Jump to content

Talk:Tang dynasty/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Anbei protectorate and chanyu protectorate

Please explain why anbei prptectorate and chanyu protectorat should not exist,User:Kanguole. 163.136.36.58 (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The northern areas are not included in the map of Tang territory because the cited source maps do not include them. Kanguole 10:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
How many reliable are the "cited source maps"? 163.136.36.56 (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
(Just so you know, you only pinged me with that by creating a piped link.)
  • Cambridge and Oxford University Press are generally reliable sources according to our content guidelines. Particularly, The Cambridge History of China is a very well-respected anthology.
  • Denis Twitchett and Mark Elvin are fairly well-known as sinologists go. Michael Shin is a director of geography at UCLA.
  • More concretely, there have been no criticisms of the research (or self-retractions) from fellow academics like that of the other proposed source material as far as I am aware of.
Is there an answer to this question that will satisfy you? Please rebuff me if I'm being insensitive, but it seems there's an unbridgeable gap because we do not happen to be using sources originally published in China. Remsense诉 11:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh, it's probably a mistake when copying and pasting the mention link, don't worry about it.
Therefore, please write not only the names of the researchers, also write it down their claims in the main body of the article.
Otherwise it won't solve the problem. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Lucky for you, the sources are cited inline one after another in the map caption. Are you asking for me to copy-paste the relevant passages in their entirety? Remsense诉 11:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I would like the article on "Tang Dynasty" to be written in an easy-to-understand manner.
To ensure that the infobox map, article text, and real-world historical materials do not contradict each other. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Do you know how to edit Wikipedia articles? 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to compare and contrast with the sourcing given in the image description, I hope I've already done the needful. I've been very generous with my time and I'm not really interested in doing rote verification of fairly accessible material by those who should be able to do so themselves. Remsense诉 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Is it true that even though it has been edited over 20,000 times, you still don't know how to write the content of the information source in the article? ? 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Let me know if you find any discrepancies between the map and its cited sources. Remsense诉 11:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
There is no need to find a contradiction
It would be enough to simply explain to Wikipedia readers "Why Anbei protectorate and chanyu protectorate cannot be included in the map of the Tang dynasty's territory." 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
As the title of this discussion says, I have said it over and over again.
so don't be shy, I'm sure you can do it. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure I'm easily accessible, but is that the case for the masses who read my articles?
I guess you've never thought about it seriously. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Are you upset with the concept of citation? That's not my problem. Let me know if you find something. Remsense诉 11:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
It's not that I'm angry.
There is a good chance that everyone who will refer to Wikipedia from now on will feel confused and angry at the contradictions in the article.
Are you willing to fulfill your role as an editor? 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
would you have the sources of the researchers' claims at hand? 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll come tomorrow or the next night to check your results. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Don't bother unless you're pointing out a specific contradiction between the article and the sources it cites. Remsense诉 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

About past logs

I came to this talk page for the first time in a few years and it seems like all the past logs have been wiped. Perhaps an agreement has been reached and all the questions resolved? Argument cat (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

They haven't been wiped, they've been archived. Every possible argument has been explored and re-explored as regards the content policies on the English Wikipedia. There continues to be a consensus among those familiar with said policies that (1) the current map accurately represents its sources, and (2) it is well-suited for use in the article. Remsense诉 09:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I see, could you please let me just check them? Argument cat (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Links are at the top of the page like where archives can always be found. Remsense诉 09:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
It was helpful. Argument cat (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I took a quick look at it, and as you said, it seems certain that the discussion on those issues has ended. Argument cat (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:MORATORIUM Proposal

I am proposing an indefinite WP:MORATORIUM for discussion related to removing or changing the infobox map in this article. This topic has been discussed to death and has wasted too much valuable editor time... for 17 years! Its featured a host of usual suspects: nationalist SPAs, random IPs, now-banned users and loads of sockpuppets. I would imagine that such a moratorium would require an overwhelming consensus to overturn, and without such, new threads could be immediately closed with an explanation/link to the moratorium.

The map has been discussed since 2007, featured in multiple threads in all four talk page archives (as of writing). It began with innocent/genuine concerns, see Talk:Tang dynasty/Archive 1#The Tang Map & Talk:Tang dynasty/Archive 1#The Map but has quickly spiraled into the same unproductive discussions over and over, almost always 1–2 IPs/sockpuppets/SPAs arguing against a clear consensus. Talk:Tang dynasty/Archive 4 features four threads in less than a year, while this talk page as of writing has two (in addition to a now deleted one begun by a sockpuppet mere hours ago!). This doesn't even include the enormous 2017–2023 thread, that result in (as expected), no changes.

