Jump to content

Talk:Xirong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed merge with Rong people

[edit]

see Talk:Rong people

Philg88 (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hsi-Jung

[edit]

in Wade-Giles Böri (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twice-deleted map

[edit]

Cold Season, would you please explain the reason for removing this article's only illustration, the "Four Barbarians" map "File:Tianxia en-zh-hans.svg"? Sorry, but I don't understand the edit summaries "image, very faulty simplified OR" and "a faulty simplified image based on nothing"? Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a late response, but I hadn't noticed the inquiry.
  • The image is based on nothing but an user's own perception/interpretation. There are no academic sources that back it up (WP:OR).
  • It's faulty, since it's quite clear that an arbitrarily-chosen center is drawn with an arbitrarily-chosen radius for the circles. This is also an attempt to neatly pack "definitive" borders and edges in a map, which is nothing but very erroneous.
  • It is simplified, because this image defines what the Chinese world order is through a series of circles on geographical map. It lacks insight to the intricacies of relations in time.
Simply said, that image dumbs it so far down and is filled with errors, it's an insult to have readers look at that lack-of-worth image in an encyclopaedia. Also, I just noticed the "WP:OI" in your edit summary, I would like to point out to: "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". --Cold Season (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply and explanations. I sometimes have the same problem with overlooking Talk page requests.
  • We disagree over whether this map is Original Research. The Siyi concept is an early Sinocentric worldview that has been well documented for over 2000 years. For instance, quickly searching Google Images finds comparable maps such as this "中華と四夷" from a Japanese book and academic website.
  • We agree that the present circle-based map is not perfect, "lacks insight to the intricacies of relations in time," etc., but those are not sufficient reasons to delete it. Many copyright-free images in Wikipedia are imperfect, but they are good enough by WP conventions. In my opinion, an imperfect yet informative map is preferable to no map at all. We could argue and speculate about whether hypothetical WP readers might see this Siyi map as useful background information or insultingly erroneous dumbing-down, but that would be a subjective waste of breath when we already have a more objective standard.
  • This map has long-standing WP editorial consensus. Interwikis have been using versions of this file since 2006 and numerous Wikipedia editors have seen the maps and not deleted them. This 2010 English version File:Tianxia en-zh-hans.svg, which was used in 7 articles, derives from the 2008 Chinese File:Tenka Han.png, which is used the Azerbaijan, English, French, Korean, Russian, and Chinese Wikipedias.
My suggestion would be to restore the existing Tianxia file temporarily, and find someone who could create a replacement Siyi map, perhaps based on the Japanese one. I'm not competent with graphic software, are you? If not, do you know anybody we could ask to help? Isn't there something like a cartography project? Thanks again, Keahapana (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not disputing the siyi concept. The depiction in the image is flawed.
  • The more-objective standard would be to check for its verifiability, for which there is none. However, I do see the necessity to have a visual aid.
  • I'm not generally one to maintain a flawed status quo, whether widespread or grandfathered in, of substandardness.
That said, I find your suggestion to temporarily restore the image acceptable, but I completely disagree with it though. Feel free to do so until a better replacement is available. --Cold Season (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so considerate and reasonable (<grin>you know how some Wikipedians can be). We can request a new image here at WP:GL/MAP, but I would like to have your input first. Is the Japanese "中華と四夷" map is suitable as a basic model? We both think the bullseye imperial circles are unnecessary. Compare these maps.

Sinocentrism Tianxia.png
Tianxia en-zh-hans.svg

Should the map give romanization and characters (Beidi 北狄) or add translations (Beidi 北狄 "Northern Barbarians")? Would it be preferable to give translations in the caption? Any other ideas to improve the new-and-improved Siyi map? Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about that; it's any editor's discretion. I prefer the former myself. However, I would wonder about the political concept of these hierarchical domains (which these map show as: emperor, inner subject, outer subjects, tributary states). I know there's several concepts of this, but I question the image's correctness. Yü Ying-shih (The Cambridge History of China, vol 1, chap "Han Foreign Relations") mentions one of a five-zone division (wufu):
  • dianfu, the royal domain under the direct rule of the ruler
  • houfu, the lords' domain comprising various Chinese states under the ruler
  • suifu, a pacified domain with people conquered by China
  • yaofu, a controlled domain of barbarians under Chinese control, usually Man and Yi
  • huangfu, a wild domain of savage barbarians, usually Rong and Di, and the edge of the Chinese world order
It seems to be the most conventional if we go by Yü. Nicola Di Cosmo also mentions the five-zone (Ancient China and its Enemies, p 95-96). --Cold Season (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this wufu five-zone theory represents a more complex Han worldview (which may have been oversimplified by File:Tianxia en-zh-hans.svg) and someone could add it into Wikipedia. However, we're digressing from our present discussion about a zoneless Siyi map. Thanks also for the Di Cosmo reference. It (p. 96) describes the 5- and 9-zone systems as "another structure" besides "identifying them according to their location". That's what the replacement map can simply illustrate: China located in the 中 "center" bordered by the 四夷 "Four Barbarians". Keahapana (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I have no further suggestions then. --Cold Season (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cold Season, I've reverted the old file and posted this GL/M request for a new map. Another question: What's wrong with the {{Chinese text tag? Has it been degraded? Keahapana (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I tend to remove it when the prose isn't filled with Chinese characters, in a excessive-ness versus minimalistic-ness kind of deal, whether it's helpful or detracts by clutter. --Cold Season (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I've picked up the map request from GL/M following a message from Keahapana . Let me get my head round the various comments here and I will come up with a shiny new SVG map in the next few days. Cheers ► Philg88 ◄ talk 11:52, 22 August 2013


