Chinese characters are semantic-phonetic compounds, they applied the term radical to the semantic part, but they couldn’t apply the word ‘termination’ to the phonetic part since it does not take a terminal position.

 * Then, the 部首 bùshǒu (section heads) which organize dictionaries somehow got mistranslated as ‘radicals’ as well, creating confusion which has lasted up until the present. Many students are therefore under the misimpression that the component under which a character is indexed in the dictionary is its semantic component. This is not necessarily so, even if it happens to be true in many or even a majority of cases, and a careful examination of the characters under the first half dozen 部首 bùshǒu sections of the dictionary will amply demonstrate this.

 * The solution is to avoid the term ‘radical’ entirely. For the meaning-bearing component, the term widely used by scholars is ‘semantic’ component, while the section heads in the dictionary may be termed simply bùshǒu, and explained to students as, for example, the ‘header’ or ‘key’ or ‘index’ component under which the character is listed in dictionaries. Dragonbones 09:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * A fuller answer to the above should probably delve into the reasons behind the choices of bushou beginning with Shuowen, such as the study of this by Serruys. Dragonbones 09:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Complete revamping of this page underway
Subsequent to the above comments on the problematic nature of the term "radical", you'll find that if you go through the old page, it jumps from one meaning of radical to the next, completely confusing the issue. It even goes so far as to call phonetic elements and components of any kind 'radicals', completely missing the mark. This chimaera needs to be dissected and rebuilt, more than any other page I've seen on Wiki.

I have begun this attempt by first outlining where the English term 'radical' comes from, and the two meanings unfortunately assigned to it. Then I've gone through the page, looking at each use of the term, and changing it to one of two disambiguating synonyms, semantic element vs. section header; in some cases both meanings were intended by the term, and in others, neither was intended, as the authors randomly threw in the word 'radical' when other things like 'component' or even 'phonetic component' were intended. Biggest mess I've seen in ages.

The clarification of each use of 'radical' in terms of which meaning was intended does two things. One, it fixes erroneous or ambiguous usage, a step forward. Two, it highlights how badly organized the remainder of the page is, even now. Next we need to reorganize the page on this basis so that it doesn't jump from one meaning to the other. Perhaps three pages are needed? One to explain the problem with 'radical' and direct the user to two meanings, semantic element vs. section header; and then a separate page for each of those? I need help doing this, but before joining in, please ensure that you understand the difference between semantic components and dictionary section headers as well as the fact that careless use of the term 'radical' for both is the source of this whole mess.Dragonbones 15:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think two completely separate meanings 'semantic element' and 'section header' is the best explanation. In Xíngshēngzì the radical is clearly a 'categorizer' or 'classifier' which distinguishes morphemes which are written with the same phonetic. The radical has only enough semantic content to make the distinction, and cannot carry most of the semantic content as 'semantic element' would suggest is possible. Even in the Huìyìzì the radical element is not enough to determine the meaning of the word, and as the linked section says, some argue that these were originally Xíngshēngzì anyway. In short, I think a 'categorizer' or 'classifier' which distinguishes morphemes is the best description.--JWB 17:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I think you're confusing the two concepts, and it will be difficult to have a clear discussion if you use the term 'radical' in the process. For example, you write "In Xíngshēngzì the radical is clearly a 'categorizer' or 'classifier' which distinguishes morphemes which are written with the same phonetic." If by 'radical' you mean the bushou, then the statement is most definitely incorrect, as the bushou in some xíngshēngzì is the phonetic element (e.g., 舅 jiu4 maternal uncle, comprising 臼 jiu4 mortar phonetic, and 男 nan2 male semantic, and listed in the dictionary under the jiu4 bushou). It is a demonstrable fact that bushou does not equal semantic element, even for semantic-phonetic compounds. It is not true in *all* cases, therefore it is inaccurate and confusing if such a general statement is made without caveat. If on the other hand by 'radical' you mean a (not 'the') semantic element (I say 'a' because there may be multiple), then the statement is circular (semantic elements function as semantic elements) and furthermore by applying the outdated term 'radical' to what scholars appropriately now term 'semantic elements' or 'semantic components', you're confusing matters vis-a-vis the bushou, commonly termed 'radicals'. ERGO two completely separate terms with completely separate meanings are indeed the only way to go. Now, I will concede this: if one wishes to make the extremely carefully worded point that "in xíngshēngzì, semantic-phonetic compounds, the component chosen as the bushou (often termed 'radical') for dictionary indexing purposes is usually but not always a common semantic element, which as you say 'distinguishes morphemes which are written with the same phonetic'," then the statement is unobjectionable.  Dragonbones 02:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I use the word radical only because that is the name of this article and therefore what we are trying to explain.
 * I acknowledge your counterexample. What proportion of characters are this kind of exception, though? The great majority of characters are xíngshēngzì, and the great majority of these have a determinative which is the bushou plus a phonetic which is not. We must explain what the predominant case is, as well as the exceptions, which would seem to be bushou = phonetic and bushou = neither determinative or phonetic as a whole, but a graphic subset small enough to be found in the limited list of bushou. And we should explain that the reason for the exceptions is because the dictionary compiler is trying to limit the total number of bushou. Instead of saying radical as determinative and radicals as bushou may just happen to coincide in a particular example, we should say something like that they coincide 90% or 95% of the time.
 * My main point which you did not comment on is that 'semantic element' is a vague description and that determinative, classifier, or categorizer give a better idea of what the element's function actually is. The reader needs to understand that most characters are a phonetic with a disambiguator, and that the semantic content of the determinative is very thin, not comparable to the semantic content of the whole word. --JWB 03:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good answer, thanks JWB. "I use the word radical only because that is the name of this article and therefore what we are trying to explain." But hopefully you can see that since many people have confused the two uses of 'radical', careful distinction between 'radical (bushou)' versus 'radical (radix)' versus 'semantic/determinative element' (not a 'radical') becomes necessary if we continue to use the term.

 * As to bushou which play a phonetic role, yes, the exceptions are a small proportion of the whole, but add to this the number which are merely graphic extractions like 丿 for 乍, 十 for 午, 田 from 畏, 方 from 旅, 日 from 者, etc., plus those which are not what they appear to be (e.g., 夕 in 多, 月 in 青, etc.) and the total which are not the semantic/determinative half of a phonetic-semantic pair are certainly numerous enough to invalidate a general description of bushou (radical) as semantic/determinative/classifier. I have no problem with telling readers that 'a majority of bushou (radicals) happen to be a semantic determinative element, but there are many which are phonetic elements, portions of hui4yi4 compounds, or even simply extractions of a graphic component which does not constitute a phonetically or semantically meaningful element', but I find it completely unnecessary to go into descriptions of what percentages of bushou play what kinds of roles in their characters -- the purpose of bushou is nothing more or less than a way to group characters in a dictionary so that they can be looked up; the confusion of this concept with the semantic root/radix/radical concept is a problem, and we need to find a way to avoid that. Getting away from descriptions of how some bushou are or are not semantic accomplishes this.

 * As for your main point, I fully realize that the semantic content of many of these elements is thin, but it is semantic in nature (as opposed to phonetic). In 杯 bei1 cup, the 木 mu4 'wood; tree' element hardly contains 'the meaning' of the compound. Indeed, it serves to complement the phonetic 不 bu4 (pei1), along the lines of 'the object referred to by the word pronounced bei1 which is made of wood'. In 反 fan3, it is the 又 hand-action (to turn over) pronounced han3 (now fan3).  I realize you're thinking of wood as 'in the general wood class', as opposed to 'this compound means 'wood. But the term 'semantic' is well established, and communicates in one very transparent word the approximate'' role of the component -- to convey a general category of meaning (vague semantic info). Words like 'determinative' won't immediately communicate to learners the role of the component without extensive explanation, and so they're less desirable. A phonetic element 'determines' the sound; a semantic element 'determines' the meaning; you see, 'determine/determinative' is not intuitively clear.
 * Insisting that such non-phonetic elements are determinative additions to or classifiers of purely phonetic elements opens up a whole new can of worms, and one unnecessary to a simple, clear treatment of what 'bushou' are. I would strongly prefer to leave behind such arguments, as they are not really relevant to the function of bushou, by which I mean, the function in the dictionary, of grouping characters graphically for ease of reference. Dragonbones 08:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't object to the use of the word "semantic" - it's not that it's untrue, it's that it is vague and needs more explanation. I can't agree that the word by itself properly "communicates in one very transparent word" - the connotations of "semantic" to the average reader, if s/he even knows the word, are more like "full meaning", "underlying meaning independent of syntax", "analysis of meaning". And, the first paragraph of the article makes a direct comparison with roots in European languages (that do carry most of the meaning) without explaining that this comparison is misleading.

 * "Determinative" is a technical term and not transparent, but it is worth noting in passing that it is the standard term used in the literature on the other logographic scripts, for those readers interested in cross-linguistic comparison. "Category" is the plain English most likely to give the reader the right idea. I do not insist on this or any particular word, but the explanation of the nature of the semantic content needs to be adequate.

 * If you make a case for something based on the argument that it is established terminology, you should add references. Right now the article is almost completely unreferenced. I have seen the word "semantic" in many other treatments, but some aspects of your exposition like the strict division into your two categories are in danger of being considered original research, and while I am conservative about deleting content for this reason, many editors are fanatical. Quick googling of characteristic phrases like '"semantic components" and "section headers"' seems to only turn up Wikipedia, mirrors, and other sites that include Wikipedia articles, all not acceptable as references. If an original approach with creative control, and emphasis on tutorial over reference, is in fact what you are interested in, Wikibooks might be more appropriate than Wikipedia.

