Talk:Chu (state)

China: History Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as Mid-importance).

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Language

any information on the languages spoken and how it differed from states further north? How would they have pronounced the name of their state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.102.65 (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although this question has been here for a long time, but...I just added a language section. The Chu language shows a predominantly Tai-Kadai influence. The rulers of Chu probably spoke a variety of Old Chinese being on its way to merge with non-Sinitic languages, which are believed to be chiefly Tai-Kadai. Gustmeister (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See below. — LlywelynII 02:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chen (state) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this would merge with the Chu page, unless the state literally has no history, in which case a mention of it's annexation would just occur on the Chu page.

It is a Zhou vassal state, it's annexation would appear to be it's only connection to Chu. FourLights (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Chu (state)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Chu (state)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "map":

From Wulipu: "沙洋县行政区划图". 沙洋县人民政府门户网站 www.shayang.gov.cn (in Simplified Chinese). 湖北中大空间地理信息数据中心. November 2012. Retrieved 31 March 2018. from west to east: X020{...}白虎村{...}火龙村{...}草场村{...}陶场村{...}安全村{...}联合村{...}两河村{...}十岭村{...}焦柳铁路{...}杨集村{...}白岭村{...}G207{...}团林铺镇{...}十里铺镇{...}许场村{...}严店村{...}五里社区居民委会{...}G55{...}五里铺镇{...}金台村{...}左冢村{...}赵集村{...}枣店村{...}显灵村{...}刘集村{...}合心村{...}陈池村 {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
From G55 Erenhot–Guangzhou Expressway: "沙洋县行政区划图". 沙洋县人民政府门户网站 www.shayang.gov.cn (in Simplified Chinese). 湖北中大空间地理信息数据中心. November 2012. Retrieved 31 March 2018. {...}G55{... {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)}

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the states of Wu, Yue and Tai-Kadai in the see also links

@Thomasettaei:User Thomasettaei have continuously deleted links to the states of Wu, Yue and Tai-Kadai in the see also section. This user claims that:

Quality articles at most usually include one or two links
See also is not a mandatory section

Where are the regulations that these silly words based on ?

If there are, then I wouldn't proceed in undoing this user's edit. Otherwise, I would have to put the links to the states of Wu, Yue and Tai-Kadai in the see also section.

Here are some featured articles with more than six links in the see also [1], [2], [3], [4].

The populations of the states of Chu, Wu, and Yue are related. Therefore, links to these states are needed. Gustmeister (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gustmeister: per MOS:NOTSEEALSO: "the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes". Many of the links you added are already linked in the article. -Zanhe (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanhe:OK, thanks for the link. Is Thomasettaei a different account of yours? Gustmeister (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, but this article is on my watch list. -Zanhe (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth Gustmeister you were right and they were wrong. Aside from WP:IAR, Zanhe—despite being a great editor for Chinese articles generally—grossly overstates the MOS:SEEALSO policy. It's to avoid unhelpful WP:OVERLINKing but in this case it's helpful for WP:READERS to be able to quickly get to the southern quasi-Chinese Zhou state Yue and Wu articles in relation to Chu. Instead, the policy would activate and be correctly applied to remove mostly unhelpful links to other random Zhou polities like Qin or Lu. Something like that—listing all of the Zhou states—would be better handled by an infobox at the bottom of the page instead.

If there already is one that does include Yue and Wu already (like there is now) that is the reason Yue and Wu don't also need to be in the #See also section. The links are already clearly available in the same area of the article for the curious. (The current Zhou state template seems like it could be better organized—in particular to separate those southern not-quite-Chinese-yet ones—but that's a separate issue to be handled on the template's talk page.) — LlywelynII 02:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

identity issues

Chu (state), Qin (state), Yan (state)

It is illustrated in the sources provided that these three states were frequently called "barbarian" by those in the Central Plains. Whether this view is caused by genuine difference in ethnic identity or just snobbery should be addressed. Why are they removed or toned down without any discussion? 42.61.172.8 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because of Chinese nationalism seeking to downplay past ethnic divisions within China and to avoid offending local patriotism, most likely. Information supported by reliable sources is not supposed to be removed per Wikipedia policy, but since IPs are more likely to just give up than to engage in a long dispute resolution process, many people like to just ignore policies and do whatever they want in conflicts with IPs.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for future article expansion

Especially for the known info on Shang-era relations to Chu,

Li Xueqin (1991), "Chu Bronzes and Chu Culture", New Perspectives on Chu Culture during the Eastern Zhou Period (PDF), Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 1–22.

seems to have some pretty helpful info. Interested editors should kindly add it in when they've got time. — LlywelynII 02:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Size on the map

When I compare the map shown in the lede (supposedly for 350 BC) with other maps on Wikipedia for both later and earlier parts of the Warring States period (for 260 BCE and for the 'early Warring States period', so presumably the fifth century BCE), Chu seems to extend much farther to the south in the map in the lede. The map in the lede makes it seem as if Chu included almost all of today's southern China, while the usual picture I'm familiar with is of it still being mostly confined to the northern half of today's China. If there is a disagreement before the sources or a genuine change of this sort (expansion to the south followed by shrinking) in time, this should be stated explicitly and sourced, and a map corresponding to the most prevalent view should be used. As things stand, the version shown in the lede makes me suspect that this is part of a revisionist nationalist desire to claim that China has always had its present territory, or of the current trend to emphasise a supposed (partly) southern origin of Chinese civilisation, all written evidence be damned (IMO, also an attempt to flatter southerners' local patriotism and to reinforce Chinese unity) . 62.73.69.121 (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 62, I agree with you that the territorial extent depicted on this map feels excessive. I think I prefer maps such as c:File:China Warring States Period.png, where the alpha channel shows sites and areas that were part of the Zhou cultural ecumene, without interpolating all spaces in between the population centres as being controlled by some aristo-king.

Interestingly, the source cited by the creator of the present map, The Historical Atlas of China (essentially the modern definitive standard for Chinese historical geography) doesn't presume territorial control in this way.

While I don't doubt that Chu advanced up the Gan River and established a site called Nanye, up the Xiang River and founded Pang, and up the Yuan River and founded Chenyang, the idea that the state somehow exerted sovereignty over all the peoples in all the mountains in between strikes me as pretty simplistic.

That said, I'm not really a subject matter expert on the geography of the Warring States period. Is there a map in c:Category:Maps of the Warring States Period you strongly prefer over the current one? Folly Mox (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]