Talk:Heqin

Mandarin term

Regarding this edit, Heqin is not specifically a Mandarin term. There was no Mandarin language during the Han dynasty. — Instantnood 07:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

English word for this

I am pretty sure this concept is not exclusively Chinese. I am pretty certain there were marriages between European royal families in the past that were arranged to install trust and peace between nations, albeit it doesn't always work. --Voidvector 02:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It could be merged with Marriage of state. --Cold Season (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If there is re-organization maybe the main category could be arranged marriages, and under marriages of state could be sub-categories of the type to help bring peace(peace-weaver, Helen of Troy, Han princess with Modu Chanyu) vs to continue the royal bloodline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aufumy (talk • contribs) 00:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism by Cold Season

Why does this person keep erasing information on this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.18.38 (talk)

Don't play coy here. I've clearly stated that I've removed uncited information, or are you just to dumb to read? Perhaps you should go and read WP:UNSOURCED before making idiotic accusations again. It's "funny" that the one citation in this article came from me adding it. You have had months to add references by now. --Cold Season (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:ERA

This edit established the usage of the page as BC/AD. Kindly maintain it consistently, pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 00:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Similarly, this edit established the usage of the page as American English and, again, kindly follow it consistently, pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 01:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Edits by Thor's Axe

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

---

Thor's Axe is not only restoring his edits were only about headings and the Qing section. He readded other unsourced changes by Montalk123 to the content of other sections relating to ethnicity and not just the headings among them openly unsourced and false like saying Khitan are "a proto Mongol-Manchu-Korean people" and claiming a Xianbei princess of northern Wei was a Chinese in "428: Emperor Mingyuan of Northern Wei marries off his Chinese daughter, Princess Shiping (始平公主), to non-Chinese Helian Chang, Emperor of Xia.", claiming Qu Boya of Gaochang was non Chinese when the Qu family was Han Chinese and calling a Xianbei Murong princess as Chinese "Princess Yanjun (燕郡公主) (surname Murong (慕容))". Opasney (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a false accusation. I was not aware of Montalk123's editing, my only action was to revert your destructive reversion. Even if you want to discuss the edits from other users, you are not supposed to completely delete my contributions based on evidence. You should take responsibility of your actions, and it is your duty to prove the points in talk page and then make changes, rather than spreading rumours and disrupt others' contributions. Thor's Axe (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Your edits to many section titles prevented me from undoing Montalk123's vandalism which I clearly said was vandalism in the edit summary, without reverting your edits as well. When I reverted back to the unvandalized version if you were really so only concerned about the Qing section instead of the section titles you could have easily copied and pasted the Qing section back in and manually fixed the titles after I reverted back to the clean version. Reverting unsourced vandalism takes precedent over everything else including petty issues like section title formatting and you kept readding the unsourced vandalism after being informed about it three times.Opasney (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Your first sentence is partially true to me. I remembered that whenever I reverted your edit it happened after I realise the Qing section and headings were changed. I did not see the case which you described as you only reverted vandalism without reverting my contribution. Also my latest edit did not revert all of your edits, but only, as I said, changed the headings and Qing section. Thor's Axe (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not think title is a petty issue. Categorising some dynasties into "Non-Han" and reducing them to a lower level is deeply disturbing and improper. Thor's Axe (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yet again I'd ask you to review WP:NPA - I realize I'm throwing a reference back to this policy around in a lot of places. That's because I would really like you to read this policy and start following it please. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Headings changed

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

---

Each forces and dynasties was assigned a heading. The previous version classified all "Non-Han" dynasties into a subcategory, which I think is not appropriate.

China's history was shared by all ethnic groups involved in it, and all the nations and dynasties established should be treated equally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thor's Axe (talk • contribs) 00:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove irrelevant materials

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

---

• There are duplicates in Qing section. The marriage of Li Yong Fang and Sun Sike's son were both mentioned twice.
• Nian Gengyao was a Qing official and his marriage does not satisfy the criteria of the page: the marriage should be between China and a neighbouring state.
• There is currently a dispute about the mass marriage. There is evidence against the ethnic background of the women participated.