 * The viewpoint that most base elements, or more than usually recognized, are phonetic in origin, does not need to be hashed out in this article - it should simply be mentioned briefly and linked to The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy where a detailed treatment belongs.

 * I'm not sure how "Getting away from descriptions of how some bushou are or are not semantic" avoids "confusion of this concept with the semantic root/radix/radical concept", since you have resorted to exactly such descriptions while trying to dispel such confusion on this talk page. Some of those examples could shed some light in the article.

 * I don't see how statistics can hurt. You may find them "completely unnecessary", but I and many other learners like to have some idea of how much to expect in further study of a language and find them valuable. --JWB 11:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

removal of 好 'good' image
In the section entitled “Identifying Semantic Elements versus Section Headers in Characters”, there is a serious problem with the inclusion of 好 as semantic plus semantic. That represents the spurious folk etymology rendition of this compound as a 會意 huìyì associative compound. However, it is not at all clear that its etymology is associative in nature; it is more likely that it is semantic-phonetic (like the majority of compounds), although the specifics of its origin are unclear. We should not be presenting it as clearly semantic-semantic when this is quite possibly not the case. Off the top of my head, more likely candidates for this category which include 女 are for example 姦 jian1, 妻 qi1, or perhaps 姆 mu3, 姥 lao3 or 姜 jiang1 (although whether the latter should be considered a compound is unclear). I haven't had the time to thoroughly vet these, but 姦 jian1 *has* to be semantic-semantic-semantic, right? I'd suggest replacing 好 with 姦 jian1 'adultery', but don't know the process for uploading the image to Wiki. Can sb please help? Dragonbones 08:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Until you figure that out, please leave the table and images as they are. If you have some serious evidence to prove your point, then the situation is perhaps different. None the less, even if the etymology were unclear, it's a good enough example character in my opinion (with the added note that the etymology may be spurious).

 * By the way, I gather from the explanation that the character has in a way become semantic + semantic over time, although it might have been something different in the distant past. It would be good to have some more diverse examples though.Wipe 00:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There are little children reading these articles you know, and maybe you could replace 姦 jian1 'adultery' with 森 sen1 'forest'. Deven McEwen (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

deleted confusing external reference
The external reference "http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/radicals.html - A good detailed introduction on section headers" is a perfect example of the confusion between the two meanings of the word radical. It is also not well written, so I have removed this external link, which will only confuse readers. (In general, I like Chinaknowledge.de, by the way -- but I would expect to see a drastic improvement in that particular page before it would qualify as a useful and informative link.) Here is an example of the confusion, with highlighting added for emphasis:

"The classifiers, determinants or radicals (bushou 部首) of a Chinese character serve to categorize words according to their meaning and to place them into a dictionary...Having a closer look at some characters, wrong attributions can easily be found, for instance the character for dao 到 "arriving" seems to be compounded from a standing "knife" 刀 to the right and the character 至 as a second part. Indeed, all characters deriving from the radical "knife" have the same shape. But looking at the meaning of the character, we see that in fact, the "knife" is not the radical, but the phonetical part of the character (pronounced dao), and the left part is in fact the radical 至 zhi "arriving"."

You can see that the author alternates between using radical in the meanings of bushou and semantic without explaining the difference, thus completely confusing matters. Dragonbones 09:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Character Palette.png
Image:Character Palette.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Confusion of "Pinyin" and "section header"
Are not the terms "Pinyin" and "section header" confused in the first paragraph? These are different things, thus "Pinyin" is not the correct term here?--Wickey-nl (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

 * It's saying that "bushou" is Pinyin for the preceding characters, not that Pinyin is synonymous with section header. --JWB (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

 * You can easily read: The second meaning is Pinyin, meaning section header. So it would be better: Later, the term was also borrowed for a second meaning, the 部首 (in Pinyin written as: bùshǒu, Japanese bushu, Korean busu), literally meaning "section header", under which a character is listed in the dictionary.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Editorial comment in text
The last line of the current content, "This is of course fundamentally incorrect." is clearly editorial comment and not information. For one, it includes the phrase, "of course" which is a question-begging tactic of intrusive editorialism. If the fifth meaning is in use, then it is just as valid as the others. The historical meaning of the term is not the same as the fundamental or correct meaning of the term and the historical meaning is a tangle of confusion.

Extracting the partial meanings of "radical" from the other four usages and synthesizing a discrete new meaning as a useful term is how languages work and therefore cannot be otherwise than "fundamentally correct." Halfelven (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for two distinct concepts?
Currently the article strongly reflects Dragonbones's viewpoint that there are two distinct concepts "semantic component" and "section header" which Westerners have conflated under the word "radical".

Can we produce any references showing that either Western or Chinese scholars have made a clear distinction between the two concepts and identified both? If not, it is WP:OR. --JWB (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

 * 部首 Bu + shou, means literally 'section'+'head'. In the Kangxi dictionary, and dictionaries where the Kangxi order and number of 'radicals' are not used, this is the literal meaning.

 * As for the semantic component, in relation to Bushou, for the majority of characters, there is an element of a vague semantic relationship, since this class of characters are composed of "semantic" + "phonetic". It's easy to see where the concept comes from. For instance, the character 問 (wen : to ask) is classed under the radical 口 (kou : mouth) rather than 門 (men : door/gate), since 門 'men' is seen to be the phonetic, whilst the semantic, the act of asking, is mouth related. Dylanwhs (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, bushou is the Chinese term, but I don't know of a Chinese term referring to "semantic component" as opposed to bushou.