At some point, we need to put our foot down and move on. This is not a major concern for this featured article and there are infinitely more places in which editor time can be better spent. Aza24 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I second this proposal, the sockpuppetry is absurd and also, if 17 years has been spent on this, it's just better to keep it as it is. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Completely agree. This has been such a problem for far too long. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I think we should start the process then, @Aza24 would you like to submit the proposal? Sunnyediting99 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Afaik, this kind of this kind of thing is decided on individual talk pages, so I believe my initial comment suffices as a proposal. We would just need to hear more input from the community and then request that the thread be closed.
Hey @Argument cat, Remsense, and Kanguole: you've all been active in these discussions above. Any opinions on having a moratorium for the issue, as described above? – Aza24 (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I wish that we didn't have to consider this, and I'm sure that isn't a feeling unique to me, because I genuinely do think such restrictions are usually destructive at some abstract level. But, I'm not going to object in the slightest, as the status quo has been perennially demonstrated to be worse. Remsense诉 03:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Wu Zetian interregnum justifying discontinuity in establishment years in infobox / header?

Under what historiography, dynastic classification, or academic authority is this article justifying Wu Zetian's Zhou dynasty be considered a discontinuity in Tang dynasty? The Zhou dynasty (690–705) article itself even states Traditionalist Chinese historiography considers the dynasty as a period of the Tang dynasty. Deviating from that means this article (Tang dynasty) is choosing a different historiographic viewpoint.

I agree with the need of the article Zhou dynasty (690–705) and the fact that it is prominently mentioned in a major section in this article. Unless academic consensus can be identified, I am wondering if this is applying European/Egyptian dynastic conventions to Chinese dynasties. Voidvector (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the sources do tend to treat it as part of the Tang period. Perhaps User:Morrisonjohn022, who made this change a few years ago, whould care to comment. Kanguole 11:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Wu Zhou is typically considered part of the "Tang period" or "Tang era" (唐代) for historiographical purpose. But Wu Zhou is not part of the "Tang dynasty" (唐朝). A distinction needs to be made between historiographical "period"/"era" and "dynasty". In addition, proper sources such as (i) The Sinitic Civilization Book I: A Factual History Through the Lens of Archaeology, Bronzeware, Astronomy, Divination, Calendar and the Annals; (ii) Digitized Statecraft of Four Asian Regionalisms: States' Multilateral Treaty Participation and Citizens' Satisfaction with Quality of Life; (iii) Sui-Tang China and Its Turko-Mongol Neighbors: Culture, Power, and Connections, 580-800, etc. do in fact label the Tang dynasty as "618–690, 705–907". Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
The Zhou Dynasty article says in the lead "Historians generally view the Wu Zhou as an interregnum of the Tang dynasty." That seems to be the same viewpoint as presented by the infobox here (which includes the Zhou Dynasty dates in small type, below).
I don't see how European/Egyptian dynastic conventions are relevant. Furius (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Morrisonjohn022: This article is not about bloodlines, it is about a historical country/regime. The name "dynasty" is simply a proxy for the country/regime. Most books use the historiographical definition -- simply search Google Books for "Tang dynasty", there are two appearances of "618-907" on the first page of the search result (don't even need to click into individual books). It is possible to cherry-pick sources to get results you like, but AFAICT those are unorthodox. The current definition also misses other short-lived rebel dynasties such as that of Yan (An–Shi).
@Furius: I am simply questioning 1) What is this article's definition of "Tang dynasty" or "Chinese dynasty" in general in terms of start/end year? 2) Who's definitions are those or what source did they come from? 3) Are those sources of sufficient authority to overrule Chinese histographical convention? --Voidvector (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Unless anyone objects, I am going to change the current header from "618–690, 705–907 (690–705: Wu Zhou)" to "618–907 (690–705: Wu Zhou)". This is consistent with more common convention I mentioned above, while still mentioning the notable achievement of Wu Zhou. I will also add footnote item indicating it is an interregnum by the Empress. --Voidvector (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tang_dynasty/Archive_5&oldid=1255676822"