Talk:Wang Zongyue
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Wrong dates in lineage tree?
[edit]The lineage tree gives his dates as 1733–1795, inconsistent with the statements in the lead that would place him in the fourteenth or fifteenth century and also with his being the teacher of sixteenth-to-seventeenth-c. Chen Wangting. Being legendary he can be allowed some latitude, I suppose, but this defies reason.—Odysseus1479 01:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- When I built the tree, I remember coming to this page & not finding a definite or even general idea of when he lived, since it's talking about several centuries. As I traversed taijiquan articles on WP, I found 2 different trees that generally corresponded to each other but were constructed using different templates & I believe one of them had the dates quoted. If not, then one/some of the articles must have. I figured that these issues could be ironed out once the tree exists, but tried to have the tree's data correspond to the data present on WP in order to have it as accurate as possible & minimise any conflict from the start. The issue thus may also be that WP taijiquan articles have conflicting data & consistency among them needs improvement.
- Back to the matter at hand though, based on the c. 14th/15th/16th/17th data here, what date(s) would you suggest be inputed? ~ InferKNOX (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- In the chart itself it might be best not to give any, or an approximate one (something like “mid-15th c.?”) as in the article. Is it possible the eighteenth-c. dates belong to a different person of the same name?—Odysseus1479 05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, considering the dates of Chen Wangting, the Wang Zongyue dates in the tree are definitely off. However, Chen's dates also rule out the mid–15th c., since Wang couldn't then have taught Chen all the way (significantly) after Chen's birth in 1580. Lot's of conflicts. Perhaps it's meant to say mid-16 c. but the Wiki editor made a mistake and referred to 1501—1600 as the 15th c.
- I'll just blank it for now as suggested, until a credible time-frame can be determined, if at all. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- In the chart itself it might be best not to give any, or an approximate one (something like “mid-15th c.?”) as in the article. Is it possible the eighteenth-c. dates belong to a different person of the same name?—Odysseus1479 05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)