As for Western sources, which ones make the strong distinction between "semantic component" and "section header"? ( The example you just cited seems to support the case for one concept rather than two separate concepts. --JWB (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi JWB, thanks for bring this up for discussion -- it's an excellent question. When I wrote that section I was not yet in the habit of heavily referencing things (my bad). But it's not just my opinion, and certainly not original research. Rather, it's a very basic, established fact, but one which has not been broadly disseminated to the English-speaking non academic audiences. I will provide clear references for you here and will then add some of them to the main page shortly (thanks again for the reminder!). Note that I disagree that we should be looking for 'Western' references. We should be looking for quality references -- such as those written by professors of Chinese rather than cartoon-laden coffee table books (especially those written by amateurs) on the language. My philologist mentor at the Academia Sinica's Institute of History and Philology introduced me to a book by Professor Woon, Wee Lee, University of East Asia, Macau, who writes in English for us: "It is important to note that the concepts of semantic element and 'section heading' (部首 bùshǒu) are different, and should be clearly distinguished. The semantic element is parallel to the phonetic element in terms of the phonetic compound, while the section heading is a terminology of Chinese lexicography, which is a generic heading for the characters arranged in eeach section of a dictionary according to the system established by Xu Shen. It is the 'head' of a section, assigned for convenience only. Thus, a section heading is usually the element common to all characters belonging to the same section. (Cf. L. Wang, 1962:1.151). The semantic elements of phonetic compounds were usually also used as section headings. However, characters in the same section are not necessarily all phonetic compounds. ...In some sections, such as 品 pin3 'the masses' (S. Xu 1963:48) and 爪 zhua3 'a hand' (S. Xu 1963:63), no phonetic compound is incorporated. In other words, the section heading was not commonly used as a semantic element...To sum up, the selection of a section heading is to some extent arbitrary." (p.147-8)
 * That should be clear, and adequate as a reference. It reflects the consensus of the academic community and is in no way a minority opinion. I imagine that the confusion primarily occurs among English speakers, because I have never seen this mistake made in Chinese language materials or among the Mandarin-speaking students or professors of Chinese here in Taiwan. The confusion is due to mistranslation of bushou into English using the same English word as that for the semantic component; it is not a fundamental confusion in Chinese. Once you have the same word in English referring to two concepts, (and especially given that for more than half of the bushou, there happens to be a semantic role), the confusion is inevitable, which is why the translation 'radical' needs desperately to be chucked in both cases or at least explained very very carefully. Note how Woon did not use the term 'radical' for EITHER meaning. This was an intelligent choice in order to help clear up the confusion, and one which we sorely need to emulate.
 * I can't quote every Chinese language source here for you, but I can assure you that consistent with Woon above, Chinese scholars use the term bushou to mean ONLY the heading under which a character is indexed, and use the term yi4fu2 義符 or xing2pang2 形旁 (and supposedly sometimes ding4fu2 or lei4fu2 in grammatology, although I've not heard these) for an element carrying semantic information. For more references in English supporting this, see for instance:
 * Qiú Xīguī (2000), pp.16, 246-7, and 244-6-- Note that in translating the Qiu, who is btw one of the most esteemed scholars in the Chinese world, the highly regarded Western scholars Norman and Mattos translated the yi4fu2 義符 / xing2pang2 形旁 concept as 'significs', not 'radicals', which shows they have a clue. (Qiu2, Chinese Writing. Translation of 文字學概論 by Mattos and Norman. Early China Special Monograph Series No. 4. Berkeley: The Society for the Study of Early China and the Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley. ISBN 1-55729-071-7.)
 * Woon, Wee Lee (1987) full reference is: Woon, Chinese Writing: Its Origin and Evolution. Originally publ. by the Univ. of East Asia, Macau (no ISBN); now available through Joint Publishing, fax: 852-28104201; email: jpchk@jointpublishing.com (attn: Edith Ho kit-sheung). Note: the Joint Publishing staff can’t seem to handle English titles well; be sure to send the author and title in Chinese by fax to get the right book: 作者: 雲惟利， 書名: 漢字的原始和演變.)
 * I'll try to add more references later if I haven't convinced you yet, LOL. Dragonbones (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 * From Jerry Norman's Cambridge Language Series textbook entitled "Chinese", here is a demonstration of how the two terms should not be translated using the same word. Also, it is evidence that modern scholars do not use the term 'radical' for semantic elements (that's a very dated term); furthermore, like Woon, Dr. Norman clearly disambiguates the two concepts. Bolding is my addition: (p.68) "In modern nomenclature the semantic component is referred to as the signific..." and (p.69) "The Shuōwén Jiézì contains 9,353 characters (Liú 1963). Xŭ arranged these characters under 540 radicals or graphic classifiers. These radicals are elements which a number of characters have in common, and which can thus be used as a means of classifying those characters' graphic shapes; frequently they correspond to the charcters' significs, but this is not necessarily always the case." (Note the emphasis on the bushou being "graphic" classifiers and not "semantic" classifiers. A discussion of the various bases, graphic, semantic and so on, used by Xu Shen when deriving the bushou in the first place is not really in order here, but I would refer you to the article by Prof. Serruys, Paul L-M. (1984) "On the System of the Pu Shou 部首 in the Shuo-wen chieh-tzu 說文解字", in 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 Zhōngyāng yánjiùyuàn lìshĭ yǔyán yánjiùsuǒ jíkān, v.55:4, pp.651-754.)  Note that while some scholars stick with the word 'radical' as a translation of bushou, due to precedent, none in their right mind would call semantic elements 'radicals'. All the references to semantics as 'radicals' that I've seen have been internet entries by Western students, and the same goes for the even more egregious error of confusing 'radical' with 'element' or 'component' (leading to horrifying sentences like "phonetic compounds are made up of both semantic and phonetic radicals"). Oh, full reference for Norman is:
 * Norman, Jerry (1988). Chinese. Cambridge University Press, UK. ISBN 0521228093; 0521296536. Dr. Norman is at the Dept. of Asian Languages and Literature, Univ. of Washington.Dragonbones (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 * The original page was written with a mixture of meanings of 'radical' in mind, including quite a bit simply referring to basic components of characters and not radicals in the major senses used. Thus, the page had grown over time into an obscene chimera reflecting various uses, without clarifying why the meaning was jumping from one definition to the next; editors are rarely prepared to tackle problems of this magnitude. In line with the extensive referencing which I have added, including quotes from various well-known professors in the field, showing the various documented uses of the term 'radical', it became clear to me that a disambiguation page was needed for the term. I have thus revamped the page to be such, stripping out all unexplained and unreferenced usages. However, it is also a basic fact that most people mean the section headers of a dictionary when they say 'radical', and as such, I have given this usage a prominent link in the first paragraph and created a new page for that particular meaning (retaining in the process as much of the good and relevant stuff from the original page as was practical), so that people can bypass the in-depth disambiguation. I have also repeatedly stated that section header is what most people mean when they say radical. I hope that by doing so I have achieved clarity of disambiguation as well as balance in representing the mainstream modern usage. Note that without avoiding using the word 'radical' throughout these two pages, such disambiguation is not easily achieved, so I hope editors will not simply start changing the carefully worded pages back to that. Dragonbones (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have delayed posting while doing more research myself, but I need to break in and say that splitting the page is a very bad idea. --JWB (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are not two separate articles in the other language Wikipedias. The corresponding one article in each Wikipedia has a name cognate to Radical, Key, or Bushou, and the other-language English Wikipedia link of each points back to Radical (Chinese character). Splitting the article will make consistency between various language Wikipedias harder, especially since there are bots that traverse the Other Language links and try to fix problems automatically.
 * Section headers of a Chinese dictionary is a clumsy title and section header is not a standard term in English for radical/bushou; I don't think I've seen it in any references either you or I have collected so far, and a quick Google search turns up only your usage on Wikipedia and mirrors.
 * There is also already the Chinese dictionary article which is a natural place for some of this information, but presently only has a brief paragraph on radical-stroke lookup.
 * Disambiguation pages usually separate completely unrelated usage of the same term in different fields, different individuals with the same name, etc. For example, see the existing Radical disambiguation page. For related but slightly differing usages in the same field, usually they are discussed together in an article.

 * Hi JWB, thanks for the thoughtful response. It could be that the split was not the best idea; you and other editors can merge the two if desired. I would recommend against changing the terms 'semantic component', 'section header' and so on back to 'radical' however, because use of clearly different terms does help in the disambiguation. The text can say "section header (usually termed 'radical')" at the first mention, for instance, and then after that use the term section header.  The term is precedented, but I can't check the exact source (Serruys at least, I believe) till I get home where my references are.  Dragonbones (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure whether the split is a good thing, but I do think that the way it's currently split is actually the opposite of how I think the words are commonly used. In common English usage, though the concepts are often conflated, radical is used much more often to refer to the section headers (e.g., Kangxi radical) than to the semantic components of characters.  If a split is to be done, I'd much prefer that the article currently at section headers of a Chinese dictionary be entitled Radical (Chinese character) while the article currently at Radical (Chinese character) be entitled Semantic component or something similar. —Umofomia (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Resume split/merge discussion
I'd like to get back to the discussion in the above talk section.

Radical is simply equivalent to bushou. Etymologically the word "radical" was coined by Europeans using a poor analogy to roots in European languages, that are whole words lacking only inflectional endings for tense, number, person, etc., and nothing like the determinatives used in all the logographic scripts that are simply vague categories for disambiguation. The provenance of the word "radical" is not known to most users of Chinese characters and dictionaries, and the etymology is completely irrelevant to modern use. The word is like many words which were coined with a logic that no longer makes sense but has been forgotten.

As for the purported 'semantic' sense: Few people are trained in the origin and classification of Chinese characters, and even among the specialists, it is often unclear or disputed whether a given component of a given character is 'semantic' or not. This cannot be a basis for any fixed classification. As you (Dragonbones) have noted, the character classification scholars avoid the term "radical" entirely, except sometimes using it in its colloquial sense equivalent to "bushou", which is the only meaning the term is actually used for. The 'semantic' sense of radical does not exist at all in current usage, if it ever did, and the people who actually discuss whether character components are 'semantic' use other terms than "radical".

Radical and bushou both properly mean a component that is actually the head of a section in some dictionary or in the particular dictionary being discussed. The distinction between these components and other components that are not section headers is arbitrary and an artifact of paper book dictionary technology. The fact that students often ignore the distinction and simply refer to both as radicals is not "barbaric" as some pedantically complain, but simply reflects that the distinction is arbitrary and only useful as far as it speeds up dictionary lookup in some cases. (For unclear cases, dictionaries in fact often did include entries indexed under the "wrong" radical, with a pointer to the entry under the "right" radical to save space.) The distinction is even less useful with current technology which can look up characters based on any component, whether the "right" radical, the "wrong" radical, or not a radical at all.

The article should simply document radicals (=bushou) and their usage, and does not need to go over controversy about whether they mean "semantic" components as there is no such actual controversy. The split article Section headers of a Chinese dictionary should be merged back into this article or into Chinese dictionary. The article should also drop the tone of horror at "misuse" of the term to mean any character component. --JWB (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does it switch to Japanese terminology?
Since the title of the article is "Radical (Chinese character)", why does it suddenly start using Japanese names in the "Type of radical and position" section? This seems out of place. Maybe it would be better if it had the Chinese names as well? Jww1066 (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but my understanding is that Chinese and Japanese classify radicals somewhat differently, and the section covering Japanese kanji probably does not apply in the same manner as it does in Chinese hanzi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.248.148 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the correctness of the actual information, the flow is screwed. This is the first mention of kanji anywhere in the article, and it happens abruptly and without explanation in a section titled "Type of radical and position" -- a topic which would seem to be equally applicable to Chinese use. 86.181.170.47 (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Should use Bushou explanation of radicals, it is the Chinese form. Possibly use this as a reference page?Carmelator (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the abruptness due to the split-off of Section headers of a Chinese dictionary? How about if that was reversed? --JWB (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure how relevant the article split is to this particular issue, but, while we're on the subject, I don't see any reason for the split. Everyone calls the "section headers" in Chinese dictionaries "radicals", don't they?. Even Section headers of a Chinese dictionary agrees that these so-called "section headers" are in practice called "radicals", but then says it will avoid the term, which is weird for a start. Why would you want to not call something by its usual name? And then this article refers the reader to Section headers of a Chinese dictionary for what it calls "the most common meaning of the term". Why would "the most common meaning" of a term not be explained in that term's article? It seems that some previous editor(s) have been of the opinion that the term "radical" is mired in confusion, and the only way to present the information clearly is to split the articles. I don't personally see why it's so confusing. Maybe "radical" can be used to mean some slightly different things, but one of them is these so-called "section headers", so why don't we just explain so in this article? 86.160.82.79 (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made a couple of small changes that I think help present the article split in a better light. Mainly, I have removed the big warning at the top of the article directing users to Section headers of a Chinese dictionary for "the most common meaning of the term", which seems silly to me. This article always had its own section "Section headers of a Chinese dictionary", so the structure now allows a self-contained article here describing all the meanings of "radical" (including a summary of the "Section headers of a Chinese dictionary" meaning), plus a link to the main article on "Section headers of a Chinese dictionary" which thrashes out that specific subject in more detail. If I have the time and inspiration I also hope to cull some of the sound of axes being ground from this article. 86.160.213.101 (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Character category; Questions about note in References section
All the way back on 20 March 2006, Dragonbones made an excellent suggestion on this Talk Page: Avoid the term "radical" entirely. I propose to make an attempt to do just that, rewriting the portions in question of the various articles that cover or mention radicals, semantic indicators, section headers etc.