Draft version of new map uploaded. All comments welcome! ► Philg88 ◄ talk 17:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Philg88. This map is a great improvement. Here are two suggestions. Please add Huaxia (華夏) in the center, and since these terms are limited to historical usages, change the simplified 东 and 蛮 characters to traditional 東 and 蠻. Keahapana (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done No problem. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 07:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dongyi, Beidi etc. labels should be spread out further, considering that these are indicative of historical peoples beyond the outskirts of China (as outer, the borders of the Han Dynasty would be a safe bet). Huaxia should be centered around the middle reach of the Yellow River and the Wei River, in the basin close to where both rivers join. The title "Siyi of Huaxia" could use rewording, since it's a "distinction between" rather than "of". --Cold Season (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the labels for the four groups are as far out as they can go. Are you suggesting that the map should cover more territory? I've also changed "of" to "surrounding" and added Huaxia. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 07:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be ideal (especially considering that "beidi" is overlapping the Yellow River, central to Chinese civilization), with the labels placed outside the the Han Dynasty's borders as guideline. Also, the Huaxia label should be centered closer between the Wei and Yellow River basins (basically near where they meet) rather than approaching the Huai. --Cold Season (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection adding more territory to the map will cause scale problems. Instead I've removed the title and moved Beidi NE away from the Yellow River. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 09:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled upon this discussion. Historically speaking, Xirong was actually based in the northwest (today's Ningxia and southeast Gansu), and Dongyi was based in southern Shandong and the Huai River plains. Nanman was most frequently used to refer to Chu, which was centred in Hubei (the middle Yangtze). -Zanhe (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new map is a great improvement over the previous zone confusion. Many thanks to Philg88. His sinological and cartographic skills help improve the readability of Wikipedia. Zanhe, would you please provide references? I'll be glad to add them into the articles. Keahapana (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Li Feng's Landscape and Power in Early China: The Crisis and Fall of the Western Zhou, which is by the way the best book about early Chinese history I've ever read. -Zanhe (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the book info Zanhe, looks good (You just cost me 22 quid odd for the ebook :)). Meanwhile, back at the map. I think that the Nanman should stay since there was a whole bunch of Yue derived "barbarians" in the south. I'm happy to add Chu around Hubei but that goes against the 四夷 model. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 16:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recommendation, Zanhe. The book looks excellent and I downloaded the Kindle edition. The map can be seen in this new article on Graphic pejoratives in written Chinese. Keahapana (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. I'm sure your money is well-spent. I bought the book after reading a recommendation by the well-known sinologist Cho-yun Hsu, and did not regret it. As for Chu, it was actually considered "barbarian" during the Western Zhou and most of the Spring and Autumn period. It became gradually accepted as Huaxia only after even more "barbarian" states arose such as Wu and Yue. -Zanhe (talk) 07:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Race and origin

[edit]

Chinese sources described them as Caucasoid people. Dersere (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC) The red hair and green eyes supports that view, maybe call them Indo-European. I wonder if the term "rong" might be related to the PIE root of "wrong", somehow using these hairy, tatooed strangers' own language to describe them as "turners" ("Wrong" on etymonline.com: "late Old English, "twisted, crooked, wry," from Old Norse rangr, earlier *wrangr "crooked, wry, wrong," from Proto-Germanic *wrang- (cognates: Danish vrang "crooked, wrong," Middle Dutch wranc, Dutch wrang "sour, bitter," literally "that which distorts the mouth"), from PIE *wrengh-, variant of *wergh- "to turn"), to signify either cultural deviance or physical interloping. Albeit they may have been there first. Or perhaps the "Caucasoids" were describing the proto-Chinese as divergent. I'm reading Bent Hansen's theory of the Asian roots of Europeans at dandabat.dk. His photos of entwined snake-lion designs from northwestern European and Chinese archeological sites are especially convincing about such a common heritage. Chrisrushlau (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xirong. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xirong. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xirong&oldid=1198015878"