Thor's Axe (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

If there is a dispute regarding information within reliable sources, we report both; we don't exclude a reliable source. Please re-insert the reliably sourced information you removed immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Please note the information was kept. It was just rearranged and put into the right paragraph. Thor's Axe (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No, you deleted several sources between those two edits. Please stop with these major edits until consensus is reached at talk. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not see the need of consensus for deleting duplicated materials. When the same event was described twice it is common sense to remove them. Thor's Axe (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This is WP:IDHT again. You deleted reliably sourced content and not just content stated twice in the article. Furthermore, WP:CONSENSUS is the fundamental model for editorial decision making - even if you believe that there is duplicate information on the page that should be removed, the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate this to be the case and gain consensus if that removal is disputed. Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Here, look at the difference between these two diffs. Here's your edit and here's my edit. Do you see how I maintained the sources while removing the duplicate text. This takes more work than just cutting, but it's much less likely to pull a revert, as it's clear from the diff that I actually just cropped duplicated text rather than removing sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

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

October 5 edits

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

---

We do not insert weasel words like some historians claim while editorializing off a primary source - that's WP:SYNTH and counter to policy. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223:

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I would like you to explain to me how the materials below is not a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts":

"今既来归 , 须令满 汉贤能官员 , 先察汉民女子寡妇 , 酌量给配。余察八贝勒下 殷实庄头及商贾有女子者 , 令其给配。"Thor's Axe (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Again before you implementing your "policies" you should figure out whether you are in the correct situation of using them. I can now confidently claim that your reverting is vandalism. Thor's Axe (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you just accuse me of vandalism for asking you to seek consensus for specific edits before inclusion?!?!?!? Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's look at your actual edit:

Some historians claim that a group marriage of Han Chinese officers and officials to Manchu women numbering 1,000 couples was arranged by Prince Yoto 岳托 (Prince Keqin) and Hongtaiji in 1632 to promote harmony between the two ethnic groups.[59][60] However according to the original record of Prince Yoto's proposal, the wives of that 1000 couples were mostly Han Chinese widows.[61] [62]

This is violating WP:PRIMARY because you are trying to suggest that your interpretation of a primary source contradicts the view of "some historians" furthermore it violates WP:SYNTH by implying a perspective that those historians are somehow wrong. Finally, it's WP:WEASEL because you're trying to downplay reliable sources in favour of a primary source. This is not an appropriate edit. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

And all of that is notwithstanding whether you're accurately reporting the primary source which @Opasney: contested. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Your claims about "Synthesis of published material" does not hold here. My added part and the old part were discussing exactly the same event. You need to justify two of the assumptions you've made:

1. It is "my interpretation". It is a translation, not interpretation. You can verify that yourself.
2. I have combines materials and draw a new conclusion. Again it is a simple translation.

"Did you just accuse me of vandalism for asking you to seek consensus for specific edits before inclusion?" No I am accusing you of vandalism for deleting a contribution that was properly supported and properly used primary resources. Thor's Axe (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC) "downplay reliable sources in favour of a primary source" The two sources, I hope this is the last time I reiterate this, contradicts each other. None of them is my opinion. I just TRANSLATED the original historical record. I do not understand why you keep assuming me to be inserting my own opinion. I do not want to keep questioning you, but do you have any evidence I made a personal interpretation, or tried to "downplay" any sources? Thor's Axe (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I have evidence. The diff I provided is evidence. You are choosing to misinterpret the meaning of WP:SYNTH. And your translation constitutes WP:OR if it is not a faithful rendering. Which has been asserted by another editor. Now, if you continue to disagree, then I suggest you wait until somebody other than the two of us gives their position. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

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