This article is the place to start, and I'm beginning with baby steps, trying to ensure that when readers consult this key article they'll find a presentation consistent with what is written in other articles.

First, I'm tempted to be bold and revise unilaterally the current description of 采 as an associative compound, but I'll solicit input first. I wonder how anyone can doubt that 采 is a phono-semantic compound, with 爪 the phonetic indicator and 木 the semantic indicator. A comparison of the Old Chinese readings of 爪 and 采 makes this rather evident; see the readings given by Sagart/Baxter, the ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese, Starostin's database etc. (If 爪 as phonetic indicator seems counterintuitive, it's only because we're accustomed to seeing it in the role of semantic indicator.) Does anyone possess evidence that weighs in favor of regarding 采 as an associative compound?

Second, in the References section, a note runs as follows: ''When an etymon (original "root" form of a graph, such as 采 cǎi "to pick", in 採 cǎi "to pick") is analyzed alongside the remaining element(s), it cannot be said to be playing only a phonetic role. For instance, operating under the two misconceptions that a) all characters have exactly one semantic and one phonetic part, and b) each part can only play one role, many would mistakenly dissect 採 as comprising 扌 shǒu "hand" semantic and 采 cǎi phonetic. However, being the original graph, it must necessarily impart its original semantic meaning (showing as it does a hand picking from a tree) as well as its sound.''

Two questions, just to clarify my understanding. 1) What evidence is there for the point of view that regarding all characters as having exactly one semantic and one phonetic part is a misconception? 2) Why must an original graph necessarily impart its original semantic meaning, as opposed to, let's say, a broader conceptual significance? (Evidence would be great, but simple logic will suffice.) Thanks. Lawrence J. Howell (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge
I propose merging Section headers of a Chinese dictionary, which was split from this page in June 2008, back into this article. Currently this article is a discussion of three meanings of "radical" and why you shouldn't use them. The first doesn't seem to be used by anyone, while the third is the one everyone uses, but they have to go to Section headers of a Chinese dictionary for the relevant content. Now it's true that "radical" is something of a misnomer for the part of a character used for dictionary lookup, but that's established usage, including in Jerry Norman's Chinese (ISBN 0-521-29653-6). While "Section head" is a literal translation of 部首 bùshǒu, it hasn't caught on in the English-language literature, and it's not our role to campaign to change English usage. The "radical" article should have the content readers will expect (currently in the "section headers" article). The article should also point out that these aren't "roots", and that while they're often also semantic indicators (which Norman calls "significs"), they aren't always. But these are relatively minor points that can be covered in short sections. Kanguole 15:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

New article needed in light of Japanese article
Given what is in the Japanese article, we need a new article or to seriously rethink the naming of this article

(ぶしゅ) is not even listed as Japanese hiragana let alone the katakana that modern English readers use to distinguish the ON-yomi of 部首.

Given the revisions to simplified Chinese and the teaching of Vietnamese under the Hanoi regime, radicals need to be re-thought as no longer "Chinese" except to the Chinese ... but this is English wikipedia !

please consult https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%83%A8%E9%A6%96 and note the title as ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/部首

NOT "chinese" anything !

To view kanji as Chinese after the simplifications of China and Japan ( not to mention ignoring Korea and Vietnam) is like insisting on calling English "Gallicized Low-German" - which Anglo-Saxon + Norman French might seem to be if one were ignorant of the Danish and the Norse in the language at the time of the Battle of Hastings. Or calling English a "Low-German dialect with a half-Gallic lexikon" ( which standard English surely is at a first glance by an objective non-European linguist, given the range of variation across extant natural languages.)

What is more, contemporary Japanese can be taught to language-X speakers by varying the choice of radical - and indeed, various sets are used even to teach Japanese to English-speakers, as is the case with the 181 bushu used at www.quickkanji.com and the different set at jisho.org and the often invented set used by the very popular and successful Heisig "Remembering the Kanji".

"traditional Chinese radical set" would be only a section in an ENGLISH article on 'radical' for characters in CJK+Viet writing systems ...and then there is Okinawan ... or will Wikipedia declare that "colour" is written "color" in English ?

This issue is especially pressing as Japanese language chauvinism itself radically distorts an objective view of kanji ... not to mention the Chinese view of those characters used in China today which in fact have comes back to them from Japan.

Is there a non-European linguist who is neither Chinese nor Japanese who could be consulted ? Perhaps from India or from an Arab university ? From a Baltic university ? From Budapest or Helsinki ? Further: see recent work on Anglo-Franco-German bias in "scientific" linguistics since its beginnings up to and including Chomsky and beyond. Chinese-bias among native Nippon scholars is itself a huge problem which an editor needs to be aware of - unless we are to repeat the biases of E. Britannica, E. Universlis ...

G. Robert Shiplett 13:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Actually it's a bit like calling the letters used to write English a Latin alphabet. Do you have a proposal?  Kanguole 14:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 * The title of this thread is "New article needed in light of Japanese article", but I wonder if it was meant to say "New article title needed". Certainly, I cannot imagine that we need a whole other article to explain the use of radicals in kanji separate from their use in the Chinese characters used in China. I agree that there should be more (i.e. some) mention in the article of Japanese and Korean issues/terminology; there used to be a section "Position of radical within character in Japanese", but it was not properly integrated with the article, and there was no explanation of how/why the information was specific to Japanese, and eventually someone deleted it. I don't personally have a problem with the present article title though. 86.160.86.139 (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible Ammendments to the 8 phono-semantic compounds with phonetic part 也 (yě)
也 is a very complex phonetic component. Besides the examples listed in the table, it is also used as the phonetic component 'yi' for the following characters: 匜 扡 衪 訑 貤 迆 酏 釶 柂 袘 迤

I feel like this point should be mentioned, but don't know how it should fit. Steven Daniels (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

 * That table is offtopic for this article, as 也 isn't a radical. Maybe Chinese character classification would be a better place for it.  Kanguole 13:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I found this off-topic table to be confusing, which is why i moved it to Chinese characters. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Example needed
"Usually, the radical is also the semantic component, but that is not always the case.[6]" Could sb. please add an example at least? --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chinese character radicals


text:
Talk:Bath, North Carolina

Untitled
"total area of 2.7 km² (1.0 mi²). 0.9 km² (0.4 mi²) of it is land and 1.8 km² (0.7 mi²) of it is water. " How exactly does this work? 0.4 mi² + 0.7 mi² does not add up to 1.0 mi². I realize this is due to a round-off problem, but since the towm most likely was originally surveyed in miles, that total area measurement is more likely to be accurate- did these numbers get converted to square kilometers, then back to square miles?
 * This is a round-off problem. The total area probably is a little bit more than 1.0 square miles, maybe 1.04 miles (which was rounded of to 1.0). Maybe 0.37 square miles (rounded off to 0.4) is land and 0.67 square miles (rounded of to 0.7) is water. -- Robert Weemeyer 10:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Too much space given to Whitefield - other areas to explore
While Whitefield's curse is dramatic, there is little evidence it was effective. In the context of this article, too much space is given to him. What has been the relation of the town to the county? What was its economy during the slavery years? And after? The town has mostly white residents, but the county is nearly 30% black - what does that reflect? Higher costs in town? The state's major development has taken place in the Piedmont - Charlotte, Research Triangle, etc. Relation to that? Wilmington developed as larger; did it have a bigger harbor, closer access to more cotton plantations?Parkwells (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Bath, North Carolina. 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/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051112002105/http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/sections/hs/bath/edna-ferber.htm to http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/sections/hs/bath/edna-ferber.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124085106/http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us:80/sections/hs/bath/bath.htm to http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/sections/hs/bath/bath.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050909154640/http://circanceast.beaufortccc.edu:80/Bath/bath.htm to http://circanceast.beaufortccc.edu/Bath/bath.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Bath, North Carolina


text:
Chen Boda

Chen Boda (29 July 1904 – 20 September 1989), was a Chinese Communist journalist, professor and political theorist who rose to power as the chief interpreter of Maoism (or "Mao Zedong Thought") in the first 20 years of the People's Republic of China. Chen became a close associate of Mao Zedong in Yan'an, during the late 1930s, drafting speeches and theoretical essays and directing propaganda.

After 1949, Chen played a leading role in overseeing mass media and ideology; at the start of the Cultural Revolution in 1966, Mao named him Chairman of the Cultural Revolution Group, entrusting him with the task of guiding the new mass movement. However, his ultra-radical line and close ties with Lin Biao eventually led to his downfall in 1970.

Early life
Chen Boda was born Chen Jianxiang in 1904 to peasant parents. His courtesy name was Shangyou. During his childhood, his family moved to Jimei, in modern-day Amoy, likely to facilitate young Chen's enrollment at the Jimei Normal School, from which Chen graduated as a schoolteacher (he taught at various elementary schools until 1927).

In 1925, Chen enrolled at Shanghai Labor University, studying literature, and in 1927 he joined the Chinese Communist Party. After returning to Fujian, he was hired as the personal secretary of General Zhang Zhen, helping to prepare for the 1926–1927 Northern Expedition from the CCP side of the First United Front. When the Front collapsed, Chen fled and was eventually arrested in Nanjing. He was released after a month on General Zhang's recommendation. Shortly thereafter, Chen was sent by the Party to Moscow Sun Yat-sen University, where he studied politics and Marxist philosophy for four years.

In 1931, Chen Boda returned to China, and married Sichuan native Zhu Yuren, who had also studied in Moscow. Chen became a professor of politics and ancient Chinese history at China College in Beijing while writing articles under the pen names Chen Zhimei and Chen Boda. Most of these articles focused on the dispute between advocates of "national defense literature" such as Lu Xun, and more nationalist authors. Chen also did underground work for the Party in Tianjin.

From 1937 on, he taught politics and Marxist philosophy at the Central Party School of the Chinese Communist Party in Yan'an, where he became a leader in the Yan'an Rectification Movement. He soon became personal research assistant and chief political aide to Mao Zedong. Chen published the first collection of Mao's writings in 1937, and an official history of the Party in 1945.

Role in the post–1949 government
After the Communist victory in the Chinese Civil War and the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949, Mao entrusted Chen with many important tasks. Chen Boda became:

 * Deputy Director of the CCP Propaganda Department, overseeing the People's Daily and the Xinhua News Agency
 * Director of the Institute of Political Research
 * Editor-in-chief of the CCP theoretical organ Red Flag, when it was established in 1958
 * Vice President of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, overseeing Social and Political Sciences (these departments later branched out to form the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)

In 1951, Chen wrote an article with the title Mao Zedong's theory of the Chinese Revolution is the combination of Marxism-Leninism with the Chinese Revolution and a book entitled Mao Zedong on the Chinese Revolution. These works made him one of the most important interpreters of Mao Zedong Thought, and in the 1950s he became one of Mao's closest associates, compiling many of the quotations eventually published in the Red Book.

In 1950 Chen accompanied Mao to Moscow to participate in the negotiations with Joseph Stalin that led to the signing of the 30-year treaty of alliance (February 1950) between China and the Soviet Union.

Following Mao's complaint that "the economic sector is blocking me and Comrade Liu," Chen was appointed in 1962 to serve as a vice director of the State Planning Commission.

Cultural Revolution
From 1966 until 1969, Chen Boda was to play an important role in the Cultural Revolution. In May 1966, he was placed at the head of the newly formed Cultural Revolution Group (CRG), a body established to oversee and direct the course of the Cultural Revolution. In time, this group would rise to become the most important political body in China, surpassing even the influence of the Politburo. Furthermore, Chen Boda was also placed as head of the Communist government's propaganda apparatus alongside Jiang Qing when the previous leader, Lu Dingyi (with whom he had often quarrelled), was deposed in 1966. He also became a member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo.

According to the Central Committee leadership, the Cultural Revolution Group began to show signs of ultra-leftism during the late 1960s. Boda's reputation began to wane after the 9th Party Congress in 1969 due to his ties with Lin Biao (with whom he had closely collaborated in the publication of the Little Red Book) and his opposition to Zhou Enlai's attempt to deescalate the Cultural Revolution and refocus on consolidating the Party. This marked the end of Chen Boda's involvement in the cultural revolution. As the leadership became more moderate in its outlook and the initial aims of the cultural revolution were sidelined, Chen's radicalism caused concern, and he was denounced at the 10th Party Congress in 1973 as a 'revisionist secret agent' for his associations with Lin Biao.

Later life
After the Cultural Revolution, he was tried by the post-Mao government for collaboration with the Gang of Four. He was sentenced to eighteen years in prison, but was released under parole shortly afterwards due to his ill health, and his parole time ended in 1988. He died on 20 September 1989, at the age of 85.

title: Chen Boda


text:
Seabury Ford

Seabury Ford (October 15, 1801 – May 8, 1855) was a Whig politician from Ohio. He served as the 20th governor of Ohio and was the last Whig to serve as governor.

Early life
Ford was born in Cheshire, Connecticut and moved to Burton, Ohio with his parents in 1804. He studied at Burton Academy, and then graduated from Yale University. While at Yale, he was elected by his classmates as class "bully", a term of honor for the physically strongest man in the class.

Career
Ford graduated from Yale in 1825, returned to Ohio, and read law under the direction of his uncle, Judge Peter Hitchcock. He commenced the practice of law in 1827. While practicing law, Ford became involved in the state militia and was promoted to the rank of major general. Ford married Harriet E. Cook of Burton in 1828.

In 1835, Ford was elected to the Ohio House of Representatives from Geauga County. He held this position three times, and served as speaker for one term. From 1841 to 1848, he served in the Ohio State Senate.

After serving in the General Assembly, Ford was elected to the governorship in late 1848, by a margin of 311 votes out of nearly 300,000 cast. Ford served only a single term before returning home. His term was marred by fighting in a highly partisan Assembly that was divided over issues related to slavery and the Mexican–American War, as well as by a cholera epidemic that swept through Columbus.

Death
On the first Sunday after his retirement, Ford suffered a stroke and was stricken by paralysis, from which he never recovered. He died at his home in Burton in 1855 when he was 53 years old. Ford is interred at Welton Cemetery in Burton, Ohio.

title: Seabury Ford


text:
Venâncio Aires

Venâncio Aires is a city in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. It is the capital of chimarrão, a kind of drink, with approximately 72,000 inhabitants. The main industry is tobacco.

title: Venâncio Aires


text:
EGD

EGD may refer to:

 * Engadine railway station, in Sydney, Australia
 * Equality-generating dependency
 * Esophagogastroduodenoscopy
 * Ethernet Global Data Protocol
 * Engineering Graphics and Design, an educational subject that focuses on the development of technical drawing skills
 * The Enthropy Gathering Daemon, software

title: EGD


text: Category:Politics of the Republic of Ireland


text:
Talk:Kingdom of Iberia

Iberia
Does anyone know the origin of the name "IBERIA" as it pertains to Georgia?

There are several, and often contradictory, arguments regarding the origin of the name as it pertains to SPAIN. I wondered if I could find some linguistic link that would bind the two, however apart geographically, but in the case of the Georgian "Iberia" - I'm drawing a blank, online. All I find is information that Georgia was so called in antiquity, but not WHY. (unsigned comment added by 67.0.114.28)

 * "There are several, and often contradictory, arguments regarding the origin of the name as it pertains to SPAIN."

 * HISPANIA... Lusitano Transmontano 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me a lot. Still more, since I remember reading somewhere that the basque language has been linked to Georgia too. I wish the link can be clarified. --euyyn 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

From Iberian Peninsula: "The Greeks are responsible for the name Iberia, after the river Iber (Ebro)." --euyyn 22:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And from Basque language: "Georgian: The Georgian hypothesis, linking Basque to South Caucasian or Kartvelian languages, seems now widely discredited." Ooooohhhh, he he --euyyn 10:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

 * That's unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.36.112.4 (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Its not true Basque connection with Caucasus still has tons of evidence and research is initiated long time ago. Its not discredited. Euskera 14:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Good news: to be taken with a wagonload of salt (of the earth)--87.162.27.103 (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazasp
QUOTE: "Relations between the two countries seem to have been friendly at first, as Iberia cooperated in Persian campaigns against Rome, and the Iberian king Amazasp II (185-189) was listed as a high dignitary of the Sassanian realm, not a vassal who had been subdued by force of arms."

How could Amazasp been listed as a dignitary of the Sassanian realm, when Persia was still a vassal of Parthia? Perhaps Amazasp was confused with another, later king, maybe Amazasp III?

ro4444, August 8, 2005 3:31 PM EST

Thanks ro4444 for your remark. It was really Amazasp III who reigned in the 260s. Kober

Image removed
I've removed this image because: I took an image of the piece myself, which is at Commons. --Zaqarbal 18:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about a Causasian Iberian soldier but an Iberian warrior.
 * It's not a Roman relief but an Iberian relief.
 * And it's not in Rome but in Madrid, at the National Archaeological Museum of Spain.

 * Do you have sources for that claim? Ldingley 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Name
"Iberian" peninsula comes from the name of the Iber (Ebro) river.

Also, most speculation and purported similarities between Basque and Caucasian languages focused on Northeast (Nakh-Dagestanian) languages; Kartvelian, which is forms another language family, is not considered as similar.KelilanK 20:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bold text origini of name? IBERIA I would rather start from the farthest end..:) when did the Celts or Cimmerians begin migrating into Europe? And from where did they come? Today’s Celtic survivors (very few among whom are Irish and Scotts) have VERY close ties with Ibers! Considering the fact that thy were know as the Celtiberri or Celtiberians it becomes more interesting..The origin of the name (if only the name?) of Irland. Eire-land ("Eire" being what the Irish call it) came from "Erin." The Romans called it Hibernia or Ivernia. It sometimes appears as Iberon. (Georgian Kingdoms were known to the Greeks as Iberia or Iveria) The late Harvard professor Barry Fell wrote, "One of the ancient names of Ireland is Ibheriu, pronounced as Iveriu, a fact that suggests that the word is derived from a still-earlier pronunciation, Iberiu. Talking about Scotland we should mention an ancient kingdom of Alba that corresponds to today’s Scotland. It is argued that Alba derives its name from the Caucasian Albania! (At least many scholars argue this but more work needs to be done to shed any light on the subject). Before assimilation and fall under Urartu Kingdom, Caucassian Albania was a home for Ibero-Caucassian people. Their migration might’ve taken place in early 1st millennia BC. According to Strabo (btw who’s mother was Georgians!:) by the 1st century there were no ‘real’ Albanians left in the region. They were assimilated by Armenians, Medes, etc.

Etruscans (Italics) before the Romans assimilation were also Iberian. Many sources directly call Italic people as Iberian. Many Etruscan language although officially labeled as ‘isolate’ has too many similarities with Iberian (considering the fact that we know so little about both of them.. ) but Basque is also a language isolate – so linguists do have to work harder to figure these all out. (k, here is the place for a little Georgian pride:)))) Kartvelian (Georgian) language with it’s 3 dialects (actually independent Georgian languages) form ALONE a linguistic SUPER FAMILY according to majority of linguists. There are no disputes whatsoever about placing Georgian language in the ethnologue classification on the higher level than Indo-European family!!)

Talking about the origin of the name for Georgian Iberia- 'Hecataeus, Herodotus, Xenophon, Strabo and others, the tribe of the Tibareni (Tibarenoi in Greek) lived in the north of the territory of Tabal. Tabal, Tubal, Jabal and Jubal to be ancient Georgian tribal designations. Many authors, following the Romanized Jewish author Josephus (1st century AD), related the name Tubal to Iber. “Concerning the question of the ethnic affinity of the population of Tubal, Josephus wrote: "Tobal gave rise to the Thobeles, who are now called Iberes". This version was repeated by Patriarch Eustathius of Antioch, Bishop Theodoret, and others.”

Remove line
Can anyone remove this line "cris is funny looken"? Someone put this in early history and it don`t seen related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.11.154.2 (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

New Map
I've put a new identical map of Iberia (with Colchis), as the older picture showed it as well, but the user: Kwamikagami is changing it back all the time. I repeat, again the older and newer ones are the same and identical and why is this user edit waring with me here. Please, take a look at this map and tell me if you have anything against this newer map I am putting. NEW MAP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Early_Georgian_States_Colchis_And_Iberia.svg I support putting this map than the older one. Tell me what you think. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also prefer a new map. It is tidier and its svg in contrast to the somewhat overcrowded jpg version to which Kwamikagami reverted. Otherwise, they are pretty much identical.--KoberTalk 10:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding User:Quintucket's remark on Argveti, the district was not always under the firm Iberian control. Actually it always formed a sort of Colchian-Iberian buffer, which frequently changed its masters. So, it is not mandatory to include Argveti strictly within Iberian boundaries. --KoberTalk 10:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kober. But user Kwamikagami is edit warring with me all the time, as if I did something wrong. He's looking all my topics and trying to undermine every change I make. Don't know why this guy is so sceptical about my changes. This new map is looking great and is the same as the older one so I hope that this map will eventually (if this user above mentioned won't revert it back) stay as a main map. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Kober, do you have any sources on that? While I agree the new map looks prettier, I kind of appreciate that the old one (ugly as it is), represents the kingdom at different periods (three colors for 500 BC, outline for 150 AD, two colors for territories lost at various points in its history). But my main concern is that Argveti is shown as an independent kingdom, which gives a misleading impression.  If it was contested territory, it can be marked as such, but there were a lot of small states at various periods in the Caucasus, and right now it makes it look as if it were equivalent in standing to Colchis and Iberia.

 * As for Kwami, I assume he watches a lot of pages; it seems like most of the non-bot edits on history and language related pages (at least the ones I watch) come from him. Though he can be curt at times, I wouldn't take it personally. —Quintucket (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Also Kober, please don't accuse me of edit-warring. It appeared to me to be a dispute between two editors—GJ and Kwami, and since GJ's claim about being identical to the map it replaced was inaccurate, I reverted it.  GJ started the discussion literally eight minutes before I reverted his edit.  As it happens, I don't refresh my watchlist that often, and I usually check the histories of the updated pages not the diffs. —Quintucket (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Quintucket, where does it say in the map that Argveti was an independent kingdom? It was just one Georgian region between Colchis and Iberia. And what other "a lot of small states at various periods in the Caucasus" are you talking about? All the states that have EVER been to the Caucasus, they originally have been Georgian, only Georgian. And that's not just some nationalistic or subjective attitude. That's just facts. All the former kingdoms or states that have ever existed on the Caucasus, those very place that now is Georgia, have always been ethnically Georgian, settled by Georgian tribes of East Georgians and West Georgians. And this new map is perfect in ANY sense of what map can be all about. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Dbachmann Stop vandalising the article
Iberia and Colchis, both, were ethnic Georgian kingdoms.

Iberia was eastern Georgian kingdom when Colchis was western Georgian kingdom of Svans and Mingrelians.

Stop vandalising the article and stop removing the sourced information. GEORGIANJORJADZE 09:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Actually, GJ, I don't think one can consider Dbachmann's edits vandalism. The lead was overburdened with barely relevant sources, the infobox overextended, and you also blindly reverted improvements in style and layout. You need to discuss without accusing people, and please don't reinsert this useless barrage of sources - better to have 1 good reference clearly linked to a claim in the article than 20 google books search results for uncontroversial parts of the lead. If you have objections to specific parts of the article, please list them here for discussion.Susuman77 (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Iberia and Colchis were ethnic Georgian kingdoms where Georgian and other Kartvelian languages were spoken. They spoke Georgian language, wrote in Georgian alphabet and were Georgians. This is an established fact. GEORGIANJORJADZE 20:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 * 1) Michael H. Dodgeon, Samuel N. C. Lieu: The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars Ad 226-363 p36
 * 2) Course of Ancient Geography, Henry Immanuel Smith, p. 279.
 * 3) Glen Warren Bowersock, Peter Robert Lamont Brown, Oleg Grabar: Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World p466
 * 4) John Rufus, Cornelia B. Horn, Robert R. Phenix: The Lives of Peter the Iberian, Theodosius of Jerusalem, and the Monk Romanus p. xxi
 * 5) Liz James: A Companion to Byzantium p217
 * 6) Ali Aldosari: Middle East, western Asia, and northern Africa p751
 * 7) James Minahan: Miniature Empires: A Historical Dictionary of the Newly Independent States Georgia p117
 * 8) E. Yarshater: The Cambridge History of Iran Iran, Armenia and Georgia p520
 * 9) Mark Avrum Ehrlich: Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture, Volume I Jews in Georgia p1119
 * 10) Catherine Holmes: Basil II And the Governance of Empire, 976-1025 The Eastern Frontier p312
 * 11) Walter E. Kaegi: Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium Peril and Hope p129
 * Where do you see a Georgian source here? All the sources say it was a Georgian state. GEORGIANJORJADZE 20:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 * If you had bothered going through the changes I made, you would have noticed that the role of Iberia and Colchis in Georgian history is prominent in the leads I rewrote. I object mostly to your pile-up of mostly irrelevant sources that clutter the opening sentences. No one here is denying the "Georgianness" of Iberia and Colchis. I even put forward Toumanoff's judgment on Colchis being the first Georgian formation. You just have to understand that we have to follow an encyclopedic style; that having the word "Georgian" in the very first sentence of the article, while satisfying nationalist pride, is not the encyclopedic way to go to describe ancient political entities, and that your accumulation of references from books and authors whose primary field of study is not ancient Georgian history only weakens your claims.Susuman77 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You say you don't deny its Georgianness and on the other hand you DO NOT mention that it was a Georgian state? How did they speak Georgian language and wrote in Georgian if it was not a Georgian state? Where is the logic? And what is that its name starts with its Greek name? Where is Georgian name of it? Colchis and Iberia both were Georgian states and this is not a nationalistic pushing from my side. It is the fact. Those people were Georgians and the states were also Georgian. Put the wording as it has to be. GEORGIANJORJADZE 21:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "you DO NOT mention that it was a Georgian state?" : for Colchis, see 3rd paragraph of the lead, for Iberia the 3rd sentence (plus mentions of their georgian names, the big history of Georgia infobox, etc.) There's no risk that people will not see the link between Iberia and Colchis and Georgia. "And what is that its name starts with its Greek name? Where is Georgian name of it?" Greek names come first because that's the language from which those names came into English - for Iberia at least, the Georgian name is different - Kartli, even though Iberia was later reappropriated into the Georgian language. Still, I added the Georgian transcription of it so that it's more clear. For the rest of your comment, I think we're all aware of the importance of those states for Georgian history, there's no need to restate it at every possible occasion. Susuman77 (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article starts with: "...was the name for a kingdom of the Southern Caucasus" What is this? What will the reader understand what or whose kingdom was that? If they spoke Georgian then how on earth it was not a Georgian monarchy then? In case of Colchis is the same. Put the right wording in the lead as it confuses the reader. GEORGIANJORJADZE 22:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just calling them "Georgian kingdoms" is an oversimplification of what the sources say. Colchis is not only a Georgian monarchy, it is also a cultural region, defined by the interaction between local Kartvelian culture and Greek culture, as witnessed by its role in Greek mythology. Only the progressive cultural and political fusion of Colchis and Georgia gave birth to Georgia; before that process (starting with the Conversion of Kartli), Iberia, strictly speaking, is Iberian, or Kartlian; the nation-building process is only starting. Also, as far as language is concerned, the unification of Georgian language is also linked to evangelization and the development of the alphabet - all later processes - Colchis and Iberia spoke Kartvelian languages that evolved into Georgian. Anyway, we might need a third opinion about the phrasing of the lead if you cannot agree with those arguments; please keep me informed if you want to pursue such recourse. Susuman77 (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I do support perfection in every way of these two articles. But your words don't make any logic at all. Do you say that there was no Georgian language in Iberia and Colchis? Well that is just ridiculous. Iberia was 100 % Georgian monarchy while Colchis was the mix of all Kartvelian tribes and not only Mingrelo-Lazs but Svans as well. Why don't you mention Svans in there? I am partly Svan as well and it is unacceptable. And yes Georgia with real sense of Georgia was after these 2 kingdoms united but it does not mean they were something different when they were seperate. Colchis was a Georgiano-Svano-Zan monarchy when Iberia was 100 % Georgian monarchy. This should be definitely mentioned. Svans should be mentioned by all means as we Svans are the most ancient Georgians in the Georgian subgroup of our nation. GEORGIANJORJADZE 22:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Any reliable sources to back up your assertions? National pride is not the best way to build wikipedia, I'm afraid, as it can lead to a loss of any idea of proportion and objectivity. Susuman77 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Again you're talking about nationalism. Colchis was a Georgian-Svan-Zan monarchy of all Kartvelian tribes when Iberia was 100 % Georgian monarchy with it's language, script etc. GEORGIANJORJADZE 23:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I also suggest to move this page to Iberia (Kartli). GEORGIANJORJADZE 23:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

moving Caucasian Iberia to Iberia (Kartli)
I am proposing to move this article to Iberia (Kartli) as it needs to have its Georgian name as the kingdom was a Georgian one and needs to have its own name within the article name. GEORGIANJORJADZE 23:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Kartli already exists, as an article about the region. Caucasian Iberia is about the ancient history of that region and the political entity that existed on its territory. The usual and easiest way to disambiguate it from its obvious homonym in Spain is to use "Caucasian"; most readers more familiar with Ancient history than with Georgian history won't know what Kartli is, and won't be helped by your suggested title. That Iberia is Ancient Kartli is made clear in the lead, and Kartli is bolded; your statements of "need" seem only motivated, once again, by national/ethnic pride and not NPOV. Susuman77 (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. I want to note this is not how you request a move. Lacking the proper templates, this will never be closed or resolved. See Requested moves on instructions how to do this.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 07 January 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Red Slash 04:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Caucasian Iberia → Kingdom of Iberia – It's original name is Iberia or Kingdom of Iberia and not Caucasian Iberia as the name has no connection at all with it and is artificially made up so I suggest we move it. Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

 * Support as nominator. Jaqeli (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support (tentatively). This change of title would definitively commit the article to be purely about that specific polity, the Kingdom of Iberia, and not the region or non-kingdom incarnations.  Yet we still have links to it from elsewhere, e.g. Caucasian Iberians which are a little more open-ended.  Would we consequently need a separate overarching "Caucasian Iberia" article for the region? Walrasiad (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I. Pharsmanes and Rhadamistus
Why this article don't mention them ? İberia was ruling Albania and Armenia in their times. Meambokhe (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Move
Greetings User:Awibs. For moves the WP:MOVE should be utilized. Also the names are different for those two polities and dates are incorrect. Please discuss before the moves. I appreciate your feedback. An emperor /// Ave 01:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kingdom of Iberia


text: Category:Politics by country

title: Category:Politics by country


text:
Dave Mason

David Thomas Mason (born 10 May 1946) is an English singer-songwriter and guitarist from Worcester, who first found fame with the rock band Traffic, and went on to play and record with many notable pop and rock musicians, including Paul McCartney, George Harrison, the Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Michael Jackson, David Crosby, Graham Nash, Steve Winwood, Fleetwood Mac, Delaney & Bonnie, Leon Russell, and Cass Elliot.

One of Mason's best known songs is "Feelin' Alright", recorded by Traffic in 1968 and later by many other performers, including Joe Cocker, whose version of the song was a hit in 1969. For Traffic, he also wrote "Hole in My Shoe", a psychedelic pop song that became a hit in its own right. "Only You Know and I Know" became a signature song for Delaney and Bonnie, and "We Just Disagree", Mason's 1977 solo U.S. hit, written by Jim Krueger, has become a staple of U.S. classic hits and adult contemporary radio playlists.

In 2004, Mason started a new electric guitar company with business partner and industrial designer Ravi Sawhney, the same year as he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a founding member of Traffic.

Traffic
Mason's tenure with Traffic was disjointed. He was a founding member of the group, but left following the release of their debut album, Mr. Fantasy (1967), only to rejoin halfway through the sessions for their next album, Traffic (1968), after which he left again. Last Exit (1969), a compilation of odds and ends, features little material by Mason apart from his song "Just for You". Traffic later re-formed without Mason, although he briefly began working with the band for a third time, touring with them in 1971 and playing on Welcome to the Canteen. In his brief spells with the group, Mason never did quite fit in; Steve Winwood later recalled, "We all [Winwood, Jim Capaldi and Chris Wood] tended to write together, but Mason would come in with a complete song that he was going to sing and tell us all what he expected us to play. No discussion, like we were his backing group."

Session work
Mason was a friend of guitarist Jimi Hendrix, whose rock career was launched in England in 1966. Hendrix first heard the song "All Along the Watchtower", from Bob Dylan's album John Wesley Harding, with Mason at the apartment of a friend who had acquired a prior release of the album. Hendrix recorded his own version at Olympic Studios, South West London, with Mason playing 12-string acoustic guitar. The song was released on the album Electric Ladyland in September 1968. Mason also sings backing vocals on "Crosstown Traffic". When it came out as a single in October, it hit No. 5 in the UK Singles Chart and reached the Top 40 in the US. Mason later recorded his own version of the song for his 1974 album, Dave Mason, with Bob Glaub on bass. Mason appears on the Rolling Stones' 1968 album Beggars Banquet, playing the Shehnai and bass drum on Street Fighting Man. Mason's connection was Jimmy Miller, who served as producer for the Stones and Traffic. In 1969–1970, Mason toured with Delaney and Bonnie and Friends, along with Eric Clapton and George Harrison. Mason appears on George Harrison's 1970 solo set All Things Must Pass. In 1970, Mason was slated to be the second guitarist for Derek and the Dominos. He played on their early studio sessions, including the Phil Spector production of "Tell the Truth", which was withdrawn from sale and eventually released on Eric Clapton's 1988 box set Crossroads. He also played at their first gig at the London Lyceum but left the group soon after that. He co-wrote the song "Big Thirst" on Oh How We Danced, by Jim Capaldi (Mason's bandmate in the Hellions, Deep Feeling, and Traffic), and played the guitar solo on "Don't Be a Hero".

Solo career
After Traffic, Mason pursued a moderately successful solo career. His first single was "Just for You"; on the B-side, "Little Woman", he was backed by the band Family, following his production of Family's first album, 1968's Music in a Doll's House (which included "Never Like This", an original Mason song). He released his first solo album in 1970 Alone Together featuring "Only You Know and I Know", which reached No. 42 on the Billboard chart, as well as the lesser hit "Look at You, Look at Me". A collaboration with Cass Elliot followed in 1971. In the early 1970s Mason enlisted his friend, singer-songwriter Ray Kennedy, to tour and write for his next album. In the mid- to late 1970s, he toured and recorded with guitarist Jim Krueger, keyboardist Mike Finnigan, bassist Gerald Johnson and drummer Rick Jaeger. Mason followed up with the album, Let It Flow, released in April 1977. The album peaked at only No. 37, but was in the charts for 49 weeks and went platinum as a result carried by the success of the album single "We Just Disagree", which was written by Mason's backup guitarist, Jim Krueger. The single topped at #12, and other album singles "So High (Rock Me Baby and Roll Me Away)" and "Let It Go, Let It Flow" also charted in the U.S. Mason's next album was Mariposa de Oro, released in 1978. The album contained a cover of "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow," which became a Top 40 single; the album itself reached number 41 and went gold. Mason played himself in the film Skatetown, U.S.A., performing two songs in a roller disco as well as writing and performing the film's theme song.

In 1980 Mason released Old Crest on a New Wave; the album stalled at number 74 and had one single make the charts, "Save Me." This failure of the album resulted in Mason leaving his label Columbia. Mason struggled to attract another major label but continued to tour in an acoustic duo with Krueger. In 1987, he released two albums, Some Assembly Required on the Canadian label Maze Records and Two Hearts on MCA Records; the latter album featured the single "Dreams I Dream," a duet with Phoebe Snow that reached number 11 in the adult contemporary charts.

In 1997, Mason was scheduled to be a member of Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band, performing "Only You Know and I Know," "We Just Disagree" and "Feelin' Alright," but he was dropped from rehearsals before the tour started.

In 1998, Mason reunited with his former Traffic bandmate Jim Capaldi for The 40,000 Headmen Tour; a live album followed the tour. In 2002, he released the DVD Dave Mason: Live at Sunrise, a recording of a live performance at the Sunrise Musical Theater in Sunrise, Florida, backed by Bobby Scumaci on keyboards, Johnne Sambataro on rhythm guitar (who rejoined Mason for the DVD, after previously touring with him in 1978), John Lundahl on rhythm guitar, Richard Campbell on bass and Greg Babcock on drums. In 2008 Mason released his first studio album in more than 20 years, titled 26 Letters 12 Notes. He followed up with another album in 2014 called Future's Past.

As of 2018, Mason was continuing to perform in the US, including a 2018 tour with Steve Cropper.

Tenure in Fleetwood Mac
For a brief period in the mid-1990s, Mason joined Fleetwood Mac and released the album Time with them in 1995. He toured with them over the course of 1994–95, including opening for REO Speedwagon and Crosby, Stills & Nash.

Mason was never entirely comfortable during his time in Fleetwood Mac. He has said several times since leaving the band: "Being one of two and at times three guitarists to replace Lindsey Buckingham says more about Buckingham's genius than my guitar playing".

Personal life
Mason moved permanently to the United States in 1971, and lived in the Ojai Valley in California for 16 years. As of September 2017 he had homes in Carson City, Nevada and Hawaii.

Philanthropy
Mason is a proponent of music education for children. In 2005, he signed on as an official supporter of Little Kids Rock, a non-profit organization that provides free musical instruments and lessons to children in American public schools. He sits on the organization's board of directors as an honorary member.

Mason also is a founding board member of Yoga Blue, a non-profit organisation devoted to teaching yoga and other holistic practices to those recovering from substance abuse and other self-destructive disorders.

Mason and his longtime friend Ted Knapp have founded Rock Our Vets, an all-volunteer 501(c)3 charity supported by many other musicians, helping military veterans and the families of law enforcement and firefighters who lost their lives in the line of duty. The charity has focused on providing food and clothing to homeless veterans, laptop computers for veterans aspiring to continue their education, as well as suicide prevention.

Live albums

 * 1973: Dave Mason Is Alive (ABC/Blue Thumb/MCA) (recorded at the Troubadour, West Hollywood, CA, 1971) – US #116
 * 1976: Certified Live (Columbia) (recorded on tour, 1975) – US #78
 * 1999: Live: The 40,000 Headmen Tour (with Jim Capaldi) (Receiver Records) (recorded at various locations, Feb-April 1998)
 * 2002: Live at Perkins Palace (Pioneer) (recorded 1981)
 * 2002: Dave Mason: Live at Sunrise (Image Entertainment)
 * 2004: XM Radio (Barham Productions) (recorded May 2003)
 * Reissued with bonus tracks in 2007 as Dave Mason Live at XM Satellite Radio (Friday Music)
 * 2015: Traffic Jam (Barham Productions)

Compilation albums

 * 1972: Scrapbook (Island Records)
 * 1974: The Best of Dave Mason (Blue Thumb) – US #183
 * 1974: At His Best (ABC Records) – US #133
 * 1978: The Very Best of Dave Mason (ABC/Blue Thumb) – US #179
 * 1978: Skatetown, U.S.A. (Columbia)
 * soundtrack to the film of the same name; Mason performs "Main Theme", "I Fell in Love", and "Feelin' Alright"
 * 1978: California Jam II (Columbia)
 * recorded live at the music festival of the same name; Mason performs "Let it Go, Let it Flow" and "We Just Disagree"
 * 1981: The Best of Dave Mason (Columbia)
 * 1995: Long Lost Friend: The Best of Dave Mason (Legacy Recordings/Columbia)
 * 1999: The Ultimate Collection (Hip-O Records)
 * 2000: Super Hits (Legacy)
 * 2007: The Definitive Collection (Hip-O)
 * 2014: The Columbia Years: The Definitive Anthology (Real Gone Music)

Singles

 * 1968 "Just for You" b/w "Little Woman"
 * 1970 "Only You Know and I Know" – US #42
 * 1970 "Satin Red and Black Velvet Woman" – US #97 (was only a 45 rpm until it was released on the Ultimate Collection CD in 1999)
 * 1972 "To Be Free" – US #121
 * 1977 "So High (Rock Me Baby and Roll Me Away)" — US Billboard #89, Cash Box #69
 * 1977 "We Just Disagree" – US #12, US AC #19
 * 1978 "Mystic Traveller"
 * 1978 "Don't It Make You Wonder"
 * 1978 "Let It Go, Let It Flow" – US #45
 * 1978 "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?" – US #39
 * 1980 "Save Me" (with Michael Jackson) – US #71
 * 1987 "Something In The Heart" – US Mainstream Rock #24
 * 1988 "Dreams I Dream" (duet with Phoebe Snow) – US AC #11
 * 2016 "It's Not Fair"
 * 2016 "Whatever"
 * 2019 "Jezebel" (featuring Midnight Blues Revue)
 * 2020 "Feelin' Alright" (featuring The Quarantines)
 * 2023 "Dear Mr. Fantasy" (featuring Joe Bonamassa)

Videos

 * 1981: Live at Perkins Palace (Pioneer, laser disc)
 * 1992: Best Live 1991 Tokyo (Bandai, laser disc)
 * 2002: Live at Sunrise (Image Entertainment, DVD)
 * 2008: The Legendary Guitar of Dave Mason (Hot Licks, instructional DVD)

Traffic
See Traffic discography

Session work

 * 1966-67: The Spencer Davis Group, singles (United Artists US, Fontana UK)
 * backing vocals on "Somebody Help Me", "Gimme Some Lovin'", and "I'm a Man"
 * 1967: Julian Covey & The Machine, "A Little Bit Hurt" / "Sweet Bacon" single (Philips)
 * guitar and vocals
 * 1968: Family, Music in a Doll's House
 * producer, songwriter of "Never Like This"
 * 1968: The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Electric Ladyland (Reprise)
 * acoustic guitar on "All Along the Watchtower", backing vocals on "Crosstown Traffic"
 * 1968: The Rolling Stones, Beggar's Banquet (Decca)
 * shehnai on "Street Fighting Man" and mandolin on "Factory Girl"
 * 1969: Gordon Jackson, Thinking Back (Marmalade)
 * producer, bass guitar, electric guitar, and slide guitar
 * 1969: Merryweather, Word of Mouth (Capitol)
 * songwriter, guitar, bass, and vocals
 * 1970: Delaney & Bonnie & Friends with Eric Clapton, On Tour
 * guitar
 * 1970: George Harrison, All Things Must Pass (Apple)
 * guitar on various tracks
 * 1970: Bobby Lester, Bobby Lester (Columbia)
 * guitar on "Freedom"
 * 1971: Delaney & Bonnie & Friends, Motel Shot (ATCO)
 * guitar and vocals
 * 1971: Graham Nash, Songs for Beginners (Atlantic)
 * electric guitar on "Military Madness"
 * 1972: Jim Capaldi, Oh How We Danced (Island)
 * harmonica on "Big Thirst", guitar on "Don't Be a Hero"
 * 1972: Crosby and Nash, Graham Nash / David Crosby (Atlantic)
 * lead guitar on "Immigration Man"
 * 1972: Bobby Keys, Bobby Keys (Warner Bros.)
 * songwriter on "Steal from a King" and "Crispy Duck"
 * 1973: David Blue, Nice Baby and the Angel (Asylum)
 * acoustic guitar, electric guitar, and vocals on "Outlaw Man"
 * 1973: Graham Nash, Wild Tales (Atlantic)
 * 12-string guitar on "Oh! Camil (The Winter Soldier)"
 * 1974: Phoebe Snow, Phoebe Snow (Shelter Records)
 * electric guitar on "No Show Tonight"
 * 1975: Wings, Venus and Mars
 * electric guitar on "Listen to What the Man Said"
 * 1978: Mike Finnigan, Black and White (Columbia)
 * lead guitar on "Hideaway From Love"
 * 1978: Stephen Stills, Thoroughfare Gap (Columbia)
 * vocals on "You Can't Dance Alone", "We Will Go On", "What's the Game", and "Midnight Rider"
 * 1979: Ron Wood, Gimme Some Neck (CBS)
 * acoustic guitar on "F.U.C. Her"
 * 1983: Donovan, Lady of the Stars
 * guitar on "Boy for Every Girl"
 * 1983: Don Felder, Airborn (Asylum)
 * vocals on "Never Surrender"
 * 1988: Eric Clapton, Crossroads (Polydor)
 * guitar on "Ain't That Loving You", originally recorded ca. 1974
 * 1995: Fleetwood Mac, Time (Warner Bros. Records)
 * songwriter, producer, vocals, and guitar
 * 2004: Noel Redding, The Experience Sessions (Sony/BMG)
 * sitar on "There Ain't Nothing Wrong", originally recorded ca. 1968
 * 2010: Jimi Hendrix, West Coast Seattle Boy (Legacy)
 * sitar on "Little One", originally recorded ca. 1968
 * 2011: Derek and the Dominos, Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs: 40th Anniversary Edition (Universal)
 * guitar and vocals on "Roll It Over", originally recorded June 1970
 * guitar and vocals on "Roll It Over", originally recorded June 1970

title: Dave Mason